Terror Alert Elevated — Page 7

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#151

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 12:25am

JRB- I was asking an honest question. Republican or Democrat, the highest politicians usually are the richest. That's how it goes.

And DGrant, I live in NJ. And I'm trying my best to study on everything, unfortunately with facts and things, I'm definitely not good at that yet (so y'all can just go and crush me to death in a debate!

). But politics truly intrigues me, and I DO lean to the left on the gay marriage issue, and some other little things.

#152

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 12:41am

Yet THIS administration is the highest paid while losing America millions of jobs. Just peachy!

johnraymondbarker.com

#153

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 12:48am

I won't deny that the unemployment rate last year was high. But that statement just can't be true for this moment. The unemployment rate is getting lower now, and more people are getting employed. Last year the unemployment rate was a little higher than 6%, and it's getting lower now.

And come on now, there are too many factors for unemployment to blame just one, solely. But what else could I expect?

Updated On: 8/3/04 at 12:48 AM

#154

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 12:55am

I love this new trend of "if we say things are getting better and that W is a GREAT President over and over--people will start to believe it!"

Well--I ain't.

johnraymondbarker.com

#155

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 12:58am

Hey, I don't think that he's perfect. Far from.

I'm just sick of all the negativity. JRB, the numbers aren't true now, they were before. I didn't approve of the numbers and the economy then, but I'm glad that the employment rate is rising again. I think that you should be too. It's not perfect, far from, but it's better than the number of jobs plummeting down, isn't it?

And if the unemployment rates get lower and lower, will that have proven to you that GW did something about it? Honestly.

Updated On: 8/3/04 at 12:58 AM

#156

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 1:07am

Darlin', he is doing more than ever on various issues NOW--now that there are only 3 months until the elections.

And getting back to topic: He didn't want the 9/11 Commission to happen and did all he could to not make things easy for it. NOW, he is taking after ideas. Look look look! New cabinet level position! A shiny new orange alert! I'm such a great President!

Did you HEAR his speech today? Moore could include it in a hysterical gag reel of Bushisms. Funny how FOX didn't use clips of his speech, while CNN and MSNBC did. If he wasn't the freaking President, it would be HILARIOUS!

johnraymondbarker.com

#157

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 3:47am

jrb - now, come on - I think he does very well considering his self-acknowledged limitations. As he has said, he is living proof of what you can achieve with a 'C' average.

#158

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 5:30am

Improved employment figures mean little when you realize that the increase is in the area of minimum wage/no benefits/no health care jobs. A low paying job and no health care coverage frequently creates bigger problems for the individual, and is costlier, in the end, to society in general.

Sueleen Gay: "Here you go, Bitch, now go make some fukcing lemonade." 10/28/10

#159

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 6:37am

Iflit's right. I do have one qualm with jrb though. If you are refering to how much the administration is getting paid for doing their jobs, let's take a step back. Compared to what they are doing they are not making much at all. I was well informed of the fact that for the most part politicians are underpaid in my high school Government class. This is part of the reason why we have the rich self serving politicians. Even if a man making a middle class wage wanted to run for office, he wouldn't be able to afford it. Parties seem to be very money driven anymore. When it comes to raising funds who is going to give money to an unknown? Even if a middle class person were to run and get elected, the lifestyle they have to live as a politician is expensive. You have to pay the bills at home, while moving to Washington. In my opinion that is one of the problem's with our government. When you are getting more money from a company you own stock in rather than you get for your job, then your viewpoint is going to tend to be skewed to what is f greater advantage to you rather than what is the right thing to do. My qualm is actually more of a focus on the Congress, but it also carries over to the Executive Branch also.

My avatar is a reminder to myself. I need lots of reminders...

#160

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 7:32am

actually, of the 4 candidates, bush is the "poorest" in terms of net worth.

r.i.p. marco, my guardian angel.

...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty

pray to st. jude

i'm a sonic reducer

he was the gimmicky sort

fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective

#161

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 9:25am

Off topic, but not: Be sure to read the Norman Mailer interview (cover story) in this week's NY Magazine. What he says about the potential for Republican exploitation of demonstrations during the convention is particularly pointed and should be weighed by all. We Democrats have been very smug about the decision to hold the Republican-fest in our backyard. If even one demonstration gets out of hand -- I'm not talking Chicago 68 or Kent State-like tragedy -- and footage is played and replayed in the heartland, Bush and company will be seen as the sane, controlling antedote to anarchy. Once that happens, swing voters ... well, just watch. Keep your eye not on the convention, but the climate outside. Context is everything -- just like the terror alert was the context for Bush's press conf yesterday, of course.

"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling

#162

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 9:29am

Puh-lease, DGrant. What Bush got in Yale was a "gentleman's C." Without his family connections, I wonder how well he would have done. Papa, that's a big part of Bush's "wealth"- his connections and privilege.

#163

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 9:32am

Without his family connections, Plum, he wouldn't have been there in the first place.

#164

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 9:32am

Well, I was trying to be kind, DGrant.

#165

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 9:34am

I don't see that as 'unkind' Plum, I see it as objectively observational. Fact are facts - and like I said, the man himself celebrates his anti-intellectualism.

#166

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 9:35am

Right. Because somehow intellectualism is mutually exclusive with common sense and compassion in his book.

#167

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 9:49am

whyn't ya'll eggheads back off? so georgie boy ain't 'zackly einstein. heck, we had 'nuff cincs who weren't no dang brain serjuns.

#168

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 10:04am

LG, cool it. i didn't write the list, i just rad it and posted the link.

and you've never made a type-o before?

sheesh.

#169

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 10:13am

Papa, I know you're being sarcastic, but I want to address what you said in the literal sense anyway.

I don't want a brain surgeon for President. The smartest people aren't necessarily the ones who can apply that intelligence in a common-sense way, or lead. (I went to a high school for overachievers; I know.) But I do want a President who's informed, and who wants to be informed. Not a guy who thinks that hearing the daily news from his advisers every morning will give him the complete picture.

#170

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 10:26am

i'm curious , plum. are you of the mind that the president of the united states could learn more about the state of the world by reading the ny times or the washington post or watching cnn than he could from briefings by the men and women who are making the news that is being covered?

ya'll are gettin' sucked in a li'l bit by a man who lost an election once 'cuz he got out good ol' boyed and swore it was never gonna happen again. remember he held his own with both ann richards and al gore in debates and despite what ya might think of him, he's not nearly as dumb as he lets on. but i do encourage most democrats to do keep holding that view, because the dumber he's portrayed, the lower the bar is set and the less he has to accomplish to look good against jfk2.

#171

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 10:41am

I do think the bar is set too low for Bush. I don't think he's an idiot in the sense that his mind works slowly and he can't learn things and recall them very well. I do hate the fact that he revels in ignorance, however. And I think people were so amazed he could (sort of) string together a sentence during the debates, they overrated his performance.

I didn't say I wanted Bush to read only the New York Times and Washington Post, papa. (And hon, the Times isn't nearly as liberal as its reputation indicates.) But he might want to try one of them to get some perspective. Myself, I like to look at the Wall Street Journal, too, to get a different point of view. So why shouldn't he try to get different points of view, too? And I don't mean views ranging from neocon to old-style Southern Republican.

I think that by relying completely relying on his advisers for the news, Bush compromises himself. He looks more like a tool of his handlers than ever before. Because what limits you more than having all the information you use to make your decisions come from one source? Why should I believe those decisions are informed? Bush's handlers aren't stupid, either, and they have their own interests and ideologies. So who's President here?

Updated On: 8/3/04 at 10:41 AM

#172

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 10:55am

with regard to the times's reputation, it doesn't help to have the public editor writing columns like this when you want to dissuade people of the impression that it's a liberal paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ex=1091678400&en=873b237d7d56b106&ei=5070

i disagree, plum i just don't think he's going to get information from outside major media sources that's going to change anything. i mean it's not like he's going to read a krugman column in the times and say, "by god, i've been doing this all wrong!" i agree that advisor's have their own agendas but that's why you have advisors within an administration whose job it is to give you a contrarian view.

i disagree with the notion that there's a cabal of advisors spoonfeeding him only what they want him to know and controlling him like a marionette. don't you think that if such a thing were true that there would have been major leaks about this by now? do you really think that someone whose advice as ignored a la richard clarke would not have written a tell all book explaining how he's the dumbest president in history and is totally controlled by the advisors around him. ok, wouldn't more than this have done so? i mean ya had two, basically. and they didn't to my knowledge make that specific accusation that you are.

i just think that with the vast apparatus of the us government at his disposal it would be silly to rely on the newspaper for your news. i mean, i can see it in the situation room, "well general the post says that they have no troops there and they've got mulitple sources! can you prove to me that the satellite imagery that you're showing has not been doctored by one of these evil neo-cons? or how do i know for sure that this is even current? i'm sorry, general, i think you're just going to have to do a little better than this." oh wait, i can see that. in a kerry administration.

#173

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 11:04am

The advisors that aren't listened to have either written their tell-alls, like Clark and O'Neill, or have had too much loyalty to do that. (I suspect Powell might be in this category).

Bush seems to be a man of strong convictions. So maybe his advisors'...um...advice doesn't even affect him that much. But his convictions are big, you know? Things like "lower taxes." And "America has to be seen as big and strong." The details, the reasoning...is that him? Should it be? I guess you'll argue that it shouldn't be, to let the the President take care of the vague broad strokes while others take care of the facts, but I disagree. Maybe Bush is in control after all, because that seems to be the way his Administration goes- not even facts get in the way of their ideological convictions.

I still say Bush should read a paper or two. But I doubt we'll agree on that.

#174

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 11:05am

i don't necessarily need Bush to read a paper - but I wonder, sometimes, if he's ever even read a book.

#175

re: terror alert elevated

Posted: 8/3/04 at 12:31pm

I don't think it is too much to ask that a President be a 'A' student and not a 'C' student. Anytime the man speaks, you can tell he is not the coldest beer in the fridge. If you are proud of that--all the more power to you.

johnraymondbarker.com

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $70

Tickets From $106

Buy Tickets