Republicans to outsource fundraising to India

[XPav]

http://www.business-standard.com/archives/2003/jan/50310103.016.asp

This makes my brain seize up.

[Midnight Son]

What makes more sense than Indians calling unemployed americans who they got their jobs from and hitting them up for money? In the immortal words of Iraqis earlier this year: "Thank you Mr. Boosh!"

[Woolen Horde]

Jeezus, that is friggin political dynamite for Democrats if they know how to exploit it.

But they probably won't know how.

[bmulligan]

So then why are you a Democrat fanboy if they're just a bunch of morons who don't know how to exploit a political expidiency?

[XPav]

So then why are you a Democrat fanboy if they're just a bunch of morons who don't know how to exploit a political expidiency?

Democrats may be stupid, but Republicans are evil.

[bmulligan]

yeah, and Democrats aren't? The limitless quest for power at the expense of anyone, anything, or any truth is standard operating procedure for Democrats too.

[Woolen Horde]

Because part of being a Democrat is recognizing that your a member of an oftime hopeless political party. McGovern. Mondale. Dukakis. Some of the greatest blowouts in US election history.

[bmulligan]

That's because Democrats have no cohesive base. They're just a bunch of splinter interest groups united by a common thread: take power away from Republicans any way possible. They have no platform, their principles change with the latest polls, and they only point out faults in their enemies instead of fixing their own.

They have a tired message:
I'll fight for YOU! --fight against whom?
I'm for better education! --who isn't?
I'll help the children! --who doesn't?
I'm for working families and the poor! --who isn't?
I'm for more jobs and a better economy! -- who wouldn't be?
I'll give you the help you need, a chicken in every pot, and free prescription drugs!

Now, what was I talking about? Democrat....... Republican, or both?

[Mark Asher]

Well, the Republicans aren't for better education, helping working families, helping the poor, or helping the children, so I guess you're talking about the Democrats.

[quatoria]

Well, the Republicans aren't for better education, helping working families, helping the poor, or helping the children, so I guess you're talking about the Democrats.

And if Bush is anything to judge by, Republicans aren't for better jobs OR helping the economy, either.

[Albert Woo]

I'm just waiting for Bush to announce that he's outsourcing the occupation of Iraq over to India, along with the next war in the campaign against terrorism.

[Brad Grenz]

Goodbye Pakistan, we hardly knew ye!

[mtkafka]

Maybe I should move to India... my job contracts are still suckage... tech industry HELL!

etc

[Machfive]

Well, the Republicans aren't for better education, helping working families, helping the poor, or helping the children, so I guess you're talking about the Democrats.

Says who, Democrats?

Republicans and Democrats are both cut from the same cloth. You're gonna find an equal number of Republicans and Democrats who TRULY support those above measures, but the thing is, they are, by and large, the minority in power.

The majority doesn't give a hoot one way or another and are more interested in retaining their power by any means necessary that they're busy lying TELLING you they care about those things.

[voltaic]

Two reasons to be a Libertarian:

1) even bigger blowouts than the Democrats.
2) not evil.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, the Republicans aren't for better education, helping working families, helping the poor, or helping the children, so I guess you're talking about the Democrats.

Says who, Democrats?

Republicans and Democrats are both cut from the same cloth. You're gonna find an equal number of Republicans and Democrats who TRULY support those above measures, but the thing is, they are, by and large, the minority in power.

The majority doesn't give a hoot one way or another and are more interested in retaining their power by any means necessary that they're busy lying TELLING you they care about those things.

In their heart of hearts, the modern GOP wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Slight difference between the parties there.

[Lizard_King]

In their heart of hearts, the modern GOP wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Slight difference between the parties there.

If only that were true, I'd have a lot less trouble voting for the Republican party. Of course, if you're using those two examples as reasons why Democrats care more about the working class etc, I would suggest that there is at least as much validity to the view that supporting such measures is much less about caring and a lot more about control mechanisms. Such a view becomes even more plausible when you look at the material impact of such policies...nothing like bare subsistence, American style.

Another difference would be abortion. Republicans range from opposition to waffling, and Democrats from support to waffling. Hopefully Dean will do something to reduce the stark difference in gun law views.

As for the big L Libertarians...it is unfortunate and ironic that the way things are now they must be considered utopianists to the extreme.

[Jason McCullough]

I wasn't making a normative statement, just a description of how the parties actually do differ.

[Lizard_King]

I wasn't making a normative statement, just a description of how the parties actually do differ.

My mistake. I thought it was with reference to the bleeding heart gushing above.

[Midnight Son]

Ah yes, the old social darwinism thang.

Republican motto: "Rally 'round the family, pocket full of shells" Now that's ironic! (Do I have to explain it? From the marxist band Rage Against the Machine.)

[bmulligan]

In their heart of hearts, the modern GOP wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare

I'd love to see your source for this one, Jason. Glad to know you have the inside scoop on the heart of hearts of all Republicans!


Well, the Republicans aren't for better education, helping working families, helping the poor, or helping the children, so I guess you're talking about the Democrats.....Republicans aren't for better jobs OR helping the economy, either.

So tell me, how exactly are the Democrats for these things ? How does one 'fix' education, children, and working families, jobs and the economy? They've been attempting to fix them for decades and the problems are just getting worse. Obviously their solutions are not the correct ones.

I'm not saying Republicans have made any progress either, just that you seem to favor the Democrats only for the ability to point out problems and blame Republicans. They never actually do anything except attempt to tax more, spend more, and blame someone else for their own shortcomings.

[Andrew Mayer]

Somehow, someway, these two parties have, over the last century or so, managed to maintain this powerful nation that allows you to bitch and moan.

But something has broken. The current Republican leadership has handed over a billion dollars to our money to Halliburton (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/6637491.htm) for services that aren't being rendered. Trillions are missing from the Pentagon (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL). Cheney has been caught lying to congress. (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030829.html)

The house is on fire, the vault has been looted, but the cool sheep are all bleating "They're all the same! They're all the same!"

Spin it all you want. People can still tell the difference.

[Brad Grenz]

The current Republican leadership has handed over a billion dollars to our money to Halliburton for services that aren't being rendered.

WHAT? I wonder who built all those camps, put out all those fires and has been feeding our troops this whole time...

[ydejin]

The current Republican leadership has handed over a billion dollars to our money to Halliburton for services that aren't being rendered.

WHAT? I wonder who built all those camps, put out all those fires and has been feeding our troops this whole time...

Well, here's a quote from a Business Week article dated April 25, 2003
giving you some idea of how much of a deal Halliburton manged to get with some of it's Iraqi contracts which were not put up for competitive bidding. Keep in mind this is Business Week, not some leftist rag.


What's wrong with that?

Critics say the work was added, with no competitive bidding, to an existing contract under which KBR [Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root] provides logistical support to the Army. The hotel and food bills for some 350 Office of Reconstruction & Humanitarian Assistance bureaucrats, most of whom were holed up at the Kuwait Hilton resort, are paid by KBR -- $5,000 a month per person, plus a markup, says an ORHA official.

Yep, that's right, we were paying $5000 per person per month + markup to Halliburton for hotel and food bills. We're not talking salary, just hotel and food bills. That seems a bit high. I wonder what the markup was?

[Midnight Son]

Just remember to vote next November. The "lesser of two evils" rule will certainly apply.....

[voltaic]

People should vote their conscience. People who vote "lesser of two evils" really irk me; they want their vote to "count" so damn much that they are willing to trade away their own opinions for it. How can you call yourself a participant in the great experiment of democracy when you have to rationalize your own vote to yourself?

[Andrew Mayer]

The current Republican leadership has handed over a billion dollars to our money to Halliburton for services that aren't being rendered.

WHAT? I wonder who built all those camps, put out all those fires and has been feeding our troops this whole time...

That would be those no-bid contracts. But god forbid we should allow the precious free market to push down prices when Cheney is getting over $1 million a year (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/wick154.htm) for his fine work on their behalf.

Also, when you hear stories of troops not getting mail, water, weapons, etc. (http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/141696) that's because privatizing of war services means that you cannot compel delivery of goods. When soliders are responsible for supplies there is legal recourse to them not carrying out their duties in a war zone.

[Mark Asher]

I'm not saying Republicans have made any progress either, just that you seem to favor the Democrats only for the ability to point out problems and blame Republicans. They never actually do anything except attempt to tax more, spend more, and blame someone else for their own shortcomings.

I think we can safely accuse the Republicans of spending more (half a trillion deficit) and certainly blaming others. You can't accuse them of wanting to tax more, other than the ideas about increasing taxes on the poor that some Republicans have floated. Then again, I don't think you can accuse the Democrats of trying to raise taxes either.

You can accuse Republicans of being anti-education and favoring policies that hurt the poor and minorities. They continually try to cut social spending. They fight against increases in educational spending, etc.

[Machfive]

We're in a recession. We're running a deficit.

CALL CNN!

[Midnight Son]

People should vote their conscience. People who vote "lesser of two evils" really irk me; they want their vote to "count" so damn much that they are willing to trade away their own opinions for it. How can you call yourself a participant in the great experiment of democracy when you have to rationalize your own vote to yourself?

Because we the people are only going to have 2 choices with a real chance of winning. If your candidate is not a member of the big two parties they have 0 chance of winning. That's the reality of it, like it or not.

[Andrew Mayer]

You can accuse Republicans of being anti-education and favoring policies that hurt the poor and minorities. They continually try to cut social spending. They fight against increases in educational spending, etc.

They also use their influence to help their friends to illegally cheat citizens out of billions of dollars (http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030830/APN/308300615).


Federal regulators filed motions to dismiss claims that utilities illegally manipulated the power market to profit during California's power crisis, and a federal court judge dismissed seven class-action lawsuits that accused Duke Energy and other defendants of manipulating energy prices.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission attorneys filed motions Friday to dismiss claims against more than a dozen public and private companies in an investigation into manipulation of the state's power market. They included city-owned utilities in Los Angeles, Anaheim, Pasadena, and Riverside.

Can you tell the difference now?

[Machfive]

Because we the people are only going to have 2 choices with a real chance of winning. If your candidate is not a member of the big two parties they have 0 chance of winning. That's the reality of it, like it or not.

Yet another reason we need knockdown voting.

[Midnight Son]

Maybe we need a system where different political parties have to join together to form coalition govts based on actual votes cast, not the good old boy "electoral college." (Too european?) Electoral reform, campaign finance reform, and so on will take forever to change unless a massive public outcry gets going. That usually gets some response, one of which is the riot police. (Because the millionaires and billionaires that really run things don't want, or need, democracy!)

Paraphrasing Churchill: "Our system of govt is the worst, except for all the others..."

[Machfive]

I don't see a problem with the electoral college, I believe it exists for a reason.

I think what we need to temper it with is knockdown voting.

[bmulligan]

I think we can safely accuse the Republicans of spending more (half a trillion deficit) and certainly blaming others. You can't accuse them of wanting to tax more, other than the ideas about increasing taxes on the poor that some Republicans have floated. Then again, I don't think you can accuse the Democrats of trying to raise taxes either.



Gimmie a break, Mark. All democrats want to do is tax more. Tax the people with money, so they can give it to the people without money and buy votes. A democrats first thought in a budget crisis is to raise taxes. Listen to the Cali Dems who propose just that to resolve their budget shortfalls. I'm not on the republican side here either, they overspend with the best of them, and to say they cut social spending is wrong. Bush signed an addition 12 week unemployment benefit bill in January, signed an education bill (http://salt.claretianpubs.org/washweek/2002/02/is0202a.html) with a 46% increase in federal spending, a multi billion $ agriculture bill (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/farm.bill/), a $15 million dollar Aids bill (http://www.aegis.com/news/sc/2003/SC030524.html), so I find it hard to accept Bush is a non-caring conservative, hell bent on sucking the life out of the poor and downtrodden.

[Midnight Son]

Gee, mulligan, how are we going to pay for all this? The federal deficit is already at record levels. (Taxcut for millionaires, anyone? Iraq war anyone?) Oh well, let's let future generations worry about it.

(If you have two kids, enjoy your $400 payment. If you make over $100000, enjoy your $10000.)

[Ben Sones]

Gimmie a break, Mark. All democrats want to do is tax more. Tax the people with money, so they can give it to the people without money and buy votes.

Absolutely true. And the Republicans are equally as bad. Instead of tax and spend, they just stick to deficit spending. They advocate tax cuts as a means to give money to their constituency, and thus buy votes. The only significant difference between the two is the demographic that they pander to. I trust either party to run the country about as much as I'd trust my cat to babysit a hamster. I do plan to vote democrat in the next presidential election, however. It's a "lesser of two evils" thing.

[Jason McCullough]

In their heart of hearts, the modern GOP wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare

I'd love to see your source for this one, Jason. Glad to know you have the inside scoop on the heart of hearts of all Republicans!


Dude, this isn't controversial. Talk to Grover Norquist. In another shocking turn of events, the Democrats would really like to see single-payer health care!

[bmulligan]

I do plan to vote democrat in the next presidential election, however. It's a "lesser of two evils" thing.

I don't understand this 'lesser of 2 evils' thing. That's like saying I'm going to eat the rat poison instead of the bleach because I'll live 5 minutes longer.


Gee, mulligan, how are we going to pay for all this? The federal deficit is already at record levels. (Taxcut for millionaires, anyone? Iraq war anyone?) Oh well, let's let future generations worry about it.

How about not spending more and not passing these ridiculously pork filled bills and not voting for the lesser of 2 evils, but voting for candidates who don't promise you everything in a hand basket?

Why have we engendered a culture thats believes government is responsible for happiness and well being? That they are the guarantor of sustenance and arbitor of wealth? I'm not a Republican, but I'd love to see the end of Social security. My 15% of my income could be much better spent by ME

[Ben Sones]

I do plan to vote democrat in the next presidential election, however. It's a "lesser of two evils" thing.

I don't understand this 'lesser of 2 evils' thing. That's like saying I'm going to eat the rat poison instead of the bleach because I'll live 5 minutes longer.

It is sort of like that, yeah. But when your only two options are rat poison and bleach, the bleach starts looking more palatable.


How about not spending more and not passing these ridiculously pork filled bills and not voting for the lesser of 2 evils, but voting for candidates who don't promise you everything in a hand basket?

See, that's what I usually do. I did that last election, and Bush got into office. This time around, I'm just casting my vote against Bush, to do my part to make sure he gets tossed out of office. The Democrats can put a monkey in a top hat in the White House for all I care (and they might)--it would be an improvement over the current administration.

[bmulligan]

But the Democrats will consider any victory a 'mandate' to start social spending and 'necessary' tax increases right at the time when the economy is going to rebound, and send it back into stagnation. Then they'll blame a Republican congress for it. Both sides of this coin will induce vomiting and uncontrollable anal discharge.

right now, Democrats have a vested interest in keeping our economy sluggish, or at least give the appearance of this by repeating it again and again. Rember the lambasting Bush took right after the election for saying the economy was 'in bad shape'? Why aren't Democrats being chastized for doing the same thing? The economy grew by 3% last quarter, inflation is low, and jobless claims were down. You wouldn't know that by listening to the candidates. Democrats couldn't care less about anyone's well being but their own, Republicans too. I say don't vote for either of them. That will force the parties to 'rethink' their platforms when they can only garner 20-30% of the vote. Or it may cause any of the morally centered members to splinter, breaking the partys' stranglehold on power. It'll never happen unless we stop voting for the lesser of evils.

[voltaic]

It is sort of like that, yeah. But when your only two options are rat poison and bleach, the bleach starts looking more palatable.
You aren't claiming that there are only two options for President, are you? What about the cheeseburger or the donut (old fashioned with glaze, thank you)? Yes, they may have no chance of killing you (i.e. of winning the election) but at least you ate what you wanted.

[Jason McCullough]

Since the chance that your individual vote will decide the election (the only case where it matters that you vote) is virtually zero, knock yourself out. In general, though, you can't have viable third parties in a winner-take-all system.

[Midnight Son]

When the choice is between Scheisskopf A and Scheisskopf B no amount of high-falutin' talk is going to change the FACT that one of the Scheisskopf's will be elected and the other won't. Since we already know what Scheisskopf A is doing, we hope for the best with Scheisskopf B. Third party candidates have NO CHANCE to get elected Prez. Accept it or go change the Constitution.

[Ben Sones]

It is sort of like that, yeah. But when your only two options are rat poison and bleach, the bleach starts looking more palatable.
You aren't claiming that there are only two options for President, are you? What about the cheeseburger or the donut (old fashioned with glaze, thank you)? Yes, they may have no chance of killing you (i.e. of winning the election) but at least you ate what you wanted.

If only it worked that way. The Democrat and Republcan candidates are the only ones with a shot at winning. So I can order the hamburger, but the waiter will still bring me bleach or rat poison. I usually vote for third party candidates, but in this instance I want Bush out of office more than I want anyone in particular in. Thus, I'll vote for whomever has the best chance of beating him.


Since the chance that your individual vote will decide the election (the only case where it matters that you vote) is virtually zero, knock yourself out. In general, though, you can't have viable third parties in a winner-take-all system.

It came pretty close in the last presidential election, though, didn't it?


But the Democrats will consider any victory a 'mandate' to start social spending and 'necessary' tax increases right at the time when the economy is going to rebound, and send it back into stagnation.

They can believe whatever they want. With a sitting Republican Congress, they are going to find it difficult to follow that mandate. The President is not a lawmaker; he can introduce bills, but Congress has to pass them.


Third party candidates have NO CHANCE to get elected Prez.

That's not true, really--otherwise we'd still be voting Federalist and Democratic Republican. It takes a watershed event to shake up the party system, I'll grant you, but it happens.

[voltaic]

It is unfortunate that the great experiment of Democracy has come to this. Now even the reasonably well educated and well read voters walking to the polls, shoulders hunched, chanting "we have no choice but to vote Republicrat".

Fuck you, I refuse to lose hope. End of thread.

[Gav]

I don't see a problem with the electoral college, I believe it exists for a reason.


It does exist for a reason. The founders didn't trust people to vote correctly, so the idea was that you would vote for someone whom you trusted to pick a good president for you. Under this system, of course, you're NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW who your elector is going to vote for.

Since you do in fact know, the whole purpose of the electoral college has been vitiated, and it should be abolished.

Gav

[Qenan]

The last two elections I voted for third-party candidates. This time I will almost certainly vote for the Democrats, because for all their faults, I want to get rid of Bush. He's an embarassment as president.

[bmulligan]

And you obviously didn't vote republican when the embarassment known as Bill Clinton was up for re-election.

[XPav]

And you obviously didn't vote republican when the embarassment known as Bill Clinton was up for re-election.

The classic "But Clinton..." defense.

[bmulligan]

Yes, I'm sure all you Clinton dick suckers would like to forget about that era, or at least rewrite it in your mind that it was an age of honesty and straight-talk with no air of debauchery, scandal, lipservice or thinly veiled empathy.

And forgive me, but the classic clinton defense doesn't apply in my previous statement as it does above. I was merely observing the duplicity in rationale of voting for a lesser evil when said evil is Republican instead of Democrat.

[Midnight Son]

Damn, I sho had a lot more money in my 401k's and IRA's when Clinton was prez!

[XPav]

Yeah, and all those people had jobs. Boy, that sucked.

[Andrew Mayer]

And American troops weren't dying daily in a foreign land.

But, you know, "debauchery, scandal, lipservice" and stuff.

[quatoria]

And American troops weren't dying daily in a foreign land.

But, you know, "debauchery, scandal, lipservice" and stuff.

You fucking shifty liberals, you know DAMN WELL that getting blown in the Oval Office and lying about it is EXACTLY THE SAME as building a foundation of lies in order to kill thousands of people in a foreign land! WAR AND BLOWJOBS ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING. Jesus. If anything, Clinton was MORE of a liar! His lies MADE US LOSE FAITH! In the oval office, where RONALD REAGAN WOULDN'T EVEN TAKE OFF HIS JACKET!!!!!!!!!!

[Midnight Son]

You fucking shifty liberals, you know DAMN WELL that getting blown in the Oval Office and lying about it is EXACTLY THE SAME as building a foundation of lies in order to kill thousands of people in a foreign land! WAR AND BLOWJOBS ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING. Jesus. If anything, Clinton was MORE of a liar! His lies MADE US LOSE FAITH! In the oval office, where RONALD REAGAN WOULDN'T EVEN TAKE OFF HIS JACKET!!!!!!!!!!

LOL. It SUCKS to be president!

[bmulligan]

WAR AND BLOWJOBS ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING. Jesus. If anything, Clinton was MORE of a liar!

Maybe you should rethink your sarcasm and look up how many 'wars' (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/wh_930629.htm) we fought while Clinton was in office and how many people (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/242.html) died (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/155252.stm) as a result of them. (http://www.usasurvival.org/kosovowar.html)

Fucking liberals love to call righties on memory lapses, yet never admit to any of their own.

[Midnight Son]

Which president accomplished this:

1. Attacked and took over two countries.
2. Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
3. Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
4. Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
5. Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
6. First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
7. First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
8. First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
9. After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
10. Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
11. In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
12. Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
13. Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
14. Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
15. Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
16. Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.
17. Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
18. Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
19. Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
20. Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
21. Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
22. My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
23. Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Exxon oil-tanker named after her).
24. First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
25. Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
26. First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.
27. Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
28. Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
29. First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
30. First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
31. Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
32. Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
33. Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
34. Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
35. First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
36. All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
37. My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
38. Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
39. First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
40. First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
41. First US president to establish a secret shadow government.
42. Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
43. With a policy of 'disengagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
44. Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
45. First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
46. Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
47. Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
48. Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama bin Laden 'dead or alive.'
49. Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capital building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
50. In the 18 months following the 911 attacks, I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
51. Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
52. In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
53. Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

I know it's a long read, but the accomplishments stand on their own.
Thanks to


http://www.weholdthesetruths.org/Articles/resume.htm

[Qenan]

And you obviously didn't vote republican when the embarassment known as Bill Clinton was up for re-election.

No, I didn't. I found the Republican candidates at least as repulsive. But Bush is managing to drive borderline Democrats back to the fold... quite the accomplishment.

As far as Clinton goes... not a guy I admired, but at least he wasn't an idiot.

[Midnight Son]

UPDATE: The Inquirer has received a cease and desist letter from the RNC.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11474

The original article in the Indian Business Standard is still there.

[cyborg]

Everyone should be thinking about point 42 tomorrow.

[Xaroc]

WAR AND BLOWJOBS ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING. Jesus. If anything, Clinton was MORE of a liar!

Maybe you should rethink your sarcasm and look up how many 'wars' (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/wh_930629.htm) we fought while Clinton was in office and how many people (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/242.html) died (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/155252.stm) as a result of them. (http://www.usasurvival.org/kosovowar.html)

Fucking liberals love to call righties on memory lapses, yet never admit to any of their own.

Lending 7k troops to a NATO force and a few targeted air strikes are not the same as LYING to the people of this country about why we were sending 150k troops into Iraq with no international support. If you can't see the difference between the two things then you are an idiot as well as a rightwing lunatic.

-- Xaroc

[quatoria]

WAR AND BLOWJOBS ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING. Jesus. If anything, Clinton was MORE of a liar!

Maybe you should rethink your sarcasm and look up how many 'wars' (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/wh_930629.htm) we fought while Clinton was in office and how many people (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/242.html) died (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/155252.stm) as a result of them. (http://www.usasurvival.org/kosovowar.html)

Fucking liberals love to call righties on memory lapses, yet never admit to any of their own.

Lending 7k troops to a NATO force and a few targeted air strikes are not the same as LYING to the people of this country about why we were sending 150k troops into Iraq with no international support. If you can't see the difference between the two things then you are an idiot as well as a rightwing lunatic.

-- Xaroc

Oh, so you've met BM before, then.

[Midnight Son]

Ah! So it's not just me!

[Midnight Son]

Ah! So it's a double post!

[Midnight Son]

Damn, ya'll. Sorry! :oops:

[XPav]

Note to everyone:

You see that little "X" next to the Edit button when you look at posts? That will delete double posts.