In the News

Janet Jackson's half time show?

Kobe Bryant or Martha Stewart?

Britany Spears' marriage?

or Scott Peterson?

geo bush

All of the above -- they've milked it to death -- poor painful breasts!  LOL

Honestly the person(s) I am tired of hearing about are J Lo & Ben Affleck.  Thank god it's over.

The others you mentioned are very much up there

I'm tired of hearing about all of them, tired of hearing about people who are tired of hearing about Bush ... etc.

As far as the whole Superbowl fiasco is concened ... what I think is:

"Guys, I'm part of the demographic that you say you want to reach  ...  but ... if I want singing, I want someone more talented than Justin ArentMyFifteenMinutesUpYet and if I want sex, I'll  A) go looking for it and B) Expect someone better looking and more talented than Janet Jackson!"

Ben and JLO to tell you the truth.  But, from your list, I'd say Britney Spears' 2 hour marriage.  I mean, who cares.

I especially want to hear about his return to private life in 11 months.

After all, we know how efficient Government is!   I think it will be a good thing to take my money and spend it on social programs!

I can't wait for age 65 so I can retire on Social Security and get free drugs .. and I'm sick an tired of a government that thinks *I* of all people, should be responsible for my own actions and plan for my own future!

We need John Kerry to get in there and straighten it all out in his first 6 weeks.

Hell, after all, if *I* got to keep my money, I'd blow it all on fast cars and fancy women!   (or is that fast women and fancy cars?)

You DON'T HAVE any economic future with the Bush Policy - he is destroying the long term viability of our economy.  He just doesn't believe in FUNDING what he spends.  Certainly Kerry and Edwards will be working hard to reduce the record deficits that Dumbya and Cheney have created.

You can't say this about Bush! He went to Yale and is in "skull and bones"  (a private club you can't join) ! If he were a commoner like Clinton then every private acts can be the subject of endless hearings. You could say his wife had murdered her aid and have hearings on it. You could use grand juries to investigate every waking moment. Even if you don't find anything you can still impeach him.

Now, for the manor born; one could never question his drunk drinking record, or cocaine use because he should and will rule due to his high birth.

(the sound you here is George Washington revolving at 30,000 rpm in his grave).

I have a simple way of dealing with these things:

I hardly watch TV.
I don't read past the headline on unimportant idiocies like these.

Thus, the only thing I'm tired of is that when I pay 50 cents for a paper, half of it goes under the bird cage unread...

Who is without question (and ironically enough) the most "worthless" of the lot.

Well he will certainly get my vote come this November. I am a Republican and will never vote for a Democrat while others are just the opposite and will never vote Republican, that's the way our country is. It's the people in the middle that both parties fight over to get them to vote for their particular party.

I lived through 8 agonizing years during the Clinton administration while others nowadays are saying the same thing about Bush. That's one of the worst things that we go through every 4 years is the constant bickering bewteen both sides. The TV commercials fly back and forth making rediculous claims about the opposing candidate. Almost makes you want to move to the North Pole.

The polarization of this country's politics will be the death of us all!

No middle ground.
No room for compromise.
You're either for us or against us.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Red Wings is sensible.
I've got to admit curiousity.  sdstud seems to criticize Bush as too Liberal spending, but them complains because "He just doesn't believe in FUNDING what he spends."  I agree that Bush spends too much.  Too bad he lacks the cajones to deconstruct the Liberal welfare state by repealing Medicare, privatizing Socialist Security, getting the Federal government the hell out of education, and getting rid of Medicaid and welfare.
But Kerry's and Edwards' ideas on "getting rid of deficits" won't mean less spending; it will simply mean the government sticking its hand further into MY pocket.

Bill Clinton presided over the most sustained economic growth this country had ever seen.  20 Million new jobs were created during his tenure, and the Equity markets and GNP grew at levels never seen before.  Clinton completely eliminated the Federal Deficit during his tenure.  Ironically, this is exactly what REPUBLICANS had been saying needed to be done for the 20 years prior to Clinton's Presidency.  Meanwhile....

George W. Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net LOSS of jobs in this country.

Our present Federal Deficit and the sum of all State Deficits is the largest that they have been in History.  Bush is stealing from your children with this policy.  Many people FOOLISHLY believe that tax cuts along with these huge deficits makes them better off.   But Econ 101 tells us that this spending WILL be paid for.  If not now, with taxes, then by VIRTUAL taxes created when your life savings rapidly deflates in the future to match the fact that the Fed will need to create more nominal money to pay off these deficits, unmatched by GNP growth.

I will simply ask the same question that Ronald Reagan CORRECTLY asked before he defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980:

"Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"  The VAST majority of Americans would have to answer NO to this question.  And even most of the folks who THINK that they are better off now are mistaken, because of the future compromise to our economy caused by the present HUGE deficit spending.

Terrorist attacks against Americans.

The 1993 WTC Bombing, two American Embassies in Africa Bombings, Bombings of American Barracks in Saudi Arabia, etc.  And Clinton doing absolutely nothing about any of it!

Oh, I forgot, he bombed and aspirin factory in Sudan, a terrorist camp in Afghanistan (abandoned several months before), and of course sent indiscrimate Tomahawk missles into Baghdad.  All of which resulted is nothing!

Gave away our SuperComputer technology to China and of course left the door open in Los Alamos for foreign spies to steal our latest weapons technology.  

Turned the Whitehouse into a B & B for the RICH!  

Oh, but I'm trying to forget!

and then committing treason against someone who goes public to expose the lie.

On a scale of 1-10, those Clinton admin pecadillos are mostly 2s and 3s, compared to about a 7 or an 8 on what actually got accomplished.

The Bush admin, OTOH, has gotten 530 Americans Killed and 12,000 wounded (3000 seriously), in a war that we are only in because they fabricated the rationale (which was, that Saddam had NUKES, which were an IMMINENT THREAT to the U.S.)  

Personally, I consider lying to the American Populace to concoct a rationale for a pre-emptive war on foreign soil to be about the worst thing a President can do.  Probably the second worst thing that a President can do is to destroy the sound fiscal footing of our government with irresponsible spending and tax policy.  Which basically is embedding a HUGE and unavoidable tax increase on our children.  Probably the third worst thing a President can do is to destroy our standing and credibility in the international stage with our allies.  The cost of THIS will be a lack of cooperation from them when the NEXT dictatorship, which may ACTUALLY have nukes, (read North Korea, Iran, Chechnya, or Pakistan under a new moslem regime) decides to align themselves with our REAL enemies - Al Queda).

So, given those big 3 "accomplishments" of the Bush administration, how you can rationally claim that we are better off under Bush than we were under Clinton is simply beyond me.

I also don't want to hear any more revisionism about the WMD rationale being the CHEMICAL weapons, which were reasonable to conclude Saddam DID have (although in retrospect, he apparently destroyed them).  The rationale was, plain and simple that Saddam had a Mature Nuclear program, and was at the stage where he was buying fissionable material to actually make the bombs.  This was flat out, a LIE, and it was exposed as such, and it was in DIRECT contradiction with the ACCURATE intelligence that the CIA had given Bush on this subject.

not to mention she keeps talking non-stop about those indviduals.

"Probably the third worst thing a President can do is to destroy our standing and credibility in the international stage with our allies."

This is my biggest concern, by far.

Especially when Bush wins in November!

Since our invasion of Afghanistan we have been Terrorism free.  

I have a great idea, we get rid of all the "entitlement" programs tomorrow and balance the budget with trillions to spare!

The reason we kicked Saddam's ass was because he didn't live up to his agreed settlement after Gulf War One.  Since it became obvious that the UN was incapable of doing anything, we took charge!   Now once again the Terrorists takes the US seriously.  I like it that way.  And anybody else who fucks with us will as Toby Keith sings:  "Get a boot up your ass!" too - if we have a President who has balls.

It really is difficult to discuss any issues since you think of yourself as THE MOST FUCKING INFORMED PERSON ON THE FUCKING PLANET where truth is concern.  And I rather doubt your assumption.

Have a nice glass of white wine and lay down, your blood pressure is way too high.  Or you might consider moving to France.

And I will pop a bottle to celebrate Bush's defeat this November.

BTW, I am not a Democrat.  I'm an Independent, who supported McCain in the last election, then voted for Gore only because of how unqualified Bush is.

You just don't know it yet because it is all being done via Deficit spending.  Econ 101 tells us that this spending WILL be funded.  There are only a few ways:

1) Taxes now
2) Taxes later
3) Print more currency, and create a VIRTUAL Tax, by de-valuing your life savings relative to what it was worth when you earned it, through inflation.
4) Default the nation's Treasury, and create a forfeiture of ALL of your life savings.

Bush is clearly forcing us into a mix of #2 and #3, or else we will see #4.

McCain, then Gore?  Now,  I truly understand.  You might consult your physician, I believe that there is medication that.

That's right, it was peaceful allright because he would never do anything. Democrats want this country weak in self-defense. The USA is always the bad guy in their eyes. We got what we deserved because it was our fault to begin with. Reduce the military, sell away all of our secrets, doesn't matter because we don't want to fight anyway.

The only people that were made prosperous by the Clinton bunch were the dot com people which came in, made a killing, artifically blew up employment numbers, then deflated and led us into the recession that we are just now coming out of. We have been taxed out of our minds until recently when it is finally coming back more into line now. Am I better off than I was four years ago? YES.

No president can claim any economic sucess or failure with two possible exceptions. FDR did get us out of a depression and Regan avoided another one in 1980. Other than that I think the economy runs itself regardless of who's in power.

A president lies under oath and before every person in this country and it's no big deal?

Like I said, I have no problem with Bush whatsoever and have no problem supporting him in November. I do wish he and all other elected officials in this country would get tougher on illegal aliens instead of trying to cater to them.

You have just regurgitated a bunch of conspiracy theory crap that you have picked up on some wacko website or from some pundits "opinion" in the NY Times!

In your mind you pretend that you are a member of the intelligence community "in crowd", but in reality, the extent of your knowledge is only that which you want to believe.

Tomorrow you will probably tell us that George W. Bush killed Nicole Simpson!

-- Modified on 2/5/2004 6:26:25 PM

The man is absolutely DESTROYING the future of our nation with his irresponsible fiscal policy (which, BTW, makes Jimmy Carter look like a tightwad).  If a Democrat were to try to show up with exactly the same budget that Bush has, the Republicans would be in full impeachment mode.

And I'd certanly rather believe what's printed in the paper of record in this country (The New York Times), than stuff that sounds like it came from that Nazi Cretin Ann Coulter.

And, BTW, Joseph Wilson was not a PUNDIT.  He was the CIA investigator that was assigned to determine if Saddam was buying fissionable materials.  He didn't JUST write an Op Ed piece in the NY Times which called out Bush as a liar for his claim in the State of the Union Message last year that Saddam was seeking to buy Nuclear Material.  Prior to that, he also briefed the Joint Chiefs of Staff on what he had uncovered.

His wife was also a deep cover CIA operative.  Her OUTING by the administration in retaliation for Wilson's Op Ed piece (the act which is actually Treason) was reported by ROBERT NOVAK - hardly a liberal columnist, but rather, one of the most conservative members of the national media.

You know, this just demonstrates how ignorant sdstud is.
    Wilson was not a "CIA investigator"; he was a diplomat of some sort.  He also didn't say that Bush was a liar; he concluded that the intelligence was faulty.
    Likewise, there's no evidence that his wife was a "deep cover CIA operative."  At most, it's been proven that she works for the CIA, though in what capacity has not been revealed.  If she was, and if she was outed and lives were put in danger, I agree (with the President) that the whistleblower should be prosecuted.  But I've said the same thing about people who were doing so twenty years ago.
    My guess is that sdstud interest in protecting intelligence sources and methods is of rather more recent vintage.