Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
Open Community
Post to this Blog
1 Nov, 04 > 7 Nov, 04
25 Oct, 04 > 31 Oct, 04
18 Oct, 04 > 24 Oct, 04
11 Oct, 04 > 17 Oct, 04
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
After the election:
How NeoCons Hear
More Spin, Etc.
The After Debate B.S.
The Foreign Version
The Spin Doctors
The Mild Man View

Wednesday, 3 November 2004

The Results: November 3rd, 2004
Mood:  crushed out
Topic: After the election:

The Results: November 3rd, 2004

I give up! We are being told this morning that the guy who never was elected got RE-elected. They campaigned to the weakest minded people here and that states to me that the American People are weak-minded. The mush-mouth from the Bush campaign is saying this morning that the "Democrats and their 527 ads". Anyone with any memory in the United States remembers George Bush's hatchet man, Karl Rove's history. He practically invented 527 ads, he used them against Gore when the Democrats were trying to be nice and NOT do negative campaigning. I am so sick of this. I feel like I might either committ suicide or else move to Canada to watch this country self-destruct under it's own weight. I am going to be doing a whole lot of "I told you so's" in the coming months as the stock market plummets. The global test John Kerry talked about hasn't been felt yet. When all the foreign lenders let us flounder, when we need the loans the most because of all the idiotic spending on the "Iraq War" which is actually us trying to help a small group of Bush supporters in Iraq against the "revolutionaries" that Bush/Cheney are calling terrorists.

I am going to end this blog and start another about the future. I was told last night by the president that now America must set about the task of healing. I don't remember anything being able to heal about jobless economies after a certain point. They flounder. I am sad to see this election turn out this way, although I am proud to see that John Kerry is able to be so gracious about it. If I could talk to him right now, I would only say, "Thank You." I feel we owe him for fighting a brutal campaign machine and giving them a run for the money. And I want to give everyone credit, so if I forget anyone, please email me at and I will add them to the list. So, here goes:

  1. To the young African-American kids that went out of their way to show up at the polls, "Thank You."
  2. To all the people who curtailed the poll watchers, "Thank You."
  3. To all the people who made phone calls and distributed fliers, "Thank You."
  4. To the rock stars who helped the campaign, to Howard Stern, to Al Franken, to Bill Mahr, and the rest of the celebrities, "Thank You."
  5. To EVERYONE who stepped in the ring and took this beating in order to win this race, I would like to say once again, "Thank You."
  6. And last but definitely not least, I want to say thanks to all the people like Karl Rove that made sure that the election was once again "not available" to about 30 percent of Democrats based on their skin color or social status. You are responsible for winning at any cost, which means you are liars and not to be trusted for any reason. You threw away the registrations of Democrats who wanted to vote against you, you moved the polling places without notice to anyone but your own party, and you used the church to influence your actual voters. You taught your voters to register and vote more than once in the states that don't require I.D. and allowed Illegal Aliens to vote. You are the backbone of the Republican party and prove that the only way you can win is to cheat. Thank you for showing your true colors.

Posted by azmildman_1 at 7:23 AM MST | Post Comment | View Comments (4) | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 30 November 2004 9:58 AM MST

Tuesday, 2 November 2004

Emperor's New Clothes
Emperor's New Clothes

Why Can't Republicans Answer A Question?

Every problem I see on the news, in the final moments before the election, stem from the fact that neither party can answer a straight question, at times. But, the Republicans have the hardest time. Every time I heard the question about jobs asked, or for that matter, any other domestic problem, they tried to say we don't understand the situation and that there is so much involved in the "equation" that we just don't understand the way they see it and that we are supposed to look at it "Their Way". We are talked to with a condescending attitude and treated as if we are too dumb to understand. WRONG!

Politicians that tell you that you should look at it from their perspective have forgotten who is working for who. It is another case of "The Emperor's New Clothes". If we look at it from the tailor's perspective, who by the way is a crook, then the emperor is wearing beautiful clothes that we just aren't all sophisticated enough to see. And the people who don't want to be seen as stupid, mainly because they fear that they are, tell us that they see them in every detail. If we see it from a simple, realistic perspective, then, he is naked. You decide.

Do you want to be told HOW to look at things or see them from your perspective. "Post 9/11" thinking is also known as "Fear Based Terror". The I.R.S. calls that 'voluntary compliance', being scared so bad that you are afraid to do anything but cooperate, without questioning anything. I don't know about you, but immediately after the 9/11 attacks and when everything was settling down, I remember being told that we should go on with our lives. I remember being told that the only way the terrorists win is if we allow them to control our lives in fear. George Bush's reaction to the latest Bin Laden video was to say that we aren't going a allow a terrorist to dictate how we act. So, if that is so, then, why is there a fear based "Post 9/11" mentallity being propagated by the same people who told us to go on with our lives?

If you think that is the proper way to conduct business, then you must agree that so is Armed Robbery. It is the same principle. Give up my freedom and all my rights? Give up all my money? Give up my posessions? OK! Thanks for not shooting me. It is still a form of extortion. When I ask a question I want an answer, and I want the solution implemented, not just taken under advisement and discussed during an election year. Don't give me long dissertations when I ask a Yes or No question. Don't answer my question with a question or ask me to look at it in an unrealistic manner. Answer the damn question. NOW!

Posted by azmildman_1 at 1:04 AM MST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 2 November 2004 7:13 AM MST

Saturday, 30 October 2004

You Can Run But You Can't Hide
Mood:  quizzical
You Can Run But You Can't Hide!

You Can Run But You Can't Hide

Hey George Bush! Guess What? The Last Guy You Said That To Did Run and Hide.

OK, let me just say this first, last week 20,000 people filed for unemployment which shows the previous B.S. about employment has been false, but the news media skipped right over that story, as the "American Terrorist" video was displayed. I personally have a few suspicions that the white house set that up to scare people into believing they needed anti-terrorist help from the white house, although, he didn't sound serious to me. I think the following was Osama's reaction to let us know that the statements made by the fake terrorist didn't effect him at all, because they conflicted.

Osama Bin Ladin, Usama Bin Ladin, Osama Bin Laden, I don't know his name anymore I have seen it written all of these ways, although the picture of the wall outside their building in Michael Moores movie 'Fahrenheit 9/11' said Bin Ladin, which is different from what most national news papers wrote.

Recently, there was a public statement made by Osama Bin Ladin, let me tell you my take on what he said. First, let me say that we all should have read his first statement on December 26th, 2001, but I think the media suppressed it somewhat.

Now, what he said recently on his newest video was: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda," bin Laden said in the video. "Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." Which makes me wonder, if we aren't attacking them, who are we attacking?

Bin Laden said he decided to attack the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 1982 after the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, which he claimed was backed by the U.S. Navy.Which is news to me, I don't remember hearing about this from the white house.

"And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same," he said, "and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children."

Quote from "In the al Qaeda leader's video, bin Laden wore a gold robe and white cloak and said the attacks were the result of U.S. foreign policy in Arab lands, referring specifically to Lebanon and the Palestinians, and later mentions both Bush and Kerry." This was like saying, "Hey, I'm fine, you haven't come close to capturing or even seeing me, so I am telling you what to do, and I am NOT negotiating."

Posted by azmildman_1 at 10:08 PM MDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 31 October 2004 12:14 AM MDT

George Bush, Watch Your Dad's Lips!
George Bush, Watch Your Dad's Lips!

George Bush, Watch Your Dad's Lips!

I would like to once again point out that George Bush, Sr. and George Bush, Jr. are two completely different people. Yesterday's news reports show us George Bush assuring America that there WILL be a draft. Then he says there WON'T be a draft. He isn't flip-flopping, he just forgets what his handlers told him to say. I imagine that is going to be a kind of crucial thing for foreign diplomacy. His dad went to foreign countries and hob-knobbed with foreigh dignitaries and rulers. If you can imagine a summit meeting where he says one thing, and as the people he is meeting with, who don't trust us now, anyway, see him change his position when he realises he just pissed them off. His interpreter would have to be told, "You will have to edit what he says, he can't speak English very well."

It is hard to believe the amount of kids who are already well versed in Republican Rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality. There is a teenager who has written a book on How College Liberalizes Students. This is what I see. It was written in Lawrence Britt's "Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism".
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

Anyone who ever heard the banter of the "Young Republicans" in the sixties should be scared. Brainwashed banter at that time included the "duck and cover" method of protecting our children from an atomic blast. These people told us that if one ducked down quickly on the floor (Isn't this assuming that one has time and was notified soon enough that the bomb was going to hit?) and kneeled on all fours, covering one's head that this method of covering up would save him/her from a blast, that would irradiate (turn into a glowing ash) the wall next to the child. Oh, Yeah! I believe that one.

MSNBC, yesterday, October 19, 2004 reported: "...WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday asked Congress to reject an attempt by Republican leaders in the House to place in an intelligence reorganization bill some anti-illegal immigration measures that Democrats say they won't support." Once again, we are seeing what George Bush wants isn't the same as what most Republicans want to use to protect us from threats. He evidently doesn't think ahead and ask himself questions like, "Could a terrorist pass himself off as an illegal alien / Mexican in order to gain entrance to the United States?" Why does he block his own party's legislation? Obviously, this is again his one-sighted attempt to block any legislation that might conflict with his own plans that he derived to try to pander to the Hispanic population for political reasons.

I am now convinced that George Bush couldn't find Osama Bin Laden if the guy was sitting in his lap.

Posted by azmildman_1 at 9:18 PM MDT | Post Comment | Permalink

Monday, 25 October 2004

Now Playing: 380 Tons of Explosives
380 Tons of Explosives

380 Tons of Explosives

Remember the part about how George Bush never makes mistakes? He is living through watching his own words become the self-destructing force in his career. His dad, of course can see nothing wrong in anything his son does. Unbelievable, I used to respect George Bush, Sr. He should realize that his son, George, is becoming the Billy Carter of the Bush family. Jeb Bush follows his brother around, their relatives are in charge of reports and most of the programming at Fox news. Fox News is still calling themselves fair and balanced. I just watched a debate in which the moderator, who should be impartial, and two other conservatives treated the one Democrat on the show with condescending remarks while cutting Senator Kerry down using fictitious scenarios. I imagine they did this in order to act like they are being political satirists. Although their grammar school level humor isn't humorous. I like to laugh, but all they do is insult, since they haven't got a point or a defensable position.

The Republicans and Neocon spin doctors on the news are trying to downplay how important the 380 tons are when one pound can blow up airplane. It isn't important because 400 Tons were destroyed? As usual, when it has to do with Kerry, including an innocent remark or for that matter, any remark, he is being treasonous, but when George Bush ignores everything from the FBI report entitled, "Osama Bin Ladin planning to attack the United States", that detailed the use of planes, as weapons to this obvious blunder with the explosives, they are unimportant to pay attention to. How the hell does that work?

Let me lay it out for you in detail. When president after president tries to create more jobs than were lost, and George Bush doesn't, that doesn't seem to matter to the uninformed. When George Bush does anything wrong, they act like everything is OK, and anyone who doesn't agree is Un-American. Then, when he tries to allow more Mexicans than Americans support on employment, that is OK. When George Bush thinks outsourcing American jobs is a good thing, they think that is OK. When George Bush messes with overtime for more than 650,000 American workers and causes dissent and problems with unions in the United States, that is OK. What does he have to do to be NOT OK? With Bill Clinton, it was a blowjob, they acted if it was a matter of national security, but, George Bush can attack another country under false circumstances and after learning the intelligence was wrong, then act like no mistakes were made, IT ISN'T OK! I am still wondering how come he ever got away with the suspicious circumstances for his election in 2000. Please vote for a return to reason in the U.S. Thanks.

Posted by azmildman_1 at 6:03 PM MDT | Post Comment | Permalink

Conservative Christians

Conservative Christians/Evangelical Christians

Is either presidential candidate someone the Christian Church can say is an example of how Christians live? Let's look at the ads put out by either campaign. The Republicans attack Kerry's personality, although none of the things they say are provable. The Democrats attack George Bush based on his past record. One has been proven to be lying, one is public record. Do you think that ALL Christians are for excommunication of gay people all over the country? Up to you. You decide. The Republicans try to advertise in Churches across the United States. Is that acceptable? You decide. I would like to ask you a simple question that comedian Bill Mahr made about the "church and state" issue, "When did the Republican Party buy the Christian Church?" On our Christian Music Stations we get conservative propaganda that has nothing to do with Christianity. According to the bible a holy war is waged after the people decide. There are too many other variable alterior motives to the war in Iraq. Do we have to stay there? I guess so. We are already there and we would leave in disgrace, like we did in Viet Nam. Should we have gone there? That's a different question. President Bush, Sr. chose not to go. He gave specific reasons why it would never work. We can't play God and change the whole world to make them live up to our standards. If we learned anthing by the Golden Rule, from Jesus's statement to "...Let those among you without sin cast the first stone...", from his replacing the guard's ear that one of Jesus own followers cut off as that same guard was marching Jesus to the place where they would execute him by crucifying him, Jesus chose to walk his own path of forgiveness and "keeping his own house in order" instead of using resentment for others' transgressions to act angrily towards his own murderers.

As most of you may have noticed, Senator Kerry never mentions his own spiritual or religious affiliations and feelings. There is a reason why there is a division between Church and State. Most people realize that if there isn't, it is not a knock on the church's influence on politics, it is a matter of politician’s influence on Religion. When that starts happening, we are going to see a whole new nation, based on the government running the Church.

Is it our job to play God, either here in the United States or in foreign countries in order to get even with the guys who, like George Bush says, "These are the people who tried to kill my daddy"? You decide. The latest ads put out by the Bush campaign is worse than any of the 527 ads have been so far. It is completely off the issues and pure "Scare Tactic" because George Bush can't run on his record. Then George Bush tries using us Christians by professing to be led by us, as a moral shield to hide behind, in administrating a "Messianic Complex". From what I have seen, George Bush has made up his own mind about what he wants to do based on his own self-will, then tries to get us to support it. The scary thing is, it works. But, then again, Hitler was able to get the German people to love and follow him. I, in no way wish to compare Hitler to George Bush, Hitler had more class and Hitler covered up his agenda on knowledgeable sounding, well spoken speeches.

Posted by azmildman_1 at 12:01 AM MDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 12 July 2009 4:42 PM MDT

Tuesday, 19 October 2004

What Part of NO Did You Not Understand?
Mood:  irritated

What Part of NO Did You NOT Understand?

Republicans seem to think repeating the same lies, that have already been proven to be lies, somehow makes them truths. "If enough of us repeat this, it will make it so." No, that is called being delusional. In mass, being delusional doesn't make it alright, it's still delusional. Now they are relying on the wonderful personality of Dick Cheney to save them (if he can keep from having heart failure during the debate), along with the same part he has been the worst on. He, like George Bush, still talks about Saddam Hussein as if he attacked us on 9/11. In a recent speech, Cheney repeatedly stated that the attack of Saddam Hussein on 9/11 was a great blow to our country. While talking about Iraq during the debate, George Bush said, "We were attacked by the enemy." That is delusional. Also, I just heard another concern for Black Americans. African American men who are concerned that they already have a higher rate of unemployment better think about the fact that the Bush administration has already encouraged outsourcing jobs, tried to ruin unions, and abolished overtime for several hundred thousand Americans.

Does anyone believe that George Bush, with at least 3 supreme court justices who are ready to retire, and knowing that the next president is going to appoint their replacements, is going to appoint justices that favor Affirmative Action? With Affirmative action coming up for reapproval, with the supreme court appointments drawing near, and the election coming close for a choice between a president who has been bad for employment and someone who has a record of trying to favor middle class workers, who do you think you should vote for? The Rich Guy Favoring President or the Middle Class Favoring President?

I have one request for the spin doctors in this whole deal. It is just this, "Pick a lane!" I can't believe one week they are demanding that polls showing George Bush in the lead are like the ten commandments, engraved in stone, no doubt a sure easy win (Would the words "slam dunk" be rubbing it in too hard?) and the following week, after the debates when George Bush looked like the angry little weenie that he is, and the polls shifted radically in Kerry's favor, they are saying that polls don't really show anything that matters.

Saddam Hussein was a crazy man, he was a sick person, the world is better off with him in jail. BUT, he still didn't attack us. So, since Saddam was so easy to arrest, the job of taking him out of power is over. So, why are we asking what the plan is? We should be asking for a new plan. The old one isn't working and "staying the course" in the wrong direction isn't helping. First, I believe the "Axis of Evil" is pretty much Rhetoric. For a poker player, the whole idea to reading your opponent is to read his body language. If you look at the debate and understand that the player who leans forward to speak to you is unsure of what he is doing. The one who leans away is sure of himself. The player who bets while looking you in the eye is trying to convince you of something he is not sure of, the player who throws his money in the pot and doesn't bother to look at you holds the strong hand and is sure of himself.

Today, finally, someone connected to the white house is admitting they made two major mistakes. They didn't send enough troops and didn't contain the violence back then. No Kidding, but what are we going to do to correct it? More of the same.

On another subject, I want to talk to you about advertising. I don't just mean the 527 ads that George Bush says he doesn't like, even though he and Karl Rove thrive on using them to further Bush's career. Think about this; that is advertising and the same type of people who sell you cigarettes, alcohol, and other common items which are legal in the U.S. despite the harm they do people, are selling you a president also. I studied advertising a long time ago, but I remember the principles behind it. Take any item and create a market, convince people that they need this item, and sell, sell, sell. If you can get a customer hooked on most things for 2 weeks, they are hooked. There is an old question that is asked by people who have been able to admit they were hooked on something not good for them. The question is, "How do you create a habit?" The answer is, "Repeat an act." If you say, hear, or do anything enough times it is engrained in you from now on.

So, I bring you to Advertising 101. If you repeat the same thing over and over again, some people will believe it. To say that the 527 ads are bad but then not admit the rest of the advertising is hogwash is being naiive. I don't mean the 'front on attack' type advertising. I mean the sideways advertising. When Rush Limbaugh writes books advertising Republican ideas, he is advertising. When Sean Hannity spends time explaining the right point of view in his opinion (I want to add that his opinion somehow mysteriously sounds like it was written by the same people Karl Rove uses to advertise his candidate. Do you think that is a coincidence?), then he is advertising. When George Bush sells a CD entitled "Faith" (which I will get to later), it is advertising. Now, here is the lesson:
Do you remember what I said about creating a market? Are they selling you something you wouldn't ordinarily want, in order to convince you that their product (in this case, a presidential candidate). If you already needed something, no one would have to advertise it. Word of mouth advertising, from creating a good product, is the best advertising there is. It stands for truth. That is why the soft money contributions, 527 ads, and all the rest of the corruption involved with modern campaigns is phenomenal.

One more thought. Let me say one thing about the word faith. Faith is an interesting word which I have studied because of my own personal quest for spiritual growth. Faith, as it is defined in the dictionary, means "...Belief in something without the need of proof." When you are talking about a spiritual deity who is flawless and not possessing human qualities, frailties, and weaknesses it is possible to believe without need of proof. But; when you are talking about a reason to to to war, when you are talking about a reason to vote for a leader who has made mistakes and doesn't admit them, or for that matter, when you are talking about any type of human being, asking one to have faith is not belief without need of proof, it is asking you to believe "despite" proof to the contrary.

Posted by azmildman_1 at 10:26 AM MDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 10:37 AM MDT

Sunday, 17 October 2004

Even More Spin!
Mood:  sad
Topic: The After Debate B.S.


Ralph Nader's campaign has been supported by the Republican Party. His whole party is being supported by crooks who haven't seen that registering to vote as "Mickey Mouse, John Kerry, etc." and registering under fictitious names with fictitious addresses is illegal as well as just plain WRONG. He insists he is running a separate platform, although some of the things he says are merely re-worded stances that John Kerry has already made. He is splitting the ticket on purpose and if the misguided persons who are supporting his actions in the name of "doing things our way" would look closely at who is supporting him (RNC party funded).

Now, the whole voter registration disenfranchisement thing is off and running. Florida was already trying to use the ficticious "suspected felons" list again and after a lawsuit by the news media was proven to have listed mostly democrats who have never been arrested. Not only have the Republicans been trying to do that again, they also got caught actually hiring people who would throw away anyone's registration if they registered as a democrat. How low will they go now?

The fact that extra stem cell research MIGHT have an impact on quadrapalegics is enough for anyone who asks themselves conscieniably, "Is it OK that stem cells are not being harvested from a fetus that was going to be discarded, anyway, so some neocon can act like he did the right thing, even though he is lying?" Someone who realises that these fetuses are going to be discarded anyway has to answer, whether a right to life advocate or not, "NO!" The same people who are trying to twist the idea of whether or not this was an issue, but once again, I have the question, "Why did you wait until an election year to "ACT" like you give a damn?"

Recently John Edwards made the statement that people like Christopher Reeves, (The actor who died after being stricken quadrapalegic after a riding accident.) would eventually be able to get up and walk if Kerry wins the presidency and removes the restrictions that George Bush has put on Stem Cell Research. Dick Cheney said that the statement was made that "Everyone in a wheelchair would get up and walk if John Kerry is elected." Once again Dick Cheney, who actually runs the White House more than his President, lied to make another photo op moment that will haunt him later on. This is another smoke screen. The fact that President Bush has restricted stem cell research, which is finishing off all hope of a significant amount of avenues for research is what was in question and continuing to STAY THE COURSE on a wrong turn is not even a smart thought. The whole issue for President Bush is based around "fetuses" being a living human being surrounding the "right to life" and moralistic catholic vote he is trying to pander to.

If President Bush really cared about human life and considered it a sacred thing he wouldn't have had more death sentences carried out under his watch as Governor than ANY OTHER GOVERNOR of the entire history of the state of Texas. Think about what that means. We are talking about TEXAS, where the judges are allowed to sentence "suspects" that are convicted to sentences as long as "two hundred years and a day". With the recent controversy over the amount of people who were wrongly accused of a murder and executed before the law could give them their right to appeal, this shows a complete lack of understanding that one might be the "W" word (wrong). In Texas, if one is accused and convicted of murdering someone and the prosecution can prove three credible eyewitnesses, then, that person is sent straight to the head of the line on the "waiting to be executed" list. They don't wait for years on death row, they don't wait in line, they are excuted immediately. As the comedian Ron White joked, "Most states are trying to abolish the death penalty, my state put in an express lane." And it also means that those actions that we see in the movies where (a) the Governor calls at the last minute to give a stay of execution, (b) that part in the movie where they find out that the guy, who has already experienced prison rape and had his family torn apart over a false charge, needs to be released and given compensation, and we, through the magic of Hollywood, get to have a renewal of faith in the system, and in the real world, that will never come. Houston, Texas, the handgun fatality capital of the world, allows drunk people to keep their gun near them in a bar while drinking. Their idea of checking the gun "behind" the bar is to allow them to pull it from their shoulder holster, pull the hammer back so it is ready for action, and then set it in the drink well on top of the bar to the rear.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone can, after listening to the debate, listen to George Bush and not consider him a liar. His statements were:

  1. "He says, 'Wrong war, Wrong time, Wrong place'... ." That was never said by Senator Kerry and John Kerry even stated that he thought "The WAY" we went to war was wrong. But, "...wrong war, wrong time, wrong place..." are George Bush quotes. (Hmmm, freudian slip? Accidental self-appraisal?)
  2. When Senator Kerry had stated that the president had made the statement that Osama Bin Laden was no longer a priority, George Bush said, "I never said that." Anyone who has watched the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" have seen the two statements the president made. First, "Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." George Bush, Sept. 13, 2001
    and then,
    "I don't know where he is. I have no idea & I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George Bush, March 13, 2002
  3. Just about anything President Bush says since the debate, starting the sentence with the words, "My opponent says...", when investigated closely, is seen for what it is, a lie.
  4. President Bush tried to sound like a nice guy at the end of the debates, complimenting Senator Kerry, in order to look like his attitude is saying, "Well, we might disagree, but we do respect each other." It reminds me of J.R. Ewing of the hit T.V. series "Dallas" after he got caught doing another underhanded, dishonest, backstabbing move to try to gain monetary or just plain selfish ends, saying, "Well, no hard feelings", even though he was trying to destroy his supposed 'friend'.

I can't believe the claims that everything one says during the political debate is an issue. The Republicans act like any truth said about them (obviously the truth is offensive to them) is "evil" although their fervor for lying, twisting, and spinning any few words said by an opposing party member are a whole sentence. This is called "TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT". E.G. If I said, "The lives of the American people are at risk of seeing a financial collapse in the next four years if the current fiscal policies are continued", and some spin doctor decided to quote, "The lives of the American people are at risk...", and suggested that I was trying to infer that we were in danger of atomic war, that is how taking things out of context is lying.

Today we hear that some soldiers in Iraq have refused to do their fueling duties in order to save their own lives, for fear that it was a suicide mission. I would be afraid to do just about anything in Iraq right now, as the same kind of people who ordered the prison abuse, are in charge. Does that show foresight and planning? Does that show that they care about the soldiers themselves, to say nothing of legallities and moral wrong doing? NO!

Some are saying that anything done to get the job done is OK and they are reassuring the rest of us that everything is OK in the white house. If you are one of those people who look at a flat tire and look at it as being OK, since it's only flat on the bottom, then, you might believe them. Some people tell us that disagreeing with anything they say, no matter how crazy they are acting, is "un-American". The say we "need" to give up our most important rights in order to be free. I don't need to hear much more. The fact that they already have been lying constantly is enough to get me to not trust what they say.



Posted by azmildman_1 at 6:27 PM MDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 12 July 2009 5:01 PM MDT

The British View of Iraq
Mood:  quizzical
Topic: The Foreign Version
According to the BBC, the British are reluctant to in redeploy troops into Iraq. They have been rather upset with the American "...Heavy Handed" manner of dealing with Iraqi civilians, who are said to be getting more and more tired, by the day, of us being in Iraq. The British are afraid that the Iraqi will be blamed for our behavior.

Posted by azmildman_1 at 3:41 AM MDT | Post Comment | Permalink

Friday, 15 October 2004

Hey Wolf Blitzer, Get A Clue!
Mood:  irritated
Topic: More Spin, Etc.

Hey Wolf Blitzer, Get A Clue!

Hey Wolf, what is wrong with you? You are trying to spin the polls by polling the military? Who do they get their information from? George Bush. Who do they hear from on a regular basis? George Bush. Who has been their only commander and chief? George Bush. So, who are they going to trust, since they don't have ANY OTHER FRAME OF REFERRENCE? But, as you were told, the military doesn't think EITHER candidate has a plan to win the peace and get them out of Iraq.

So, once Again, let's ask ourselves the question: "Who do they hear about John Kerry from?" And the answer is, "George Bush." And even though we know all this, they are serving under the present commander and chief and who else don't they trust to keep them from being in an unnecessarily long war? So, the final question is, "Who is it they don't trust because of his past history serving under him?" And once again the answer is, "GEORGE BUSH!"

Posted by azmildman_1 at 10:35 AM MDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 15 October 2004 11:22 AM MDT

Newer | Latest | Older