http://stoprosie.com/ Everyone with half a mind please go and sign the petition.
"Don't fear the 'terrorists'. They’re mothers and fathers." - Rosie O'Donnell
If you don't sign the petition, you're only letting this left wing nut case get away with her bullcrap.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
out of curiousity, how was that quote taken out of context?
"You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world, or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. And I think that this country ... ."
To which Hasselbeck interjected: "Well, I'm a person of faith, so I, but I also believe ... ."
"Well then, get away from the fear," interrupted O'Donnell. "Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers."
Yes, being a mother or father means I shouldn't fear you. I wish that willing for good was enough to cause it to happen...
That really doesn't say what they are talking about. She could be talking about people fearing Iraqi people and them all being terrorists, so shes saying they are are just people....mothers and fathers...How about I go pick a Bush speech and pick one stupid thing he said out of the infinite supply.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm
^ Great Bush quotes. David Letterman does a good clip on his late night show about great American speeches, like with Kennedy and his "ask not..." speech then shows Bush saying something priceless.
Why don't we just hire a monkey to be the face of America? That way, when he throws his shit at people and says dumb things that a not so bright being would say, people won't be so disappointed when the face of America does something stupid.
It's funny how all you liberals bash Bush all day long. But, look at what he's doing compared to what you're doing. He's that President of the United States of America. You work at Borders.
Count it.
Not only did Bush score higher than John Kerry on his ACT/SAT, he also has a higher IQ. Even if he's not the best public speaker, he's better than you'll ever be.
Count it.
George Bush: 1206 John Kerry: 1190
(actual SAT scores)
I am a liberal and I didn't even like John Kerry. He was too untrustworthy, I don't believe he should have been president. I knew he wouldn't be, for one, he was running against an incumbent, 90% of the time...they win. Comparing ACT/SAT scores between Bush and Kerry means nothing. I didn't know all it took to run the country was a 1200 on the SAT. What does a good score on that tell me, Bush knows where to put a period or a comma? We know he didn't do that well of a job as president, but at least his documents had the correct punctuation.
Look at what Bush is doing compared to what I'm doing? Yeah, I'm not a running a country into trillions of dollars of debt, damn, I should get on top of that. Hes better at public speaking than I'll ever be? How do you know how I speak in public? Anyone is better at public speaking than him. Hes not the best public speaker? That's being as EXTREMELY generous, hes closer to the worst public speaker. I have a lot of hardcore republican friends that even admit he is a horrible public speaker, I thought it was just accepted.
I'm not trying to be a dick or sarcastic, I am actually asking, why did you remove a comment, what did it say?
Bush is a bad public speaker. Obviously, public speaking has very little to do with being a good president or person.
Bush has not run is into trillions of dollars of debt. Where did you get that from? And the unemployment rate is lower than it's been in a LONG time. Even when Clinton was president.
I got it from here http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm and you can get it from any other source. Clinton had the economy stabilizing (you can see that when Clinton left office, the line was almost horizontal meaning a 0 % increase), he had it to where in two years, we would actually be decreasing the debt instead of increasing the debt (which hasn't been done since Kennedy), which has been proven on that site and Clinton's book. This is why I hate when people say Clinton wasn't a good president. He did the number one thing that people want-solve money problems. If Bush had followed it, we could be doing better now, but it would also mean the War in Iraq would have had to be a lot shorter.
We are going to constantly keep losing jobs to other more industrialized, non-militarized, countries because they are the ones who can create better technological processes to make products cheaper. We don't necessarily loose jobs to cheap labor, although we do for some things. But with more technological processes, like with automobiles, we aren't losing out to cheap labor. I highly recommend a piece by Seymour Melman called "After Capitalism: From Managerialism to Workplace Democracy," particularly chapter 3. Here he discusses what we are losing out to exactly. In Germany, the average worker makes a few dollars more an hour than the United States, along with Japan, who in 1998, payed its employees for "machine-tool" industries nearly 3 dollars more than in the United States. What he boils it down to is too much focus on the Cold War and Cold War technology of missiles and guidance systems. By focusing on these technologies, we lagged behind in non-militarized technologies (excluding computers-they came about from Cold War Technologies-especially the digital computer), and while we lagged behind, non-militarized countries like Japan and Germany got ahead. The only way we can keep jobs in this country is to get off militarism and put more funding into our own non-militarized technology, by creating more diplomacy in the Middle East, asking for other countries for their help along with NATO or the UN to help "police" the world as we have come to do alone.
How would the absence of a public-sector investment to militiarized technology improve private-sector business? Since when does the government fund private-sector R&D?
Look at the examples given, countries like Japan and Germany were demilitarized and are not even close to the size of the power of the United States or any other superpower, and it just so happens that they are the ones who are technological leaders. What Melman says is that there is a direct connection between the two. Here, the government must have put some kind of finance into private sector industries because they didn't put it towards their military. I wasn't able to finish the rest of the book yet, so I can't completely answer how the governments of those countries financed private sector directly.
Some one got shown up and deletes comments, i feel like this is the FCC
Sorry about the comments on the post next that got deleted, I accidentally marked the post as draft and blogger deleted them.
Post a Comment