Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

This is washington at its worst

Posted By: icydigits on 2009-02-10
In Reply to: American's don't mind "porky" amendments! - Backwards typist

What an absolutely lying piece of garbage this guy is. The dems want to pass all their little pork projects at the tax payers expense. He certainly is not going to be paying any in taxes for this...WE ARE!!! I'm sick of crooked politicians getting up saying... the American people don't care. The American people want this or don't want that, when it's a blatant lie. News flash...he doesn't care about the American people. He should be among the top to be thrown out of DC. Talk about the ol BP rising today.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

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


Other related messages found in our database

If they want to believe the worst, let them.
Toxic, just toxic.
bush the worst

Maybe not the worst in US history...
US Grant had lots of problems with the whole Teapot Dome scandal brought on by his best friends - great General, poor President. The list goes on and I'm sure one day Bush will be added to it, but I'm not sure he deserves the title of Worst.
ACK! My worst nightmare!
That was just mean, LOL.
Even the worst of ideas

and plans that don't and won't work can be presented eloquently and there certainly will be people dumb enough to believe that those ideas and plan will actually work.  This is all a bunch of fluff to get elected.  Obama does give hope....it is called FALSE HOPE! 


NOBAMA!!!!


WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.

That's most of Washington - he will fit right in
LOL
LOL I don't think I'd be too welcome in Washington.

We sent them to Washington............sm
and we can bring them home again. I say vote out every Congressman up there....regardless of his/her record....Ted Kennedy included.


VOTE FOR BUSH--As the worst!!!
338 OF 415 HISTORIANS SAY G.W.B.

IS THE FAILING AS A PRESIDENT- DO YOU AGREE?*

An overwhelming 338 of 415 historians polled by George Mason University
said Friday that George W. Bush is failing as a president. And fifty of
them rated Bush as the worst president ever, ranking him above (below?)
any other past president - even those you've never heard of who were
also really awful. Why do these misguided, obviously-socialist,
ivy-smoking and - of course -American-hating intellectuals feel that Bush isn't
doing his best?

Well, they look at the record ...

# He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend
and foe alike in the process;
# He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive
military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;
# He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and
state;
# He has repeatedly misled, to use a kind word, the American people
on affairs domestic and foreign;
# He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and
foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);
# He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of
pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;
# He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;
# He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems,
corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

Quite an indictment. Perhaps it is too early to evaluate a president -
or is it?


The Worst President in History? sm

The Worst President in History?


One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush






George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.


Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a failure. Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's pursuit of disastrous policies. In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.


The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.


Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about the current crop of history professors than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.


Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt -- about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.) Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.


The Republicans' worst nightmare --

Honest voting machines.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/ELECTRONIC_VOTING_LAWSUITSITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Iraq Progresses To Some Of Its Worst

WASHINGTON, Dec 29 (IPS) - Despite all the claims of improvements, 2007 has been the worst year yet in Iraq.

One of the first big moves this year was the launch of a troop "surge" by the U.S. government in mid-February. The goal was to improve security in Baghdad and the western al-Anbar province, the two most violent areas. By June, an additional 28,000 troops had been deployed to Iraq, bringing the total number up to more than 160,000.

By autumn, there were over 175,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. This is the highest number of U.S. troops deployed yet, and while the U.S. government continues to talk of withdrawing some, the numbers on the ground appear to contradict these promises.

The Bush administration said the "surge" was also aimed at curbing sectarian killings, and to gain time for political reform for the government of U.S.-backed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

During the surge, the number of Iraqis displaced from their homes quadrupled, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent. By the end of 2007, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that there are over 2.3 million internally displaced persons within Iraq, and over 2.3 million Iraqis who have fled the country.

Iraq has a population around 25 million.

The non-governmental organisation Refugees International describes Iraq's refugee problem as "the world's fastest growing refugee crisis."

In October the Syrian government began requiring visas for Iraqis. Until then it was the only country to allow Iraqis in without visas. The new restrictions have led some Iraqis to return to Baghdad, but that number is well below 50,000.

A recent UNHCR survey of families returning found that less than 18 percent did so by choice. Most came back because they lacked a visa, had run out of money abroad, or were deported.

Sectarian killings have decreased in recent months, but still continue. Bodies continue to be dumped on the streets of Baghdad daily.

One reason for a decrease in the level of violence is that most of Baghdad has essentially been divided along sectarian lines. Entire neighbourhoods are now surrounded by concrete blast walls several metres high, with strict security checkpoints. Normal life has all but vanished.

The Iraqi Red Crescent estimates that eight out of ten refugees are from Baghdad.

By the end of 2007, attacks against occupation forces decreased substantially, but still number more than 2,000 monthly. Iraqi infrastructure, like supply of potable water and electricity are improving, but remain below pre-invasion levels. Similarly with jobs and oil exports. Unemployment, according to the Iraqi government, ranges between 60-70 percent.

An Oxfam International report released in July says 70 percent of Iraqis lack access to safe drinking water, and 43 percent live on less than a dollar a day. The report also states that eight million Iraqis are in need of emergency assistance.

"Iraqis are suffering from a growing lack of food, shelter, water and sanitation, healthcare, education, and employment," the report says. "Of the four million Iraqis who are dependent on food assistance, only 60 percent currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."

Nearly 10 million people depend on the fragile rationing system. In December, the Iraqi government announced it would cut the number of items in the food ration from ten to five due to "insufficient funds and spiralling inflation." The inflation rate is officially said to be around 70 percent.

The cuts are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, and have led to warnings of social unrest if measures are not taken to address rising poverty and unemployment.

Iraq's children continue to suffer most. Child malnutrition rates have increased from 19 percent during the economic sanctions period prior to the invasion, to 28 percent today.

This year has also been one of the bloodiest of the entire occupation. The group Just Foreign Policy, "an independent and non-partisan mass membership organisation dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy," estimates the total number of Iraqis killed so far due to the U.S.-led invasion and occupation to be 1,139,602.

This year 894 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, making 2007 the deadliest year of the entire occupation for the U.S. military, according to ICasualties.org.

To date, at least 3,896 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defence.

A part of the U.S. military's effort to reduce violence has been to pay former resistance fighters. Late in 2007, the U.S. military began paying monthly wages of 300 dollars to former militants, calling them now "concerned local citizens."

While this policy has cut violence in al-Anbar, it has also increased political divisions between the dominant Shia political party and the Sunnis – the majority of these "concerned citizens" being paid are Sunni Muslims. Prime Minister Maliki has said these "concerned local citizens" will never be part of the government's security apparatus, which is predominantly composed of members of various Shia militias.

Underscoring another failure of the so-called surge is the fact that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad remains more divided than ever, and hopes of reconciliation have vanished.

According to a recent ABC/BBC poll, 98 percent of Sunnis and 84 percent of Shias in Iraq want all U.S. forces out of the country. (END/2007)


Here's the stark truth about the war. 


Can someone explain to me please why in all communications about the war in Iraq, both for and against, they never speak of how many Al Qaeda are being eliminated during this continued fighting in Iraq?  Considering that this would be the ONLY plausible reason why we should continue with it, if we were actually making headway against Islamic extremism and the Al Qaeda network?  Furthermore, why in the last six months or so has the media started referring to the "insurgents" as Al Qaeda with no clarification whatsoever? 


This is very telling isn't it?  If we are not fighting the terrorists anymore, why is our military still putting their lives on the line?


I believe this is because they are no longer there, considering that there was a very small faction there to begin with.


Considering that the Bush administration is losing what is left of their reputation continuing this war against AL Qaeda in Iraq, is it so far fetched to see media manipulation in the fact that now all of a sudden the American media is sprouting headlines about Al Qaeda being the cause of Bhutto's death without any proof whatsoever but based on wishful thinking and supposition?  When in reality Musharraf has the most to gain from her death?  Especially if it is lauded that Al Qaeda is behind her death, this lends to solidity that Bush will not withdraw US funds from Pakistan if it is thought that Al Qaeda is behind Bhutto's death, perhaps Musharraf asking for MORE funds and getting them from the Bush administration to fight Al Qaeda (supposedly) in Pakistan.


Manipulation at its highest level.


She or McCain is the worst thing that
could happen to this country.  If she or McCain gets in the WH, we are done, gonzo, and the middle class' problems will be magnified.  Get ready people.  There is something in the air with the Clintons.  Scary stuff, and not at all democratic society we knew before 9/11/01.  Obama took all of them by surprise, that the people are in some way rebelling from the present way things are done in Wash. Now they don't know what to do about him.  Scary.for Obama too.
This is not just distraction politics at its worst.
Hurricane country does not need to be getting its instructions in sound bytes between hours of distractions. The time to start preparations is NOW, not the day before the hurricane.
Thank you - Intolerance is the worst religion of all
x
Why do you always expect the worst? You call sm
yourself an independant and I have not seen anything to convince me that is true. You spew such venom toward anything that the democrats do and keep repeating false information that you have heard somewhere, probably FOX news, I could be wrong, without ever investigating to any depth yourself to see if it is 100% true or not. Spin doctors spin in both parties, I think you need to recognize this and think and investigate for yourself if you truly consider yourself an independent.
Okay. On his worst day, Obama is 10 times the
And his best days are 'way, 'way BEHIND him.
Racist Propaganda at its Worst! (nm)
:{
The big "O" aleady the worst and he hasn't been....
there a year yet. The next would be Jimmy Carter. Read up on the economy under HIM. Obama doesn't give two hoots about what "we" want. He is pushing through his personal agenda at lightning speed and the worst of it is he really believes this will work...kinda like Caesar fiddling while Rome burned around him. Well, they say ignorance is bliss and he must be one deliriously happy camper right about now.
How about the Washington Post?

How about this isn't a new story at all?  How about the government lied to these poor parents, who lost their SON?!  How about the COMMANDER IN CHIEF dishonored and disrespected Pat Tillman and his family?  How about being so blind while unquestioningly idolizing a very false idol, a flawed, lying, devious, unethical, warmonging leader that you, as well, dishonor this woman and her son by still trying to use him as a Bush poster boy?  


I have a feeling that when Fitzgerald is finished with his investigation (the crux of which is the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat/lie that Bush used to sell this country on an illegal, immoral war) and the facts are disclosed, Bush and his cronies and his followers will be headed down the toilet.  Maybe the Tidy Bowl Man will throw you a life preserver, not that you'd take it.  People like you would be honored to drown in the same S***T as Bush. 


Pat Tillman and his parents deserve to be honored.  How many of YOUR children were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan by this lying president?  Until you've lost one, you're simply not qualified to demean and disrespect those who did.  You think you're some sort of proud American who claims to support the troops?  You're a fraud.  You're nothing but a heartless war monger and deserve no respect whatsoever. 


Here. Have some more Kool Aid.


FROM THE WASHINGTON POST EARLIER THIS YEAR:


Tillman's Parents Are Critical Of Army
Family Questions Reversal On Cause of Ranger's Death


By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 23, 2005; A01


Former NFL player Pat Tillman's family is lashing out against the Army, saying that the military's investigations into Tillman's friendly-fire death in Afghanistan last year were a sham and that Army efforts to cover up the truth have made it harder for them to deal with their loss.


More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's lies about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.


Pat had high ideals about the country; that's why he did what he did, Mary Tillman said in her first lengthy interview since her son's death. The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.


Tillman, a popular player for the Arizona Cardinals, gave up stardom in the National Football League after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to join the Army Rangers with his brother. After a tour in Iraq, their unit was sent to Afghanistan in spring 2004, where they were to hunt for the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Shortly after arriving in the mountains to fight, Tillman was killed in a barrage of gunfire from his own men, mistaken for the enemy as he got into position to defend them.


Immediately, the Army kept the soldiers on the ground quiet and told Tillman's family and the public that he was killed by enemy fire while storming a hill, barking orders to his fellow Rangers. After a public memorial service, at which Tillman received the Silver Star, the Army told Tillman's family what had really happened, that he had been killed by his own men.


In separate interviews in their home town of San Jose and by telephone, Tillman's parents, who are divorced, spoke about their ordeal with the Army with simmering frustration and anger. A series of military investigations have offered differing accounts of Tillman's death. The most recent report revealed more deeply the confusion and disarray surrounding the mission he was on, and more clearly showed that the family had been kept in the dark about details of his death.


The latest investigation, written about by The Washington Post earlier this month, showed that soldiers in Afghanistan knew almost immediately that they had killed Tillman by mistake in what they believed was a firefight with enemies on a tight canyon road. The investigation also revealed that soldiers later burned Tillman's uniform and body armor.


That information was slow to make it back to the United States, the report said, and Army officials here were unaware that his death on April 22, 2004, was fratricide when they notified the family that Tillman had been shot.


Over the next 10 days, however, top-ranking Army officials -- including the theater commander, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid -- were told of the reports that Tillman had been killed by his own men, the investigation said. But the Army waited until a formal investigation was finished before telling the family -- which was weeks after a nationally televised memorial service that honored Tillman on May 3, 2004.


Patrick Tillman Sr., a San Jose lawyer, said he is furious about what he found in the volumes of witness statements and investigative documents the Army has given to the family. He decried what he calls a botched homicide investigation and blames high-ranking Army officers for presenting outright lies to the family and to the public.


After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this, Patrick Tillman said. They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy.


Army spokesmen maintain that the Army has done everything it can to keep the family informed about the investigation, offering to answer relatives' questions and going back to them as investigators gathered more information.


Army officials said Friday that the Army reaffirms its heartfelt sorrow to the Tillman family and all families who have lost loved ones during this war. Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, an Army spokesman, said the Army acts with compassion and heartfelt commitment when informing grieving families, often a painful duty.


In the case of the death of Corporal Patrick Tillman, the Army made mistakes in reporting the circumstances of his death to the family, Brooks said. For these, we apologize. We cannot undo those early mistakes.


Brooks said the Army has actively and directly informed the Tillman family regarding investigations into his death and has dedicated a team of soldiers and civilians to answering the family's questions through phone calls and personal meetings while ensuring the family was as well informed as they could be.


Mary Tillman keeps her son's wedding album in the living room of the house where he grew up, and his Arizona State University football jersey, still dirty from the 1997 Rose Bowl game, hangs in a nearby closet. With each new version of events, her mind swirls with new theories about what really happened and why. She questions how an elite Army unit could gun down its most recognizable member at such close range. She dwells on distances and boulders and piles of documents and the words of frenzied men.


It makes you feel like you're losing your mind in a way, she said. You imagine things. When you don't know the truth, certain details can be blown out of proportion. The truth may be painful, but it's the truth. You start to contrive all these scenarios that could have taken place because they just kept lying. If you feel you're being lied to, you can never put it to rest.


Patrick Tillman Sr. believes he will never get the truth, and he says he is resigned to that now. But he wants everyone in the chain of command, from Tillman's direct supervisors to the one-star general who conducted the latest investigation, to face discipline for dishonorable acts. He also said the soldiers who killed his son have not been adequately punished.


Maybe lying's not a big deal anymore, he said. Pat's dead, and this isn't going to bring him back. But these guys should have been held up to scrutiny, right up the chain of command, and no one has.


That their son was famous opened up the situation to problems, the Tillmans say, in part because of the devastating public relations loss his death represented for the military. Mary Tillman says the government used her son for weeks after his death, perpetuating an untrue story to capitalize on his altruism -- just as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was erupting publicly. She said she was particularly offended when President Bush offered a taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election last fall. She again felt as though her son was being used, something he never would have wanted.


Every day is sort of emotional, Mary Tillman said. It just keeps slapping me in the face. To find that he was killed in this debacle -- everything that could have gone wrong did -- it's so much harder to take. We should not have been subjected to all of this. This lie was to cover their image. I think there's a lot more yet that we don't even know, or they wouldn't still be covering their tails.


If this is what happens when someone high profile dies, I can only imagine what happens with everyone else.


© 2005 The Washington Post Company


And with Obama we will have Washington...
politics as usual, democrats and republicans toeing the party line, fighting and bickering and getting NOTHING done for the people. We will have higher taxes, fewer jobs, and an even higher deficit.

McCain/Palin are the only ones talking about crossing party lines, putting all parties on the cabinet, and trying to break the battleground that Washington has become. THis board is a PERFECT example of what is happening in Washington. Party first, they hate each other, would rather eat dirt than agree on anything. If this country is going to go forward, that needs to STOP.

That is why I am voting McCain/Palin. Country first is not just a slogan to me. It needs to be DONE.

In watching images today of 9-11 on this sad anniversary...having a President who understands terrorism and how to deal with it is imperative. I have absolutely zero faith in Obama's ability to do that.

working in Washington?

The thing that everyone is forgetting is that not everyone is in Washington right now working - there are some people there trying to work out the details and everyone else will just vote when it is handed to them. 


In fact, they said that things were going better before McCain and Obama got there, that once McCain got there things started going downhill because there are a group of Republicans who do not want to support the package that their Republican President is wanting passed. 


Now, I don't know if I would support it or not if I was there, but I don't think that it is a requirement that every Senator be in that room while they are working on the details. 


I am not a Democrat, I am not a Republican - don't know yet for sure which way I am going - but I do not fault Obama for not automatically running to Washington just because McCain did.  In fact, from all the information I have gather this morning, McCain did not contribute anything to the conversation yesterday anyway. 


THAT is the way Washington works now.
They can't help but add pork. It's in their genes. Only one ticket is talking about changing that. Only one ticket has a non Washington insider on it. Obama is right...we need REAL change, but the thing is, he is NOT real change. He is more of the same. Real change is McCain/Palin.
Washington Redskins
LOL my husband told me that he heard that whenever the Redskins win right before an election the incumbent party usually wins the election.

Mccain has a chance! The Redskins are winning!

Haha just thought you might get a kick out of this. My DH is such a football junkie!


Big 3 to return to Washington.. sm
Say they have made concessions in order to receive $25 billion. 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97682039&ft=1&f=1001
Lobbyists in Washington
If you mean the Wall Street crash, causing by mtg backed securities wrapped up into investments and then sold with the thought "housing will continue to gain in value or at least, hold their value in the investment vehicle," that has nothing to do with politics. Bush made a speech "more Americans own homes today than at any other time in the history of the country." And it was true, even if the home owners weren't credit worthy or the mtg were ARMs or floating (interest upfront) and needed to be refi'ed at some point in the future for the mtg holder to afford them. Following home values make it hard to refi a house, as everyone knew.

These men who sunk the world economy knew exactly what they were doing. Many became quite wealthy due to it.

The loss of the stock values that ensued, as I have followed it closely, made no real sense. the Paulson Bailout was a guise to give banks money to purchase other banks, not save Main Street. A few very wealthy people call the shots. And, it appears, even they are being swindled by their business partners.

Greed is the root of all evil and evil thrives when good men do nothing - or choose to do nothing for a number of reasons.

Bush looks happy as a lark even as his countrymen are facing the brink of of a recession not seen since the Great Depression.

The people of this country are to blame in the end for allowing it to continue. The U.S. is For the People, By the People and Of the People. Buck stops with the people.
Pelosi is the worst speaker ever. A divider. The
nm
This post is an example of the worst kind of damage
This kind of ignorant, self-righteous, utterly uninformed, breathtakingly bigoted and hate-filled pronouncement, void of any depth or evidence of intellectual capacity, is exactly the kind of divisive belief system and world view W created with his "you are either for us or against us" war on terror. Islam is a monotheist religion, just as Christianity is. The kind of politicized Christianity you have expressed is of the sort that was the driving force behind the Crusades...bloody terrorism in its very worst manifestation. Politicized religion in any form has NOTHING to do with God and the brand that you are promoting here is every bit as much of a terrorist act as a suicide bombing. Moslems pray to the same God that Christians pray to and no amount of hateful bigotry you try spread will change that fundamental truth. As long as you hold this kind of hate in your heart, you will always be a very isolated, fringe element of our society. If you are truly a person of faith, pray to God to to fogive you for this blasphemy, to enlighten you and to purge you of the ignorance and hate you harbor.
No, I think Carter was the worst president in history.
nm
Carter = worst president ever...yes, I agree with you.

Oh my gosh - the Clinton years were the worst
I have never seen such horrible horrible times as the Clinton years. It was awful, awful, awful. DH and I both worked full time. We both had excellent salaries but we could never get ahead. We didn't live life in the rich lane - a 1 bedroom apartment (no washer dryer) in a hole-in-the-wall complex. A Ford Taurus (so not a fancy car). I don't own any diamonds or furs and my clothes were bought at the local Walmart, Sears or stores like that. No children, no college education to pay off and we had absolutely nothing. Clinton's tax increases raised our taxes so high that we were paying out 38% in taxes and even then at the end of the year we always owed an extra $2000. Everyone kept telling us to buy a house and get all these great "benees". In SF? Right! We couldn't afford to go out to eat never mind buy a house and when we did try to apply for a loan we were turned down. On top of that my family and friends back east were losing their jobs (thank you NAFTA). Family freinds were losing their homes because they lost their jobs and they were starting to live in their cars. My dad took in a couple he knew because they were living in a campground and winter came and it got too cold to stay in their tent. It wasn't until Clinton got out of office that our taxes went down, we were able to save some money, get a better place to live, and go out to eat with family and start to enjoy life a little more. The economy may be bad now, but we're in better shape than we were when Clinton's were in. Now we're terrified we're going to be back into the same exact sitaution. We're certainly not in great shape here, so anything worse would put us in a bad situation but luckily we rent so can move if we have to. But the economy needs a lof of work. We have no health insurance (unless you want to call having a policy that you have to pay 10K/year first before the insurance company will pitch in), DH is out of work and we just take one day at a time. All I know is most everyone I know (family, friends, and acquantances of my family) say they may have thought Clinton to be a good looking guy, but they have been better off financially since he left office.
The one, single thing that took the worst toll on US
nm
There's tumbleweeds rolling around in Washington
because everybody else is gone on a real vacation.  If I recall correctly he's been making public appearances and working while in Texas.  Oh, excuse me, he was WORKING on his ranch last week and got sunburned, but if you qualify that as vacationing then I throw up my hands.  He could let government paid staff do the work, but then you'd be whinning about that too!
What about Madison, Washington, Adams,
What about these other guys?

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State. Madison (1819)

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. (ibid)

How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment . (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)

That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience. (Patrick Henry)

I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country (George Washington, 1789).

In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words Jesus Christ after the words our lord in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst. (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. (ibid)

The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment' (James Madison, Veto, 1811)

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support. (George Washington, letter to the Touro Synagogue 1790. )

We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society. (John Adams)

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.... (John Adams, 1787)

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith. (Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man)

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this? (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)
What I saw was old washington poltiics as usual....
and a new fresh face and real change. Guess which was which. Biden is the poster boy for what is WRONG with this country.
Yes, especially if you live in a state like Washington...
with no income tax. A big lot of the taxes come from property tax. Now, I don't even live there, but I still pay a share of the taxes, plus income tax in another state. But, I guess what can you do? It's the price I must pay for working hard enough to own my own little slice of heaven, even if the military says I don't get to live there.
We the people march on Washington, DC

I found and joined resistnet.com because I love my country.  It is a very sad, sad day to see it marching towards marxism/socialism, which has failed in every country it has been tried. 


Do you love this country?  Does the blood shed for our freedoms still matter to you?  If so, then please take a moment and join the "We the People" March on Washington DC.  This group is a grassroots planning and organizing effort to put on a peaceful demonstration on May 30, 2009. We are looking for conservatives to join us and assist us in preserving our Consitution and holding our elected officials accountable to the oath of office they have sworn to. We need you to join us and get involved on the State level marches that will also be held across the country.  Every state is participating!

Don't you think it's time we fire any elected official who doesn't uphold, protect, and preserve our 'We the People's" Constitution?

Please join us and invite your friends and families also.


http://www.resistnet.com/group/wethepeoplemarchonwashington



I don't think Washington gets the fact WE are their employer.....
And to think on September 18, 2008, they were ready to impose Martial Law because our entire economic and political infrastructure was headed toward collapse? THAT'S SCARY. So much for "Land of the Free" eh?
I bet the Washington "bigwigs" didn't sm
forego their raises and bonuses did they?
This confirms our worst suspicions. Certain pubs factions
What plantet do you come from? I am so sure he could have just vaporized without "announcing" his destination and the reason for his absence. See post directly above for a more plausible explanation. Your mean comments do you speak well for our concept of family values, diminish your party's credibility on that subject by leaps and bounds and make you look very small.
The debate takes 2 hours. Have it in Washington if that is...sm
where McCain feels he needs to be.
He left the campaign trail to go to washington...
palin did not go anywhere. As you said, too late to pull ads. He did not put out any new ads. The talking heads were out there to answer questions put to them by the media. What else was he supposed to do? Have the media start saying he was hiding from the media? Realllyyyy.
Nope. Because he DOES have experience in Washington as usual....
THAT was the point that I am sorry you missed, I should have been more clear. I apologize. Sarah Palin is the only one in this race who is not Washington politics as usual, and McCain is the only one saying Washington needs to be cleaned up and he means both parties. THAT is what we need. REAL change. Not more of the same old Washington politics.

And he does have experience in socialism and is invested in it. That kind of experience, with all due respect, is not what the country needs...in my opinion.
Big-3 corporate CEOs arrived in Washington in - sm
PRIVATE Lear jets to ask for a bailout. Proof positive that those people don't have a clue how to run a successful business, which is why the auto industry is now failing.

I don't want to see them get a penny only to squander it. Before I'd give a thumbs-up to any kind of a bailout, they need to:

a) SELL the jets.

b) Redesign, retool, and get out of bed with the oil industry, so they can get us independent of fossil fuels. If they had used their brains, and built cars that were equal to or better than the foreign manufacturers in quality, safety, and efficiency, they wouldn't be in this pickle. But no, they wanted their big profits NOW, and screw the future. Well, the future has now come and bit them in the behind.

c) Part of the retooling process should include dumping the CEOs (who are obviously worthless) and all upper management. The average Joe line-assemblyman could probably run those companies better than the fat-cat CEO's have been doing.
Glenn Beck: Does anyone in Washington Pay Taxes?

He's really getting ticked off again.


 


http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20937/


I thought Obama was going to unite Washington
nm
An archeological team digging in Washington DC
has uncovered 10,000 year old bones and fossil remains of what is believed to be the first Politician.
An interesting read from the Washington Post. sm

Draw your own conclusions on the state of the MT industry. Should we be worried? I would be as the gov't NEVER moves fast on anything unless it benefits them somehow. I had never heard of the HIMSS until I read the article.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503667.html?wpisrc=newsletter


Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
Immelt rated "one of the worst" CEO's and booed yesterday
X