Al Gore: unmedicated

Confederate Yankee has all the details on Al’s meltdown on MLK Day.

Of course, he wasn’t the only one having a meltdown yesterday.

63 Responses to "Al Gore: unmedicated"

Pam says:

January 17, 2006 at 9:46 am

I loved how a commentator on Fox asked how a man like Gore, who dropped out of law school, could question the constitutionality of the situation
tommy in nyc says:

January 17, 2006 at 9:53 am

Well I don’t know about this spying controversity but I certainly think that both the 43 admin and the whistleblowers/leakers both need to be investigated. This seems like a legal quarrel and I’m no lawyer.
ttyler5 says:

January 17, 2006 at 10:17 am

Tommy in NYC, it looks like they are taking taking your advice! :^D :^D :^D

BTW, have any of our NASA climate satellites taken the measure of just how much hot air Al Baby contributes to the Global Warming problem each year?
Baklava says:

January 17, 2006 at 10:17 am

Is there a charge you can bring against someone for making false charges of a crime against someone?
Baklava says:

January 17, 2006 at 10:19 am

Local radio hosts are talking about Hillary’s “run like a plantation” comments and do not understand what she is talking about.

I don’t either.

Can any of you lefty’s explain what Hillary is saying?
ttyler5 says:

January 17, 2006 at 10:22 am

Baklava, is she talking her domestic life with Mr. Bill?
PCD says:

January 17, 2006 at 10:30 am

Bak, Yes, there is. Bush hasn’t pressed any such charges, but I would like him to do so.
ttyler5 says:

January 17, 2006 at 10:43 am

Baklava, just found the story. She was saying, “Vote for Me!”

She was “speaking” (ie, campaigning) at a Martin Luther King memorial event in Harlem organized by Al Sharpton.

Here’s the response from the GOP:

“On a day when Americans are focused on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Hillary Clinton is focused on the legacy of Hillary Clinton.” — Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt

And listen to this, from the Whitewater-drenched First Lady of the first-ever elected president to be impeached:

“”We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence,” she said. “I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country.”

:^D :^D :^D :^D :^D :^D

Only at a democratic gathering will she ever get away with unmitigated BS like this!
tommy in nyc says:

January 17, 2006 at 10:44 am

Simply put Baklava Sen Clinton is trying to say that the G.O.P. completely dismisses the views of the Dem party because they control all levers of power in the Federal government……. sort of like who was calling the shots on the plantation. And the folks who worked on the plantation had no voice. Like the left has no voice in Congress in 2006. Got it?
Pam says:

January 17, 2006 at 10:55 am

tommy in nyc- her statement would have more credibility if the Democratics weren’t trying to keep the slaves on the plantation. The Democrats are not doing anything to stop welfare and dependace on government assistance. They go out of their way to expand it.
Severian says:

January 17, 2006 at 11:04 am

Tommy in NYC says “Simply put Baklava Sen Clinton is trying to say that the G.O.P. completely dismisses the views of the Dem party because they control all levers of power in the Federal governmentâ€¦â€¦”

“Plantation” isn’t the analogy I’d have chosen. More like the Republicans are keeping the Democrats down in the asylum. It’s the Democrats that are keeping their own ideas and views down by moving ever more towards insane and damaging ideas and positions. When and if the Dems ever decide to return to rationality, I think they will find that their views are once again listened to and not dismissed, but until that happens they marginalize themselves with their hatred and abusive rhetoric.
tommy in nyc says:

January 17, 2006 at 11:07 am

Hmmmm Pam throwing society’s most vulnerable off the welfare rolls is really going to help them out. As Dr King said youse are asking someone who doesn’t have any boots to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. So much for ” Compassionate conservatism”
PCD says:

January 17, 2006 at 11:15 am

Tommy, your last post is just pure BULL****! I see you Liberals can’t accept that people who earn money have a right to keep it. You think that people who make bad choices in their lives have a right to be coddled and funded to the levels of people who earned their rewards.

Maybe that is the weed speaking for you, but I reject the premise every one has to be made equal by the government. There is no provision in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for that, Tommy.
Baklava says:

January 17, 2006 at 11:27 am

Tommy pretty funnily wrote, “Simply put Baklava Sen Clinton is trying to say that the G.O.P. completely dismisses the views of the Dem party because they control all levers of power in the Federal government

1) The Senate does not have enough G.O.P. members to dismiss Democrats
2) Every spending bill has ammended with Democrat pet projects as well as Republican pet projects
3) The “No Child Left Behind” act was co-written with Ted Kennedy (increased spending for education in the double digit range) in the Senate only to have him lambaste it afterwards.
4) Many bills are passed with bipartisan support.
5) The bills that are voted along party lines the Democrats (according to my research and opinion) aren’t interested in having a solution put forth they are interested in lambasting and making inaccurate charges for Tommy’s consumption.
6) Almost every bill that is passed by Congress has WAY more spending than conservatives would like and even centrist conservatives like myself and yet the Republicans are STILL accused of slashing and cutting when no such thing is happening. These CHARGES (for your consumption – eating it up) are irresponsible and WITHOUT basis.

All of the above points to me pinpoint that Hillary’s charge is just another baseless charge (for lefty’s consumption).

/end tongue in cheek humor

Tommy wrote, “Like the left has no voice in Congress in 2006. Got it?

Nope.

Tommy wrote, “Hmmmm Pam throwing society’s most vulnerable off the welfare rolls is really going to help them out.

Can you tell us what the heck you are talking about? Or is this another baseless charge/accuation.
Pam says:

January 17, 2006 at 11:29 am

Said Tommy-Hmmmm Pam throwing society’s most vulnerable off the welfare rolls is really going to help them out. As Dr King said youse are asking someone who doesn’t have any boots to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. So much for ” Compassionate conservatism”
How is making a person dependant on the government helping them? Look at NOLA! That is a prime example of what dependancy leads to. How about you hold people accountable for their actions. Prior to the “War On Poverty” that LBJ signed into legislation, we held people responsible and the amount of people needing assistance was far lower. We now have multi generations on the welfare line. How is that helping a person? I am not calling for the abolition of welfare. I am calling for it to be overhauled and written in a manner that you have people on it for no more than a 6 month period. You would be amazed at what a person can do if they are forced to. Why is it that we always act as if people can’t do it?

I stand by my original statement. The democrats are happy to help the slaves as long as they don’t stray off the plantation.
omapian says:

January 17, 2006 at 11:42 am

As Vice President, Al Gore would not acknowledge controlling legal authority and solicited funds from his taxpayer provided office. He now voices his opinion and conclusion that the President broke the law based upon the controlling authority of the New York Times.
If Mr. Gore wants credibility as defender of privacy, he could offer some first hand instances of how government invades privacy. Linda Tripp comes quickly to mind. I would also be interested in learning the role Livingston played in the administration when he was VP.
Mr. Gore, and others, fail to make a distinction between identifying an individual and then scrutinizing his life (as in Dr. Martin L. King) and examining messages (that are already commercially monitored) that indicate a potential threat and seeking to prevent the destruction of life or property.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” is one half of the Fourth Amendment. It also states “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized.”
I am not a lawyer, but I see a conflict between these two provisions. The reasonableness of the search can be independent of the provision for a warrant. If I am a law enforcement officer and overhear two terrorists plotting to join a third person to board and hijack an airplane, am I to seek a warrant, apprehend the two, or follow the two and arrest all three? If I arrest the two and find boarding passes, box cutters and plans to enter the cockpit, I act without a warrant and have no probable cause until after I conduct the search. The courts may admonish me, release the two, and return their property.
Perhaps the issue is not as clear as partisan politicians would like. The language of the Constitution specifically provides for the common defense, the right to privacy exists somewhere in the penumbra.
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 17, 2006 at 12:11 pm

– Hey its great. We can only hope they keep this blasting-themselves-in-the-foot campaign going through the 2006/2008 elections.

– Now the public will get to see just what was going on under Billy Bob when he wasn’t busy getting his apple polished. Mail incursion, IRS retribution for political reasons, FBI files reminicent of Nixons “enemies list”, Physical break-ins without warrents. Yeh….. real smart move. And whats the big payoff the left gets for all this bad PR.

– Lets see. Going in front of the electorate and giving them all the good reasons why you want to hobble the President so he can’t eavesdrop on known Al Qeada agents.

– Wonder what PR mental midget in the moonbat ranks thought up this brilliant idea. Now they’re even getting into areas that could have bad repercusions in the eyes of the public on Hillery’s flegling campaign. Come to think of it, maybe its the far lefts way of trying to torpedo her Presidential bid. They had to know all the crap under Billy Bob would come out if they opened this bucket of worms. Sometimes it seems like all the village idiots in America suddenly escaped and formed the Democratic party.

Or as one commenter put it:

“Every word was a lie. Including “Al” and “Gore”.

Although it was a nice touch when he referred to “the ignorant masses”. But he forgot to mention the eavesdropping done on our trading partners in Seattle in â€˜94. That info was given to Democrat corporate donors. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to name one aspect of the government that the Clintons/Gore didn’t treat as personal property.

“Would you want a President Hillary to have these powers?” Please. They did have them. And they took turns either neglecting or abusing them. This is why the Clintonista argument “Character doesn’t matter” is so wrong. You can have all the checks and balances you want, but these amoral grifters will blow right through them. Sometimes character is all that matters. And a power-mad Maoist shrew like Hillary or a mentally-unbalanced demagogue like Al Gore couldn’t buy any integrity if you gave them million-dollar gift-cards to Character-Mart.”

– Maybe 2009 is the year Gore will finally beat W, and hes just getting a head start. *snort*

– Bang
Dana says:

January 17, 2006 at 12:30 pm

I think that the article placing is great: you have a story about al-Gore, the President who was never elected, right above that of Gerald Ford, who was President but never elected.
Kenwg says:

January 17, 2006 at 1:36 pm

Lots to say, I’ll try to be concise…

First, off topic – I’m surprised to see no comment on the Pakistan missle strke. Bush will take big heat on this one, but I’m going to give him credit for making a very tough but correct decision to grant the authority for the strikes. This is one of the few issues where I’d say it’s important enough that “collateral damage” is just going to have to be accepted, and the fallout be damned. I hope they got Zawahiri, but even if they didn’t, we should support Bush on this. And if they think they have good intel on where he is again at some time in the future, do it again.

Hillary’s comments (plantation) were more than a reference to the democrats not having any say. She was also not so subtly evoking the image of the Republicans as the party that “keeps down” black people.

Al Gore DID initiate legislation that led to the establishment of the internet. This “I created the internet” slur is a distortion of what he said. This distortion has been repeated by the right so much it has become fact in the minds of many. It’s wrong, it’s unfair, Gore is right in making the claim and he should rightly be proud of it.

I agree with Hillary’s assertion “We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence, I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country.” Hear hear!

Pam, I agree with Tommy about social programs being good for the lower socioeconomic classes. This could turn into a huge discussion I’d love to have, but here I’ll just say that without the “trust busting” laws of Teddy Rosevelt, and the safety nets the labor movement and “New Deal” F.D. Rosevelt Dems foought so hard for in the 20th century, we would today have a vast concentration of wealth and political powere at the top and massive poverty and disenfranchismnet at the bottom. Do you really think this is would be a good thing? (I’d love to talk about this at length, but somewhere else…).

PCD, the idea that people are poor because of “poor decisions” is uselessly simplistic. The casues of poverty are much more complex. As for taking money from people that earned it, yeah, that’s a good thing, if a small group is taking a huge proportion of the product of the economy and everyone else is struggling, they need to be taxed and the government spend that money on works (NOT just redistribute it via welfare). This has been shown to be superior public policy repeatedly in history. Ancient Rome is a prime example – the early Republic had a much broader tax base, with the senatorial class paying a large share. In the later, more corrupt Empire, the Senatorial class gradually relieved themselves of any tax burden, pushing it off on the middle class – shop owners, small farmers, traders, etc, and importantly, a rather large population of civil servants who supported the Empire’s army and infrastructure. The result was a declining middle class, abandoment of tax-indebted farms, the withering and destruction of the civil servant class that was so important to maintaining the army and infrastructure – and the eventual overruning of the empire by “uncivilized” barbarian Germans – something unthinkable before the socioecomic supports of the empire were undermined by the growing averice, greed and corruption of the wealthy and powerful. And I see some pretty strong parallels here with what’s happening in the U.S. today.

By the way, just as a side note, I often hear religious people cite the degenerate morals of the Romans as the cause of the fall of Rome – from people having in mind the orgiastic bloody excesses of the early emperors. For those of that opinion, I like ot point out that Rome fell in AD 476, almost 150 years after the first Christian Emperor (Constantine, who became Emperor of the Western empire in 312 and legalized Christianity in AD 313), and well over 100 years after Christianity became the official state religion, and 84 years after all other religions had been outlawed in the empire.

Sorry, I’ve gone on long enough…

Ken G.
Baklava says:

January 17, 2006 at 1:54 pm

Kenwg INACCURATELY accused, “First, off topic – I’m surprised to see no comment on the Pakistan missle strke.

Don’t you hate this pattern of making inaccurate accusations. ST did a whole thread on it separate from this topic.

Kenwg wrote, “Hillary’s comments (plantation) were more than a reference to the democrats not having any say

They do have say. Big say. The Republicans do not have a working majority in the Senate (where Hillary works). Conservatives simply do not have a working majority period. THIS COUNTRY has moved left (bigger government) every year for over 6 decades. Just think what Hillary would be saying if we actually stopped moving left and stayed in the center (my position) for a decade.

Kenwg wrote, “I agree with Hillary’s assertion “We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence

Yes. Lawbreakers should go to jail. But lobbying isn’t illegal although if it were up to me I’d have it COMPLETELY made illegal as it would HELP SHRINK government if Indian Gaming weren’t able to have influence on government by paying anyone any money let alone the over 1 BILLION they were investing into government officials for some reason (they thought the investment would pay off). Government is TOO large and this is what you get when government is too large. Too many lobbyists and special interests with their HANDS OUT asking for their little peice of my taxpayer dollars.

Kenwg wrote, “I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country.

I predict you will be wrong. And as a sentence following the corruption sentence of yours it gives people the impression that you think Bush is corrup or something. While Bush may be, I haven’t seen ONE accurate charge concerning Bush breaking a law or doing things corruptly like previous presidents with over 900 FBI files and committing perjury and whatnot. You turn a simple disagreement (or a few disagreements) with Bush into him being corrupt. Well since I disagree with Kenwg I’ll say Kenwg is corrupt.

Kenwg’s paragraph to Pam actually seems to imply that social programs have been cut or would be cut if Bush had his way. This charge is simply inaccurate and in black and white math doesn’t compute. The evidence is against Ken’s baseless charge.
PCD says:

January 17, 2006 at 2:18 pm

Ken, I’ll be even more succinct. Socialism has never worked and never will work. Just because someone earns income is no justification to tax them to the hilt. You make several mischaracterizations in your answer to me.

You have not proved anything with your dismissive pronouncements. Basicly your post is empty rhetoric and bloviation pitched as a professorial lecture to the unwashed. Knock off the condesension, Ken. It doesn’t work.
Baklava says:

January 17, 2006 at 2:20 pm

First Lady on corruption

I do disagree with this comment of Mrs. Bush, “There’s an important aspect to lobbying, as well. “I mean, what people don’t think of is the American Heart Association or breast cancer research — each of those groups lobby for federal funds, for very, very important and worthwhile causes in our country

Too many causes in my opinion. The Senate and House should just be voting on things based on their conscience. Health issues do not need lobbyists. Health issues need “experts” to testify not lobbyists. All issues need “experts” not lobbyists. Lobbyists for over 6 decades have created the big government problem.

99% of people “care”. Democrats “care” and Republicans “care. The problem is we need to prioritize and stop growing government just because someone with money influenced your vote to “care” more.

This country has over 180 illiteracy programs. Social program on top of social program. Health benefits overlapping health benefits. The inefficiencies of it all makes things worse and makes people dependant and pulls more taxpayer dollars out of income earners pockets.
PCD says:

January 17, 2006 at 2:23 pm

Oh, Ken, how about reigning the hypocrisy of the rich Democrats hiding their wealth from the IRS? Why don’t you tell the Kennedy clan to pay up their fair share of their trust funds set up off shore? How about forcing George Soros to bring his money on shore to be taxed, too? Don’t forget your boy, Mr. Heinz-Kerry, and wife. Tax them, too, then talk to us about your socialist equality.
omapian says:

January 17, 2006 at 2:30 pm

Ken G.
Your assertion that the early Roman Empire had a much broader tax base sounds like a defense of conquest and plunder. The conquered people did pay tribute to Rome. Slaves produced much wealth for their Senators and if they were taxed so be it. The Roman army shared the spoils of war back home at the expense of other people. The Army, in turn provided the Pax Raomni for a chosen few.
In today’s economy the rich don’t get richer unless the poor purchase their products.
Lorica says:

January 17, 2006 at 2:51 pm

I think it is funny that Al hasn’t realized that Hillary has a better shot at being President than He did or does. I would be abit miffed if I were him, even to the point of switching parties. I personally think Al is a pretty good guy who sold his soul to the Clinton’s to be Veep. I now think he is reaping the whirlwind for that sale, sadly. – Lorica
PCD says:

January 17, 2006 at 2:54 pm

Lorica, Gore sold his soul to the Devil and anyone else who would advance him to the White House.
Severian says:

January 17, 2006 at 3:16 pm

There was an old joke during the 2000 campaign. Gore was on some talk show, and the host asked him “If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?” To which Gore replied “What do you mean “if” I was a tree?”
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 17, 2006 at 4:06 pm

The things you’ll never hear a Liberalcrat say or admit too:

– 113 years ago it was a Republican President that started the whole civil rights movement. He died by the murderous hand of a Southern Liberal, precisely because of his act, at the end of the civil war, calling for the vote for all Black Americans.

– In the 60’s it was Republican lawmakers that forced through most, if not all, of the civil rights laws while the Southern Democrats fought it like hell or took vacations from the House and Senate so they wouldn’t have to vote on it. Southern Democratic Governors tried to block civil rights actions in the schools and the public until it was neccessary for a Republican President to send in the National guard.

– Bush has spent a record 390 Billion dollars on all of the Democrats/Liberals pet give-away programs this year. A record by far over the vaunted Dem Administrations that preceeded him.

– The Democrats do not give a damn about the Black American community beyond pandering for their votes. They think nothing of using racist comments, outrageous racist cartoons, and playing race warfare and the race cards in general to keep that voting block in their camp. They are actually the party that wants to maintain plantation thinking for obvious reasons. The Black community will never completely break free of those shackles until they begin to see the truth. Activists like Farakahn and Jackson know they would be out of business if they did things the way Reverand King really saw in his vision for the future. Someone in the Black leadership needs to emerge and see this rotten, corrupt agenda and call to his people to really end the artificial “race war”.

– When guys like Nagin realise they’ll totally blown it, they alwys grab for the race card. Its become so standard and caractured its hard to understand why the Black community doesn’t see it for what it is.

– Hillery takes the ooportunity on MLK day to spew the racist crap yet again. Until the Blacks get royally po’d at being used and see clearly that the Dem’s are running a scam on them it won’t be likely to end anytime soon.
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 17, 2006 at 4:12 pm

– 143 years ago. Sorry for the typo

– Bang
Dana says:

January 17, 2006 at 7:07 pm

Lorica wrote:

I think it is funny that Al hasn’t realized that Hillary has a better shot at being President than He did or does. I would be abit miffed if I were him, even to the point of switching parties.

Uhhh, to which party could he switch?
Kenwg says:

January 17, 2006 at 7:26 pm

Hey, it’s nice to see so many responses to my postings…

Baklava, I must have missed ST’s posting on the subject. I looked, but didn’t see it. So I was wrong about it not being addressed, but if you don’t mind me saying so, I don’t think my comment merited being accused of making “inaccurate accusations”. I meant no slight to ST. Chill, pal…

I agree completely with your lobbying and corruption comments. Too much on both sides. I think the relative severity between parties swings swings back and forth depending on who’s in power; the Dems are just as bad when they’re in control. I think, however, it’s gotten worse over the last couple of decades, since the days of Eisenhower/Kennedy.

PCD, contrary to your assertion, the “socialism” of the New Deal worked very well. From the time of F.D. Rosevelt, the percentage of the national wealth going to the middle and lower classes increased, while the percentage going to the upper 20% decreased. And the nation prospered and everyone’s quality of life improved greatly during this time

When Reagan took office, the trend reversed. The percentage of the national product going to the top 20% of the population has steadily increased since then, and the percentage going to the middle and lower classes has decreased. Real wages have decreased; the percentage of single-worker married couples has dropped precipitously (two-wage households are now neccessary to keep up) and the average American is working longer and under more stress than at any other time. We used to shake our heads at the long hours the Japanese put in on the job; now they work fewer hours than us and remark about how we overwork ourselves. And the trend has accelerated under our glorious leader George W.

And PCD, I can’t do anything about you feeling that I’m being patronizing; I don’t accept that accusation. Apparently you think anyone who appears to express knowledge of history or economics is showing off, or trying to rub it in your face. Well, I do have an education, and I do read and study, and I’m not going to “dumb down” my comments just because it apparently makes you feel inferior. Go tell it to your bartender.

Big Bang,

Yes, all those states-rights Southern Democrats were the ones who opposed freeing the slaves and civil rights. Your history lesson is accurate, except that you end it a little to early. All those Southern Democrats have now left the Democratic Party and found a home in the new Republican Party, and are still opposing programs that benefit minorities and poor people. The Parties have evolved, and your characterization of the Democratic party as the party of racists is no longer accurate. And today’s Republican party is a sorry shell of what is was back in Eisenhower’s day, or even Nixon’s.

And to say that Bush has spent record amounts by spending on liberal social programs? Is that a Joke? Bush has deeply cut “liberal social programs” right and left. Our infrastructure is falling apart, agencies are severely understaffed (especially environmental or regulatory agencies), and government is becoming less effective at all levels. What his record spending is built on is his unwillingness to confront his republican congress on Pork Spending – just as his record deficit is built on what should be our Social Security surplus and his his ill-considered tax cuts.

Cordially,
Ken G.
Lorica says:

January 17, 2006 at 7:28 pm

LOL It is my understanding that all he has to do is say “Blah blah blah and this is the reason I am going to be voting republican”. He couldn’t win an actual race with a Lamborgini and a 1,000,000.00 to bribe the judge, but it would be something to hear him say that he has switched to the Republican party. LOL Of course almost instantly he would go back to his orignal pro-life stand also. I know, I know, Pipe Dream or Nightmare, You decide. – Lorica
steve says:

January 17, 2006 at 7:28 pm

I love old Al, it’s too bad that he’s so conservative. Lincoln was killed by a Southern Catholic. As a matter of history the entire team of assassins were Catholic not, Leftists. And in the 60’s all of the racists Democrats quit the Party and became Republicans. Lincoln would roll-over in his tomb if he could see the Party that he gave his life for and how greedy and corrupt it is today. Sad. Peace
Lorica says:

January 17, 2006 at 7:30 pm

Ohhhh and PCD, Clinton’s, devil, can you tell them apart?? – Lorica
Pam says:

January 17, 2006 at 8:29 pm

Kenwg- I am not sure where you are getting your info, but FDR’s socialist programs did not help us. By 37′ we were back in full depression mode and many European countries were outpacing us. This is one of the issues that people will use to bolster the arguement that FDR needed to get into the war. Now keep in mind that the government released money it had back to the citizens. The citizens were getting their payments back, in a nut shell. We are not living in a depression though and there is no excuse for having generations of people receiving welfare. There is no long term benefit to long term welfare. There is long term benefits to short term assistance.

We would not be discussing infrastructure spending if it were not for the social programs. It is time to make people self reliant. I just am not seeing a good return on the investment made in the past 35 years!
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 17, 2006 at 8:31 pm

– Frivolous folly taken to the point of an art form. The Libs are on an irreversable self destructive course. The more this comes to the attention of the public, the worse the slap down is going to be. Sometime the Liberal leadership is going to need to take stock.

– A running track record of 15+ baseless AnythingGates, which all in all, got the Dems a record amount of bad PR.

– Running a Presidential candidate who proves to be so feckless he can’t even allow his military record to become public.

– A movement calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, assuring both a defeat and putting meaningless to the sacrifices made by everyone who served and/or died in the WOT. The net result of which, the Dems are now labled soft on terrorism, defeatists who want to cut and run, and cheerleaders for America’s enemies.

– A shameless display of all out partisanship at the expense of loyal, profoundly competent, viable SCOTUS candidates, which brought even more bad PR, and in the end had no effect.

– Gores obligatory public meltdown, intended to rally the base in the hopes of offsetting the recent Republican victories in SCOTUS nominations, along with Conressional Democrat delaying tactics, but actually opening a real bucket of worms exposing possible excesses against American citizens during the Clinton years. More bad PR with no fruitfull payoff.

– Just to make sure even granny in an attic in Iowa is aware of the Democrats hate-Bush-America derangement bowl, now they’ve decided to take the fatal step of putting this “collective stupidity” before the court. Its soooo assinine I’m beginning to believe there really is a Rovian mole in the midst of the left camp advising them. No other way to explain it.

– Someone should give the Liberalcrats the name of a good PR agent or intro them to some Hollywood producers or something. This crap-a-thon “get Bush” campaign is not only a disaster, but if it continues much longer at the expense of any sort of viable Dem party social plan, its just not going to matter anymore.

– Even Bob Beckler, a resident leftwing talking head on FOX, said Hillery’s plantation comments were just wrong.

– Today the Whitehouse said they welcome the fight. That just can’t bode well for the left.

Question of the week: Will a hundred Rovian rope-a-dopes be enough of a cluebat for the idiotarians?

– Bang
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 17, 2006 at 8:36 pm

– Bob Beckle. typo. He also said that the Derms need to get off this “get Bush” kick and form some sort of party social plan and platform soon or their going to be in even worse shape in 2006/2008. They’re so out of touch with the mainstream electorate they’re not even listening to their own best advice.

– Bang
Baklava says:

January 17, 2006 at 8:41 pm

Ken wrote, “I don’t think my comment merited being accused of making “inaccurate accusationsI agree completely with your lobbying and corruption comments. Too much on both sides. I think the relative severity between parties swings swings back and forth depending on who’s in power

I indict leftism. Bigger government which is what both parties have been voting for is the problem. This country needs to move to the center or slightly right of center for awhile. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. Everyone has a “cause” that is valid. Everyone lobby’s for their special interest. The graphs show that both parties have been growing government pretty much the same for 6 decades.

Ken wrote, “I think, however, it’s gotten worse over the last couple of decades, since the days of Eisenhower/Kennedy Yep. Since the Johnson Great War on Poverty and over 3 Trillion dollars of transfer of wealth. More and more spending. More than revenues coming into the government. Much defecits.

I have problems with your “When Reagan..” paragraph but don’t have time as I have to get going to a friends house. Another day and more leftist talking point inaccurate accusations to address. I hope you can keep your mind open to the facts on this one as it’ll be given if I get a thread that I can keep it on topic.

Ken accused, “All those Southern Democrats have now left the Democratic Party and found a home in the new Republican Party, and are still opposing programs that benefit minorities and poor people Name the Republicans and the programs. Did you forget Robert Byrd? And just because Robert Byrd votes for a program you like does that make him good and Republicans bad? You turn disagreements into such bad bad rhetoric on your part.

Kenwg wrote with much disregard for the facts, “And to say that Bush has spent record amounts by spending on liberal social programs? Is that a Joke? Bush has deeply cut “liberal social programs” right and left.

Let me just say Ken, I will use this one until you apologize for your incessant dishonesty. This is BLACK AND WHITE DOLLARS AND CENTS. Please step up to the plate. Keep in mind that I gave you a few graphs today that will indicate your wrongness. Your characerization of cutting right and left has gotten you absolute no credibility from this point forward until you work to clean it up. You might as well have just said that Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Germans on December 7th. Zero credibility.

BTW, Revenues have shot up this last two years more than 11% as a result of the tax rate cuts that helped the economy rebound from a recession. But lets stick on point. You made assertions about the spending levels being slashed right and left and now you need to own up or bow out. People can interpret economic changes based on tax rate cuts differently. But they can’t misreport the amount of spending on social programs. Period.
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 17, 2006 at 9:47 pm

– Bak – I don’t even bother wasting my time with Lieberals in certain areas anymore. The myth of being for the little guy, coupled with the demonizing of Conservatives through the constant dogma and lies about reduced social programs, is religion to the left. Without it they’d lose 3/4’s of their base, so they’re NEVER going to be honest in that area. You can pound them into the dirt with the truth, and the facts, and they’ll lie with their last breath.

– Bang
Pam says:

January 17, 2006 at 9:54 pm

Great point BBHunter
ttyler5 says:

January 17, 2006 at 10:44 pm

Big Bang Hunter, you are so right. And they are such a tiny proportion of the population.

For instance, the Libs and “progressives” are all that is left (pardon the pun) of the Texas Democratic party and check this out: their semi-official candidate for governor here is polling at 14%, and Kay Bailey Hutchison’s senatorial competition is at 25%.

A mugwump Republican, our state comptroller Carol Keeton Strayhorn , is running as an independent for guv and coming in at 21%, and a famous Texas “Outlaw” singer-songwriter by the name of Kinky Friedman is polling at 12% and I expect him to pass up the dem guv semi-official guy (a former one-term do-nothing dem Congressman who lost his seat after Tom DeLay, God bless him, re-drew the district lines in Texas to reflect Texas’ actual voting majority) next month.

I think our time is much better spent keeping our own guys in line and making them do what they should be doing.
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 18, 2006 at 12:54 am

– Perusing the FOX offerings today it looks like the Whitehouse is taking off the gloves and more than happy for the Dems to “bring it on”, having already landed a few chin shots that are going largely un-replyed too, except for a limp wristed try by Gore. So far not a single Dem Congressman is willing to actually go to the floor with this witch hunt, preffering to give out mumbling grunts, and under the breath comments in the hallways. No doubt someone in the frenetic party on the left, has stopped, and looked at the little house of horrors this badly concieved partisan hack job has opened. It will be interesting to see how much the LWMSM tries to burry it, or at least paint it as anti-Bush skewed as possible. The NYT, when they’re not busy doctoring photo’s, should be a bell weather on seeing how long it takes the left to try to put the genie back in the bottle. I’m thinking its already way to late for CYA, with the filing of this totally braindead suit. you gotta love it. Its a real bad time to be a socialist, but the Dems are turning a simple period of being out of office into an all out, three ring, self destructing circus.

– Every instance of case law brought before the 9th circuit and SCOTUS has found for the president in every administration for the past 25 years, saying the President has the enherent power under article II to conduct all warrentless wiretaps as neccessary, both inside and outside of America when the target(s) are suspected of espionage or anti-American acts, or the planing of such acts. Thats EVERY case. not a few, not a lot….every one. I’m thinking old Willey was on the phone today with Al baby screaming at him. If anyone is interested – Sistah – I will be happy to post the links…

– Bang
PCD says:

January 18, 2006 at 8:30 am

Kan, are you projecting you spend massive amounts of time with bartenders? I don’t drink and haven’t mentioned anything about it, except for Former Texas Gov. Ann Richards and Teddy Kennedy’s alcoholism.

Ken you talk down to everyone. Maybe you should check into why you have to do that.

As far as FDR, Social Security is a collapsing Ponzi scheme. The alphabet soup FDR served hindered not helped America.

And FYI, Al Gore, Sr. was one of those unrepentant Democrats who couldn’t see their way to honor the rights of minorities. Neither Gore went GOP, so you are full of misinformation. Probably because of your lack of credible education.
steve says:

January 18, 2006 at 3:45 pm

It isn’t the size that counts, it’s the fight in the dog. Peace
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 18, 2006 at 8:47 pm

No steve…. No matter what they tell you…. its the size… *snort*

– Bang
Kenwg says:

January 18, 2006 at 9:14 pm

Baklava,

First, let me ONCE AGAIN remind you that I do not like being called a liar, or of things like using “incessent dishonesty”. I have NEVER accused you of lying, and I expect the same courtesy from you. It’s rude, it’s infantile, it indicates an inability to argue intelligently that requires you to fall back on name-calling, and merely generates a lot of heat and prevents any real dialogue. So if you want to continue to act like a child and insist on continuing to name-call and character assassinate go ahead, but I, in the future, will simply ignore any of your responses to my posts. OK?

And before I leave the subject of “shrilly” charging that “YOU WILL HAVE NO CREDIBILITY UNTIL…”, let me remind you that you never did respond to my repeated attempts back on Dec 15 to get an answer from you about whether you would agree that there was “at least a chance” that the “Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act” was violated. You continued with you’re “incessently dishonest” assertion that, in the Valerie Plame case, “NO LAW WAS BROKEN!”, and dodged and weaved and dissembled and never did have the courage to address the question. So, until YOU clean up YOUR act, don’t tell me about who does or doesn’t have any credibility.

Now, as to your other comments – Bush has indeed cut many programs. I used to keep track regularly, but quit a long time ago. Here’s a partial list of Bush’s cuts, all, I think, just from his first year in office:

Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%
Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%
Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program – a Clinton initiative that added thousands of Police officers to departments nationwide.
Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%.
Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.
Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation.
Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
Cut $60 million from a Boy’s and Girl’s Clubs of America program for public housing.
Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees.
Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect.
Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million. Staff at EPA offices across the country have been cut to bare bones and are unable to complete much of their work (which I’m sure is just fine with those on the right…).
Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects.
Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
Refused to fund continued litigation of the government’s tobacco company lawsuit.
Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut, 43% of which will go to the wealthiest 1 % of Americans.
Eliminated funding for the “We the People” education program which taught school children about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and citizenship.

Add to this, also in 2001 and in the following years:

In June 2001, promised tax incentives for charitable giving but then stripped them from the budget at the last minute to make room for the estate-tax repeal.

Conned Ted Kennedy into co-authoring the “No Child Left Behind” act, and then failed to fund it (Congress eventually did, but at much lower levels).

Cut Pell Grants – funds that allow kids from low-income families to go to college.

Slashed funding for Americorps.

Took $80 million from FEMA when the Department of Homeland Security was created, and has had its core budget cut every year since; staff levels at FEMA have been severely cut (remember Katrina?).

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration has been downsized by 170 positions since 2001 (remember Sago? 12 dead?). And the pending 2006 budget proposes to cut MSHA’s funding by another $4.9 million, in inflation-adjusted terms, for the 2006 fiscal year (but it’s a safe bet now that that cut will be quietly deleted).

Just this last December Bush approved the National Intelligence Reform act which includes the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the next five years. But then in his proposed budget only asked for funding for 210 new agents.

And this list does not include the much longer list of cuts to programs benefitting the poor, labor, and the environment that Bush has proposed but were restored by Congress (which of course when combined with his tax cuts has also added to our obscene budget deficit.

And finally, regarding your comment that “Revenues have shot up this last two years more than 11% as a result of the tax rate cuts that helped the economy rebound from a recession.” Well, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (in a just-completed report “Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates”) Bush’s tax past and future tax cuts may help slightly to increase economic output initially (less than 1 percent), the stimulus is and has not been nearly enough to offset the huge revenue loss.

Cordially,
Ken G.
Baklava says:

January 18, 2006 at 9:49 pm

Kenwg wrote in his initial charge, “Bush has deeply cut “liberal social programs” right and left.

In your list you have non-social programs but even those charges are “false” and will be considered “false” until you cite your sources.

Your charges are typical of liberal smears/accusations/lies. For instance, you wrote, “
Gutted the White House AIDS Office. EVEN THOUGH Bush has spent far more than CLinton on AIDS topics. You paint evil with a broad brush. You paint cuts as things they aren’t. You LIE. You do not gain perspective before you spout out with your typing fingers propoganda.

Take this one for instance, “Cut Pell Grants – funds that allow kids from low-income families to go to college.
It’s flat out untrue.
This link whacks out your lies about education

Chart that wipes out a bunch of your topics – read and weap

Here’s a way of saying things GENTLY to you. If you make the charge that I have cut spending for broccoli for my daughters yet I spend more for vegetables for my daughters than before then I’d say that your charge is without perspective.

If you make the charge about 20 topics and continue to paint a picture without perspective and I give you a chart like I just gave you then you can tell that your charges are without perspective or you can continue on the path that you are on.

The total dollar amount for veterans programs rose significantly over the last 4 years.
The total dollar amount for education programs rose significantly over the last 4 years.
The total dollar amount for environmental programs rose significantly over the last 4 years.
The total dollar amount for health programs rose significantly over the last 4 years.
The total dollar amount for social programs rose significantly over the last 4 years.
The total dollar amount for the Medicare program rose significantly over the last 4 years.
The total dollar amount for the WIC program rose significantly over the last 4 years.
The total dollar amount for childrens programs rose significantly over the last 4 years.

You can either gain perspective or continue on your disinformation campaign and lose more and more credibility.
Kenwg says:

January 18, 2006 at 10:12 pm

Baklava,

Thank you for giving me some facts to look into instead of just calling me a liar. I’ll look at your stuff and hopefully learn something.

I haven’t done any fact-checking so this is premature – but let me note that simply increasing spending amounts doesn’t mean programs aren’t being cut; if those spending increases don’t keep up with costs, then the program is forced to cut its services. So even with a spending increase, you can have a cut in programs.

But again, your fact-filled response is appreciated. Now I can look into where you think I’m wrong and see if I agree.

Thanks
Ken G.
Kenwg says:

January 18, 2006 at 10:19 pm

Baklava,

Actually, I notice in your post that you are still acusing me of “lying”, so you and your “facts” from the heavily biased, lying Heritage Foundation can just piss off. You sir, are they liar.

I will no longer respond to you.

Cordially.
Ken G.
Kenwg says:

January 18, 2006 at 10:32 pm

Baklava,

One last note. I don’t get my facts from blinkered, biased, Scaife-financed right wing PR outlets like the Heritage Foundation or the CATO institute, which seems to be your sole source of information. Nor do I get them from equally blinkered and biased left-wing sources. I actually do read publications from across the spectrum, and check my facts as often as I can, especially with official public government documents, as I’ve done several times on this blog, and I will note as you have NEVER done. Do yourself, and all of us on this blog who actually want to try to get beyond the political rhetoric, a favor and start looking elsewhere for at least some of your information now and then. Then perhaps you can claim some legitimacy if you want to label someone a liar. Until then, you’re edited. –ST not worth wasting my time on.

Cordially,
Ken G.
Sister Toldjah says:

January 18, 2006 at 10:32 pm

Ok gents – let’s chill out, please. No need to insinuate anyone is a liar.
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 19, 2006 at 5:28 am

– Ok Ken…. So now we have gotten to the nexus of the truth here. Here is the main sentence you posted:

“And to say that Bush has spent record amounts by spending on liberal social programs? Is that a Joke? Bush has deeply cut “liberal social programs” right and left.”

– Bak calls you on it with hard facts and then you quickly retreat to the fact that in some cases the INCREASES in social programs have not kept up with inflation.

– This is why Liberals simply cannot be trusted with a federal budget. They just do not understand how the system works.

– In years where productivity/GNP runs ahead of inflation there is a net gain in value. In years where inflation is ahead we lose. It doesn’t matter if the Dems lead us or the Reps or little green men from Roswell.

– The Presidents can only do certain things to help (or hurt) this process. One thing they can do is to raise or lower taxes as a moderator. Bush lowered taxes (for every American, not the way the Libs lie and say it was only for the rich), and because he did we enjoyed an 11% growth. The top economists have estimated that had he not done that, over the same fiscal period we would have been projected to LOSE as much as 14%. thats a 25% turn arouond that I don’t think you’d be very happy with Ken, nor would you care to defend I’m sure.

– Lastly there is no way to know what inflation will do during any period. Its like the weather. Beyond educated guess’s, its indeterminate, so theres no way you can exactly offset it when you budget programs. to suggest you can and then call that a cut by Bush is just so outlandishly wrong, I agree its a pravaracation. It makes for a great talking point against your political foe, but when you examine the facts its just a lie.

– BTW…. pointing out that you are repeating a party lie isn’t the same as calling you a lier, unless you cling to it doggedly even when you’ve been proven wrong.

– Whether you want to admit it or not Bushes 2005 social programs budget was 394 Billion Dollars, and exceeded Clintons highest budget by over 88 billion….

– whats really eating at you guys is what you’ll never say. You think because of the WOT you havne’t been able to feather your social programs nests as much as you’d like, so you try this whole scam of just denying we’re really in a war at all. Both positions are wrong. So wrong its just mind boggling you have the temerity to even try to suggest it.

– Right now we have a fem journalist captive of the murdering Jihadists in Iraq you claim don’t exist. If they murder her I hope she haunts you and every Liberal in your dreams. Whats really sick is shes a Liberal-leaning journalist, but as is so typical of the left you desert you own in a heart beat “for the cause”.

– The public is coming to see the left as not so much a political party these days as a political car wreck….

– Bang
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 19, 2006 at 5:44 am

– One thing I forgot to mention. During the time Bush was trying to get his tax cuts enacted the entire body politic of the Democratic party, every leftwing MSM outlet, leftwing Cable news channel ect ect ect fought Bush tooth and nail trying everything they could think of to stop him. If they would have succeeded it would have forced REAL severe cuts in all programs across the board because of the projected loss in revenues.

– Knowing that is actually what would have happened if the Liberals had had their way, its amazing that they don’t understand why people lable them as fiscally irresponsible.

– Bang
PCD says:

January 19, 2006 at 8:19 am

Sister,

I’m going to disagree with you here. Ken ia not being honest. He’s promulgating propaganda of the far left and reacts angrily when called on it. Calling an action a cut when the left and the bureaucracy do not get every penny the dream for is not honest in the least. Ken doesn’t use documented, sourced figures to show where programs spent less than the previous budget year. He just spouts the “cut” mantra.

Do I think Ken posts the truth, no. If you deliberately don’t post the truth, then what are you?
Pam says:

January 19, 2006 at 9:03 am

Bak- I just love actual figures don’t you?
Baklava says:

January 19, 2006 at 9:18 am

Kenwg wrote very funnily, “I haven’t done any fact-checking so this is premature – but let me note that simply increasing spending amounts doesn’t mean programs aren’t being cut

Yes. Back when I was a liberal before 1991 and before I did my due diligence and before I was responsible with my rhetoric and before I read lots of sources of information…… I thought the liberal media when they said a cut was a cut it must’ve been a cut also. For 5 months straight the press and Bill CLinton called the Republicans people who wanted to cut Medicare by 270 Billion dollars. Yet it was going to be 7% increases for 7 years (more than 49% compounded). SOME liberals went on to say to Republicans retorts (like Kenwg did) that it must’ve been that the 7% increases weren’t going to keep up with costs. That wasn’t even true. 7% per year was more than medical inflation PLUS new participants in the program.

ONE MORE THING:

Kenwg has been on this site making accusations of “someone” manipulating facts/intelligence/evidence and he has been exposed pretty clearly of not having a well thought out perspective because he hasn’t done the due diligence of looking at both sides of the information.
Baklava says:

January 19, 2006 at 9:21 am

Kenwg accused, “your sole source of information

You’ll see they get their dollar figures from the actual dollar figures from government sources.

It’s either a 7% increase per year for 7 years or a 270 billion dollar cut.

WHen YOU go and see that the total dollar spent on Medicare is more every year for 6 decades you can see YOUR sources of information are incorrect.
Baklava says:

January 19, 2006 at 9:27 am

Bang wrote, “Whether you want to admit it or not Bushes 2005 social programs budget was 394 Billion Dollars, and exceeded Clintons highest budget by over 88 billionâ€¦.

On no. I read there were cuts everywhere. Even the Washington Post wrote about those cuts. I even remember seeing CNN report about them…

I’ll give you this Ken. You can’t be lying if you actually believe the facts you wrote because they are just a repeat of facts from other sources including the Washington Post. But you were VERY liberal with the manipulated evidence theory even though Bush didn’t manufacture or manipulate evidence he simply reported what the intelligence agencies all around the world were saying. AND… it was the same things Clinton, Albright, Kerry were saying.

You’ve gotten to the root of the problem and I’m glad we are there. To bring it full circle, it’s what lefties like Al Gore will do and say when unmedicated.

And instead of conservatives and liberals being able to work together we have to defend ourselves….
Baklava says:

January 19, 2006 at 9:37 am

For which government source Heritage used they include it in their charts and in their texts.

Civilly now, for the record, if someone characterizes something as a cut (like the WaPo) yet the total dollar amount goes up 7% per year or more (which it has been) the CHARACTERIZATION is false because it’s not saying a “decrease in the amount of the increase”.

This latest so-called 50 Billion dollar cut is the SAME issue. It was over a 7.4% increase and yet the REpublicans are being lambasted as “cutters”. Either the characterization by the press and Democrats need to change or the people on both sides of the debate are just going to be calling each other names and whole soures of info are going to be discredited like HF and WaPo.

Or we can stop with the manipulated/manufactured rhetoric and realize that more than 7% increases are not Bush, “deeply cut[ting] “liberal social programs” right and left.”
Baklava says:

January 19, 2006 at 9:49 am

Pam wrote, “Bak- I just love actual figures don’t you?

uhuh. And I’m all for the women’s movement!

ST, I was wrong to use the “L” word as you and I both know (because were previously liberal) is that we actually believed what we said and wrote prior to our conversions. Conversion year in 1991 brought me a complete core change as I went to the library in 1991 3 times a week for a full year to research the topics of the environment, budget, taxes, spending, history, race, etc.

While neither republicans or democrats have a lock on the “truth”, I’ve found that the charges hurled at conservatives/republicans tend to be that they don’t “care” while republicans/conservatives will “give” that liberals (not the leaders) are “well-intentioned” and have “rose colored glasses” and are “utopianists” that their solutions WILL NOT bring the results that everyone wants.

Lately also, the liberal “rank and file” who listen to an unmedicated Al Gore cement their belief that conservatives/republicans are evil and/or don’t “care”.

THis doesn’t add to the debate and makes the debate more heated and every liberal should be asking Gore to cut it out or saying “you don’t represent us”
steve says:

January 19, 2006 at 11:16 am

Osama wants Peace. Cheney is visiting Egypt and Saudi Arabia, must be why Peace is breaking out all over. Peace
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 19, 2006 at 12:12 pm

Steve maybe you would have carried a lot more weight with you erudite point of view, and your momentous stirring comments, if you’d have been at ground zero atop the World Trade Center on 9/11 to report on the “peace” that “Usama” wants so badly. You think?
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 19, 2006 at 12:30 pm

– No. I would say that what Usama wants right now is to be on a different planet, because he knows every Western security group and military/police operation in the world is looking for his murderous, cowardly butt. He also knows when we find him, like the three heads of the Jihadist snake we loped off the other day, he’s going to get to meet his 72 year old virgin.

– Bang

Comments are closed.