I was talking about the article you posted with no source. sm

• Is Rush for real? - ANON
  • Rush is Right - Rush's Girl
    • You just want to make me puke! If you want to bring Jesus into ...sm - anon
      • I agree. - Marmann
      • Rush is Right Again - Rush's Girl
        • And while they are at it they should check out Obama's... - Observer
    • Rush is a Band... nm - Queenie
      • What you say about his company - Is what you say about society
  • Apparently you have not been wartching the dates... - Observer
  • Rush hates liberals because it is more profitable than - hating conservatives.
    • No he doesn't. sm - Brunson
      • He is a chauvinist, a racist, and a liar, but at - least he is consistent.
        • He is not a racist. sm - Brunson
          • Really? I would hate to see your criteria for racism - Taiga
            • If you want a definition of racism... - Observer
              • we already have a racist in the white house - remember Katrina?
                • Oh good grief.... - Observer
            • Oh, good grief. sm - Brunson
              • Huh? - Taiga
                • I was talking about the article you posted with no source. sm - Brunson
                • Sometimes comments are made tongue in cheek.... - Observer
                  • None of this will matter after December 2012 anyway. - Why waste your time?
                  • I saw the You Tube video of his pastor. sm - Brunson
                    • Nothing will change your mind but others should know. - sm
                    • No way. He didn't say that, did he??? nm - nm
              • Rush has made innumerable inflammatory racial comments - -Libby
                • Read the racist comments of Obama's pastor... - Observer
                  • Racists - Whatever
                    • And you substantiate this ,,, how? - Observer
  • Oh Please. sm - Brunson
    • Two-way street not so equal? - Obama Fan
      • No problem. sm - Brunson

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

that you would root for Chavez over Colin Powell.  Chavez is losing popularity in his own government.  His socialist promises are becoming more and more difficult to see to fruition, just as always happens.  In the end, the entire countries go bankrupt and no one wins. Just as in history.  

Listen to Bowman report

Hugo Chavez gestures during U.N. press conference, Thursday

For the first time in nearly two years, public opinion polls in Venezuela are showing backing for President Hugo Chavez dipping below 50 percent.   But the country's opposition is splintered, disorganized and disengaged.  With presidential elections slated for next year, it remains to be seen whether the populist, self-proclaimed socialist leader will face a real test at the ballot box.

President Chavez' political fortunes have swung wildly in recent years.  In 2002, he was briefly removed from power in a failed coup.  Months later, his approval rating sank to 30 percent during a national strike.

But he came roaring back to crush a recall referendum last year, with official tallies showing nearly 60 percent voting to keep him in office.  As recently as May of this year, his approval rating stood at 70 percent, buoyed by soaring oil revenues and massive expenditures on social programs.

But a poll released earlier this month showed backing for Mr. Chavez at 47 percent.  One opposition leader who is contemplating a presidential bid next year, Caracas newspaper publisher Teodoro Petkoff, says a gap is emerging between the public's expectations and Mr. Chavez' ability to meet them, regardless of how much oil money flows into the country.

Increasingly, demands are being heard from his own political base, demands for results, he said.  This is an indication that too many promises have not been kept.  And while Chavez' message remains popular, satisfaction with his programs is waning.

But Alfredo Keller, who heads the Caracas firm that conducted the survey, says one should not read too much into the recent data showing Chavez-backers slipping below the 50-percent mark.

One could therefore conclude that the opposition is now in the majority, said Mr. Keller.  That is not necessarily so, because those who do not back the government do not necessarily back the political opposition.  Venezuela is divided into three blocks: those who support the government, those who oppose it and those who want nothing to do with the government or the opposition.

On the streets of Caracas, retiree Eva Maldonado says she believes in President Chavez and his promises to help the poor.  But even she says she would like to see a viable opposition in the country.

I think there should be an opposition, because I believe in the democratic process, she said.  I do not believe in single-party rule, but unfortunately the opposition here is weak.

The high point of the opposition's influence came in late 2002, when it launched a national strike that ground the country to a halt for several months.  Yet President Chavez refused to give in to opposition demands that he resign, and the strike eventually crumbled.  After a year of legal battles, the opposition did manage to secure a recall referendum in 2004. 

But political science professor Ricardo Sucre Heredia, who teaches at Venezuela's Central University, says the opposition had no message other than to continue railing against the president.

Why did the opposition lose the referendum?  Because it was incapable of telling people what its program would be, he explained.  People said, 'I will stick with President Chavez because at least I know what he will do.'  People will not support an opposition that does not convey confidence, security, or an idea where the country should be taken.

President Chavez' allies control the legislature, the judiciary, and many local governments.  Professor Sucre Heredia says such a concentration of power can only lead to abuses.

The country is facing the terrible possibility of [Chavez' political] hegemony, of an authoritarian democracy, of the elimination of liberty, of copying the Cuban model - in short, the terrible possibility of a government that does whatever it wants, as it is doing right now, he added.

But President Chavez recently dismissed such concerns in an appearance on state-run television, noting that he was democratically elected nearly seven years ago, that his continued governance was confirmed in 2004, and that the people will have their say once again in presidential elections next year.

Our proposal is a democracy that is not only representative, but also participatory.  And a democracy that advances fundamental human rights, said Mr. Chavez.

As for next year's elections, no one is counting out the opposition.  But even among observers who would like to see a change in government, many wonder whether the opposition will be able to field a candidate with the stature and the resources to forge a campaign that truly challenges the incumbent.

It is from a right-wing pro-war blog called "Politico."  If you read a more non-partisan source you'll find that Murtha added a very large caveat to his comment.

Observer's "facts" would be so much more credible if she would quit posting from right-wing partisan sources.  If I were to repeatedly or constantly post on the Conservative board what I thought was the "truth" and all backed up by far left-wing blogs/publications I don't think I'd get very far and after I while I'd probably try to provide more non-partisan sources for my statements if I wanted to be viewed as the least bit credible.   

She talks about Bush's out of control spending, and she's no liberal!

Bush cut OIL COMPANY PROFITS?  Yeah... right!  Time of crisis or not, they don't care.  I'm no O'Reilly fan, but O'Reilly publicly challenged the oil companies on his show to just voluntarily take a small reduction in PROFITS during this time.  Ain't gonna happen.

For all the conservative posts on our board, I haven't seen ONE who can explain who is going to PAY for all Bush's spending.  I pity the poor person who is the next President and inherits Bush's huge MESS.  If (hopefully) it's a Democrat, you can bet the necons will be trashing him/her from the git-go, calling him/her atheist, drunk, and whatever other libel they invent between now and then.

I'm working as hard as I can because my daughter and her husband won't be able to afford to heat their home this coming winter.  There is no way I'm going to let my grandchildren, daughter and son-in-law freeze, and I'm going to try to help out as much as I can.

I've read where some of the most radical whacko evangelicals with a direct pipeline (no pun) to God blamed Katrina on lack of morals of people in New Orleans.  In the light of Rita, seems to me that God's actually targeting the people controlling the oil rigs.  Maybe God's warning that if we don't quit coveting and trying to steal oil from the Middle East's Gulf, God's going to send in a really BIG storm to destroy the oil rigs in America's Gulf.  Maybe it's God's way of telling Bush that Bush isn't listening to what God has been telling him, that we need to protect and take care of our own, and stop lying and murdering and killing for his own personal gain and that of his cronies.

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but I become very angry at the thought of my family freezing this winter (even though they work hard and are/were considered middle class).  Hopefully, I will be able to help so that doesn't happen, but what about all the other families with children out there?  What happened to conservative family values?  They obviously don't exist if a school choose to CLOSE to conserve fuel, and oil companies keep right on churning and collecting huge profits.

Just like you, I truly hope a revolution is churning.  Someone has to start caring about regular, hard-working, underinsured or uninsured people in this country.  These are the people who are the backbone of this country, the people who do the REAL work, while the fat cats (Bush's base) sit back and get fatter and fatter with Bush's blessings!

Now who am I going to believe?

A newspaper (that you admittedly don't LIKE) or YOU, who obviously knows more than I would ever want to know about skinheads?  You (and your party of lies and deceit) don't have an ounce of credibility, and I'd believe the NYT any day over the ignorant, bigoted, hateful likes of YOU!

In case you haven't noticed, there is a huge controversy over rape and murder of civilian Iraqis.  It certainly makes sense that a neo-nazi skinhead group would carry out these kind of brutal acts with no conscience and without thinking twice. 

Your beloved skinheads are making the rest of our very FINE military look bad, yet you defend these filthy subhumanoids. 

I'm not surprised that you're angry because apparently what was supposed to be a big secret is now being publicized.  I'm also not surprised that you're defending them.  I fully expected some from the other board to reveal their true selves when I posted the article.

You're repulsive.  Go crawl back under the rock you slithered out of.  You're leaving a disgusting slime trail. YUCK! 

This will be my last post to you.  I don't deal with hateful bigots.

Bush vetoes children's health bill a second time

 

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bill expanding a popular children's health-care program for a second time, angering Democrats who are locked in a fight with the administration over the budget and spending.

Pushed by the Democratic-led Congress but also supported by many Republicans, the bill was aimed at providing health insurance to about 10 million children in low- and moderate-income families. Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products would have been increased to pay for the aid.

Bush vetoed an earlier version of the bill in October but Congress quickly passed another one that included some changes but not enough to satisfy the White House concerns.

"Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation too," Bush wrote in a message to the House of Representatives.

The fight between Congress and the White House over the health bill is one in a series of clashes over spending that have arisen this year.

Bush has said the funding level sought by the Democrats for the health program would have expanded it beyond its original intent of covering poor children and marked a step toward government-run health care.

Democrats say the additional money is needed to help families who cannot afford to buy private health insurance but who earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid health care program for the poor.

"This is indeed a sad action for him to take, because so many children in our country need access to quality health care," House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters.

The bill would have provided $60 billion in funding for the children's health program over five years, compared with the current $25 billion five-year funding level.

The tobacco tax increase would raise the levy on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

House Democratic leaders said they will not try to override the veto right away and would vote on a bill to ensure the more than six million kids now in the program can stay enrolled.

(Editing by Todd Eastham)

(Additional reporting by Donna Smith and Richard Cowan)

 xx

who provides campaign funds.  Do you know why lobbyists are making the headlines?  Because they are bribing the politicians of both parties - lobbyists work for private interests (AIPAC) along with the pharmaceutical company ($280.00 for a bottle of pills?  Only in America, folks), oil industry (record profits at your expense) credit card companies and unethical banking procedures (Funny isn't it how Visa wrote the reformed BK bill, making virtually everyone end up in ch 13 (garnishing income, including SS) after raising credit limits and offering transfer balances at 0 percent to everyone with a last name and a roof over their head?  Along with mtgs that were bound to turn into bad loans when house prices dropped which they always do after a bubble.  God, I could go on and on here but I get tired.  The nation is in such trouble.  Serious serious trouble.  There is a huge loan to an unfriendly country (did you watch the Olympics?  did you ever see Bush look more uncomfortable other than during the Stephen Colbert roast during the national press conference.  lol.  

Well I want you to know what fascism.  And I want you to know that those treasury notes are backed up by the taxpayers (you) and real estate including roads and govt buildings and parks.  Have you noticed why Save-Mart Center is owned by savemart and not a community business or the community itself?  There is somethign happening slowly and surely and it is NOT going to benefit middle class america one iota.  You must know that as a poor person, you have no power, no voice.  Elections are rigged and the politicans cease to care whether you like them or not - oh wait, that has already happened. 

THINK ABOUT THIS!!!!  Your 401Ks and investments/assets are what at are stake! 

Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of Soviet-style economic planning measures.^[12] Property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state.^[13].^[14] Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.^[15] Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that they opposed reactionaries, and that they were actually revolutionary political movements that fused with conservative social values.

Sam, this is the same group of people who thought that what Bill did with all those women was okay, or simply a "private" matter.

So nobody in this bunch has ever had a pg teenager?  And if any one of these women here would just throw (that's Demspeak for kill) away a DS baby? It's simply a continuation of what they do is okay and what those nasty conservatives do is just criminal! 

Wow, that's just classy. 

is the NYT, but you can Google the quote and find it in several articles and blogs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html

I'm not sure why you cut and paste far-right-wing-biased sources as the "truth" in your posts on a liberal forum.  In your above post you copied an article from frontpagemag.com and for those who know little about it:

FrontPage Magazine's main focus is on issues pertaining to foreign policy, war, and Islamist terrorism. It regularly condemns official enemies of the U.S. and is a strong proponent of the war on terror, the Iraq War, and Israel's military actions.^{[citation needed]} It has also published articles condemning what it perceives as left-wing organizations and causes, such as the Democratic party, the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations, and other matters.^[

chart.  No footnotes.  No data to support numbers.  Not enough information to verify veracity - disregarded. 

also, moderators have instructed us more than once NOT to copy other websites into posts.  Must use links.  Please abide by the rules.

Huffington Post?  Daily Kos (Kooks)?  Moveon?  Media Matters?

This isn't surprising, just disturbing.