🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

10 total messages Started by Name withheld by request Mon, 21 Jun 2004 05:15
The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#108
Author: Name withheld by request
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 05:15
201 lines
13963 bytes
   The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
   June 21, 2004
   No Collaborative Relationship Edition

   Just in case you've been high on crack for the last year-and-a-half,
   here's a shocking news flash, courtesy of the 9/11 Commission: There
   was no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, despite what the Bush
   Administration (1) has been claiming. But don't worry, Dick Cheney (2)
   has a very convincing argument in their defense... er, probably. But
   Dick's not the only person spinning this week! Move America Forward
   (4) is trying to explain away "Fahrenheit 9/11," Citizens United (8)
   is engaging in some good old fashioned Clinton-bashing, and Ken
   Mehlman (9) is just making stuff up. 


   1 The Bush Administration lying covering your ass
   The 9/11 report was finally released last week, and one of its most
   interesting revelations is something people who haven't been watching
   Fox News have known all along - there was no "collaborative
   relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. But Our Great Leader
   immediately hit back: despite the fact that Osama bin Laden has in the
   past called Saddam Hussein an "infidel," Bush said last week, "There
   was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." Uh, never mind the
   conclusions of that bipartisan commission which has been studying the
   issue day in and day out for the last year - pay attention to The Man
   You Can Trust, George W. Bush. He also said, "This Administration
   never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and
   al-Qaeda." But on May 1, 2003 he did say, "The battle of Iraq is one
   victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001, and
   still goes on." And according to the Christian Science Monitor, in a
   March 2003 press conference "which focused almost solely on Iraq,
   President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times." And in February 2003,
   Colin Powell did say, "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda
   members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that
   after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the
   terrorist attacks on America." And in September 2003, Dick Cheney did
   say that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had
   us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
   And... well, you get the picture.

   2 Dick Cheney excessive spin excessive spin covering your ass
   Not only is the Bush administration still asserting a link between
   Iraq and al Qaeda, but Dick Cheney announced last week that he
   "probably" has information which the 9/11 Commission didn't see. In an
   interview on CNBC, Cheney continued to refute the Commission's
   findings and repeated the debunked story that Mohammed Atta had met
   with an Iraqi intelligence agent in 2000. Later, the Commission's
   Republican chairman, Thomas Kean, said, "It sounds like the White
   House has evidence that we didn't have. I would like to see the
   evidence that Mr. Cheney is talking about." The Democratic vice
   chairman, Lee Hamilton, said, he would be "very disappointed" if the
   White House had withheld information from the Commission. So the
   question remains - if Cheney is so sure that al Qaeda was working with
   Iraq because he "probably" has information that the 9/11 Commission
   doesn't, why didn't he give that information to the Commission? After
   all, surely the vice president of the United States wouldn't want to
   sit on information which could assist the people investigating the
   worst terrorist attack in history. Especially if that information
   proved beyond all doubt that the administration had a good reason for
   going to war with Iraq. Oh - wait a minute. He's just making it up,
   isn't he.

   3 The Bush Administration lying excessive spin
   So no weapons of destruction have been found, and now we learn that
   there's no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Seeing his justifications
   for invasion disappearing before his eyes, Our Great Leader has
   started grasping at straws. The latest boogeyman in Bush's closet is
   Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist who apparently beheaded Nick Berg
   and has been behind some of the post-invasion bombings in Iraq.
   al-Zarqawi is Bush's last best hope to claim that Iraq and al-Qaeda
   were in cahoots, despite the fact that there is no evidence to prove
   that al-Zarqawi had anything to do with Saddam Hussein. Not only that,
   but last week Donald Rumsfeld even went so far as to say that
   al-Zarqawi "may very well not have sworn allegiance to UBL," and,
   "Now, therefore, someone could legitimately say he's not al-Qaeda." So
   let me get this straight - al-Zarqawi is not connected to al-Qaeda or
   Saddam Hussein, and this is their proof that there's a link between
   al-Qaeda and Iraq? Bizarre. I mean, al-Zarqawi is clearly a dangerous,
   murderous bastard, but perhaps the administration should have thought
   of that before they turned down the opportunity to capture him THREE
   TIMES. Unless they thought they might need him if they ever had to
   come up with a bogus link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, of course.

   4 Move America Forward dumb partisanship excessive spin
   What's the best way to take America forward? Why, by preventing people
   from seeing Michael Moore's new movie, dummy! Because you see, some
   people's idea of the best way to "Move America Forward" is for
   everyone to bury their heads in the sand and repeat to themselves
   "Bush is perfect. America never makes a mistake." Actually Move
   America Forward is a new "non-partisan" group (made up entirely of
   conservative Bush supporters) who are attempting to prevent movie
   theaters across the country from screening "Fahrenheit 9/11" (tickets
   available now). Executive Directory Siobhan Guiney (a former
   Republican lobbyist) said, "(Moore) is critical of what's happening
   right now, and there's no problem with being critical - but his movie
   is not a documentary, it's a piece of propaganda." Guiney's dire
   warning to beware of propaganda was of course dutifully broadcast
   across the nation 24 hours a day last week by conservative talk radio.
   I dunno, perhaps they should rename their group Move America Forward
   At A Steady Jog Towards The Edge Of A Cliff With Our Fingers In Our
   Ears And Our Eyes Closed. Yep, sounds about right.

   5 Bill Kristol hypocrisy hypocrisy
   Rounding off the recent orgy of Reagan hypocrisy, Bill Kristol had
   this to say on Fox News back in October of 2002: "Look, Paul Wellstone
   was a very political guy, and I suspect he would have liked his own
   memorial service, if I can put it that way. And the fact it was a
   little over the top, and some of us maybe found it a little
   distasteful and a little too partisan... There's a big tradition on
   the left of turning funeral services into political rallies. If you go
   back and look at the early days of the, you know, Socialist Party
   here, and of course, abroad, as well..." Hmmm. And here's what he had
   to say on Fox News Sunday last weekend: "I think [Ronald Reagan] could
   have an impact if the Bush campaign has the nerve to make it have an
   impact... No one wants to politicize the death of a recent president.
   But you know what? The Bush campaign should. And they should, in my
   view, they should go up with an ad next week..." What a jackass.

   6 Cristina V. Beato lying
   Here's an interesting story from two weeks ago that got brushed aside
   in the wake of the Reagasm: it appears that "The physician nominated
   nearly a year ago to the nation's top-ranking health policy post has
   yet to receive a Senate hearing - and may not be considered for
   confirmation - amid questions about whether she fabricated or inflated
   portions of her risumi," according to the Washington Post. Cristina V.
   Beato was nominated last July, but according to the Post, "officials
   said they could find no evidence of her service" at several
   institutions listed on her risumi," while "former colleagues at the
   University of New Mexico and an affiliated hospital in Albuquerque
   disputed assertions she made, saying at a minimum she had puffed up
   her role in several projects." Yes, Bush's nomination for the post
   assistant secretary of health in the Department of Health and Human
   Services appears to be a liar and a cheat. They should give her the
   job - she'd be a perfect fit for this administration.

   7 George W. Bush fiscal irresponsibility
   If you need any more proof of Bush's inability to manage the nation's
   finances, check out what he's doing to his campaign. According to the
   Associated Press, Bush has spent "seven of every $10 he has raised for
   his re-election" so far, and is now hitting his supporters up for more
   money. Despite raising at least $218 million so far - blowing away the
   previous fundraising record - Bush is spending himself into the ground
   for very little gain. And now he's sending emails to his supporters
   whining about how Kerry "has certainly got his liberal allies all
   stirred up to attack me." Awwww. Poor George. Oh well, perhaps if the
   last four years haven't proven beyond all doubt that Bush's talent for
   running companies into the ground extends to his presidency, at least
   his supporters might now start wondering what they're getting for all
   their vanishing cash.

   8 Citizens United Clinton hating Clinton hating Clinton hating
   Bill Clinton has been out of office for nearly four years, but
   conservative Clinton-haters just can't move on. In anticipation of
   this week's release of Clinton's book, My Life, Citizens United
   unveiled a new attack ad called "My Fault." (Funny, huh?) Since things
   aren't going so well now that their own guy is in charge, desperate
   conservatives are trying to deflect the blame using the only trick
   they know: bashing Clinton. But listen closely to the ad (if you can
   stand to waste 30 seconds of your life on this trash) and you'll
   notice something interesting: They don't actually say anything about
   Clinton's record on terrorism, and instead just ask "What did Clinton
   do?" Presumably they asked themselves that question, and decided it
   would be better for them if they don't actually answer it. I suppose
   we could give them credit that they didn't resort to outright lying,
   for once.

   9 Ken Mehlman excessive spin
   Last week we noted that the Bush administration spent the past several
   months bragging about a reduction in world terrorism, before one of
   their own reports conclusively proved them wrong. This week, the
   Bushies are at it again. In the wake of John Kerry's recent criticism
   of Our Great Leader's Great Economic Toilet Flush, Bush campaign
   manager Ken Mehlman released a written statement saying, "[John]
   Kerry's political attacks are not supported by reality, which shows
   rising employment and higher wages." Not so fast! Preliminary data
   revealed last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
   Department of Labor, indicates that "Real average weekly earnings
   decreased by 0.4 percent from April to May after seasonal adjustment."
   So... Ken Mehlman is just making shit up. Sounds like the ideal guy to
   run Bush's campaign.

   10 George W. Bush hypocrisy photo-opping
   And finally, much has been made of John Kerry's alleged $1000 haircut,
   but whether it's true or not, at least he paid for it himself. That's
   not the policy of George W. Bush, who, it was revealed last week, had
   a $100,000 platform erected for his entry into a U.S. military
   cemetery during his recent visit to France. That platform will of
   course be paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, all because Our Great Leader
   wanted to "walk in style" to a memorial ceremony. I should probably
   mention that Team Bush also had several rows of bleachers torn down
   because they weren't "esthetically pleasing," thus preventing several
   thousand spectators from attending the event. Always there for the
   common man, that's our George. See you next week!


   Linked cites verifying the aforementioned idiots can be found at:
          http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/index.html            
   _____________________________________________________________________
   "It's much harder to be a Liberal than a conservative.  Why?
    Because it is easier to give someone the finger than a helping hand." 
   _____________________________________________________________________
Re: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#109
Author: ClassWarz
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:50
15 lines
1341 bytes
"Name withheld by request" <anon5c6c@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:1087794934.235822@irys.nyx.net...
>    The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
>    June 21, 2004
>snip

The top conservative idiots of old can be had at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/archive.html

I think I will spend the next hour perusing that page!


CLASSWARZ
Re: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#105
Author: Dan J.S.
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:54
66 lines
3582 bytes
YOU CAN BE A DEMOCRAT - Virtually anyone can be a Democrat; just simply quit
thinking and vote that way.  But if you want to be a GOOD Democrat, there
are some necessary prerequisites.

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal
funding.

2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how
to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are
more of a threat than U. S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of
Chinese communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by
yuppies driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual
is natural.

7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists from Seattle do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of
the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts
of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or
Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is really a lady

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in
charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but
a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites and beastiality should be constitutionally protected and
manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese
is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC... It's easier than getting a job
Re: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#106
Author: Kevin Childers
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:23
86 lines
3974 bytes
    I beg to differ, I believe they've gone to the Koreans for their illegal
funding this go round.

KC

"Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:10de15ijdqssca1@news.supernews.com...
> YOU CAN BE A DEMOCRAT - Virtually anyone can be a Democrat; just simply
quit
> thinking and vote that way.  But if you want to be a GOOD Democrat, there
> are some necessary prerequisites.
>
> 1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal
> funding.
>
> 2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders
how
> to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
>
> 3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans,
are
> more of a threat than U. S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of
> Chinese communists.
>
> 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding
>
> 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
> cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by
> yuppies driving SUVs.
>
> 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual
> is natural.
>
> 7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on
demand.
>
> 8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
> create prosperity.
>
> 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
> activists from Seattle do.
>
> 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
> doing something to earn it.
>
> 11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.
>
> 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts
of
> the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain
parts
> of the Constitution.
>
> 13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
>
> 14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
> important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or
> Thomas Edison.
>
> 15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
> quotas and set-asides aren't.
>
> 16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is really a lady
>
> 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
> anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in
> charge.
>
> 18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail,
but
> a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.
>
> 19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
> transvestites and beastiality should be constitutionally protected and
> manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
>
> 20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the
Chinese
> is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
>
> VOTE DEMOCRATIC... It's easier than getting a job
>
>
>
>
Re: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#107
Author: Terry Lomax
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:26
74 lines
4788 bytes
"Conservative" states are parasites, leeching off the tax dollars of
"Democratic" states:

Givers and Takers By DANIEL H. PINK 
Published: January 30, 2004 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30PINK.html?ex=1087617600&en=1b57f1b06f078f11&ei=5070

"Each year, the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research group, crunches
numbers from the Census Bureau to produce an intriguing figure: how
much each state receives in federal spending for every dollar it pays
in federal taxes.

Using the Tax Foundation's analysis, it's possible to group the 50
states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back
less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to
federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax
dollar they send to Washington. Thirty-three states are Takers; 16 are
Givers. (One state, Indiana, has a perfect one-to-one ratio of taxes
paid and spending received. As seat of the federal government, the
District of Columbia has no choice but to be a Taker, and is therefore
not comparable to the 50 states in this regard.)

The Democrats' electability predicament comes into focus when you
compare the map of Giver and Taker states with the well-worn electoral
map of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states. You might expect
that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans, the party of low
taxes and limited government, would have carried the Giver states �
while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly bureaucracy,
would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the reverse.
George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the
candidate of the Giver states.

Consider: 

78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states. 

76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states. 

Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25. 

Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12. 

Juxtaposing these maps provides a new perspective on the political
landscape. (Interactive moment: Color in the blue and red states �
then you'll get the full picture.) Republicans seem to have become the
new welfare party � their constituents live off tax dollars paid by
people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is
wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too.
Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the
country's fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the
biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in
the coastal blue states � the ones who are often portrayed as
shiftless moochers � are left to carry the load.

For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a
boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet
reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution �
and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It's shrewd
politics.

And it puts the eventual Democratic presidential nominee in a bind,
should he try to rally those who believe they aren't getting a fair
shake from Washington. If the Democratic candidate won all 16 Giver
states plus the District of Columbia in November, he'd collect only
254 electoral votes, short of the majority needed to capture the White
House. The electoral votes of all the Taker states, by contrast, add
up to 273 � two more than Mr. Bush won in 2000."


This is tax dollars and federal spending between states, and does not
even begin to calculate tranfers of wealth from poor countries to rich
countries. On this point, see MIM's "Imperialism and Its Class
Structure in 1997" (full text online) as well as the writings Samir
Amin, Eduardo Galeano, and Walter Rodney.
Re: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#104
Author: stan
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:58
7 lines
1491 bytes
Kevin Childers <kchilder@mail.win.org> wrote:
>     I beg to differ, I believe they've gone to the Koreans for their illegal
> funding this go round.

It seems to me that to be a good Republican, you have to believe
that truth is not a word in the English language and that record
setting federal deficits are a good thing for Americans.
Re: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#103
Author: Nexus7
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:07
6 lines
1378 bytes
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:26:15 -0700, Terry Lomax wrote:
> 78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states. 
> 76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states. 

In keeping with the finest repub traditions, electoral votes should be
apportioned in the ratio of tax contributions.
Re: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#100
Author: Kevin Childers
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:09
20 lines
1958 bytes
    Actually I'm just concerned with a potential president's pre-election
financial backing.  There are still some out standing issues from the first
Clinton campaign.

    Of course they're all suspect, but if anyone is going to influence the
campaign of a future American President, I would prefer that they be home
grown.

KC

<stan@temple.edu> wrote in message news:cb8ea3$n0s$3@cronkite.temple.edu...
> Kevin Childers <kchilder@mail.win.org> wrote:
> >     I beg to differ, I believe they've gone to the Koreans for their
illegal
> > funding this go round.
>
> It seems to me that to be a good Republican, you have to believe
> that truth is not a word in the English language and that record
> setting federal deficits are a good thing for Americans.
>
Re: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#101
Author: Kevin Childers
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:11
16 lines
1859 bytes
    But wouldn't that logic mean that Gore (or at present Kerry) would be
president?

KC


"Nexus7" <ac25kV@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8bb826a8e1c383445d05ca04e0e1e5b0@news.teranews.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:26:15 -0700, Terry Lomax wrote:
> > 78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.
> > 76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.
>
> In keeping with the finest repub traditions, electoral votes should be
> apportioned in the ratio of tax contributions.
>
>
Re: The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 160)
#102
Author: Jean Smith
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:58
27 lines
2382 bytes
On 6/23/04 08:11, in article 10dj0d4il283j49@corp.supernews.com, "Kevin
Childers" <kchilder@mail.win.org> wrote:

>   But wouldn't that logic mean that Gore (or at present Kerry) would be
> president?
> 
> KC
> 
> 
> "Nexus7" <ac25kV@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8bb826a8e1c383445d05ca04e0e1e5b0@news.teranews.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:26:15 -0700, Terry Lomax wrote:
>>> 78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.
>>> 76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.
>> 
>> In keeping with the finest repub traditions, electoral votes should be
>> apportioned in the ratio of tax contributions.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
That sure seems like a challenge to Republican Theory. I don't think that
they believe that they are the takers, unless they cut taxes that way on
purpose.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/20/ING
2976LG61.DTL
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads