'nitwits' is right....I was surprised to see Herbert use that but glad he said it like it is.
And only a nitwit would vote for McCain after he picked a nitwit as VP.......'man or woman they’d most like to have over for dinner, or hang out at a barbecue with,'.......and that's all that Palin is for some......and it matters when the candidate is 72 yrs old....whether she has the wisdom and intellectual capacity to deal with the mess we are in.......if she did she would be giving press conferences, be on Meet the Press, etc.
An_American_Karol
· 1 year ago
Anyone who voted for Bush - twice - should have his/her voter registration revoked. And, anyone who votes for someone they feel is "just like them" suffers from a mental illness. Don't these yahoos know our president needs to be smarter, more creative, more educated, and more versed in foreign affairs than the "average" person. Good god, when did we stop acting like responsible citizens?
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
When ignorance became a badge of honor to some in our culture. I think it started in the seventies and has just blossomed since then. It takes a lot of pain to wake some people up, huh?
bosdav
· 1 year ago
John,
I read this first thing this morning. Thanks for posting. You picked the perfect excerpt.
nicho
· 1 year ago
To anyone who voted for Bush because they wanted to have a beer with him -- the bill for your beer just arrived
It $4.7 TRILLION dollars.
Suckers.
HereinDC
· 1 year ago
I just saw an episode of Law and Order. It had a Dr. with a temper.. Damn, When it got to the end....the Dr.'s temper erupted.
When McCain today said he'll Whip Obama's (you know what)........It now reminds me of the Dr. who just lost his temper.
High Crimes & Misdemeanors
· 1 year ago
LOL ohhh noooo!!! A Criminal Intent fanatic... im on my 3rd episode now.... i know, i know, i'm a Law & Order freak.... ill be up till midnight tonight....
(((((shaking my head at myself)))))))
Oldnovice
· 1 year ago
But he seemed like a nicer guy to a lot of voters than Al Gore.
Thing is that this cycle Barack IS a nicer guy than McCain, so the adage "guy I'd like to have a drink with" that ran true during the G. W. days, IMO, shouldn't be used when we have a cycle wherein the nicer guy is ALSO the guy with everything else going for him.
Thumbs DOWN to Herbert on this one.
skeptic
· 1 year ago
Amen!
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
I sadly thought of this article while watching a disabled man tooling around in his hoveround wheelchair with "McCain - Palin" stickers on the back of it. I figured it would be a waste of my time to say anything about Republicans and their awful record on disability and Social Security to someone that out of touch! Talk about delusional and voting against one's best interests?
cab02149
· 1 year ago
Sorry Bob, those same stiffs dismiss you and your paper as "liberal Fishwrap". I wish things were as fixable as just waking up a sleeping bunch. Too many brains are addled. Too many TV watchers. Too many heads buried in sports teams, beer drinking, and gambling. No Bob, we did it; We created a better version of the ending of the "Planet of the apes" without firing a shot. Our leaders forfeited their integrity. Who would want to work for this population ? Twice in our history the common man has been given a fair shot. The rest of the time, it is fascism as usual.
If it was this easy to take it down , why should anyone want to build it back up? So the next generation can destroy it again? It was too easy to pass over what was learned. It will be just as easy, if not easier the next time. If we ever get a next time. The world will not treat us kindly. Why should they? We fucked them over. We took advantage of the willing. Not any longer.
mikep
· 1 year ago
"Voters in the George W. Bush era gave the Republican Party nearly complete control of the federal government. "
Actually, for the last two years of it the Democrats have controlled Congress and thus have had entire control over anything that the federal government does. The ridiculous bailout bill was forced through mostly by the Democratic leadership in Congress, led by Barack Obama. My impression was that people voted for Bush instead of Gore because they were disgusted by the massive corruption of the dot-com years, Enron, WorldCom and all the other scandals of the Clinton-Gore years. The gap between rich and poor soared under them. They might have been different or better at one point but now they're clearly under the control of the corporates and the warmongers.
Vote third party if you care at all about your 401K or anything else. That's the only way to begin putting this country on the right course again. Otherwise expect more of the same.
Mike_G
· 1 year ago
My impression was that people voted for Bush instead of Gore because they were disgusted by the massive corruption of the dot-com years, Enron, WorldCom and all the other scandals of the Clinton-Gore years.
Enron imploded in late 2001, almost a year after the election. WorldCom collapsed in mid-2002.
Voting for Bush out of disgust with Enron would have been ludicrous, given that the company was the largest single bankroller of Idiot Chimp's political career and massively benefited from the cozy cronyism of the Texas GOP.
The rich-poor gap has increased steadily over the past few decades, but rose at a slower rate during the Clinton years due to (according to most economists) his tax bill of 1993 which raised upper tax rates and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit for lower-paid workers. And median wages actually rose for a few years in the mid-90s, which they hadn't done since 1973; since Chimp took office they have done nothing but decline.
Not stellar economic achievements in absolute terms, but by far the better of the two major parties.
mikep
· 1 year ago
I'm really sorry, but to continue to blame the Republicans exclusively for Enron, WorldCom, and all of the rest of of the dot-com scandals is just bizarre. True, they collapsed in 2001 and 2002, but the corruption and scandals that underlay their collapse happened in the late 90s, under the Clinton-Gore administration, and with their full cooperation and knowledge. Trillions of dollars were stolen during the dot-com years, which involved MASSIVE stock fraud, and Clinton and Gore knew exactly what was going on. And the voters were well aware of what was going on too, and responded by throwing the crooks out of office. Have you all entirely forgotten all of the dot-com scandals, and how many people were ripped off?
Let me review the history here. During 2000 (when Clinton and Gore were in charge and before the election) Texas-based Enron engaged in massive manipulation and fraud of the California energy markets, resulting in massive payouts in the billions by California energy consumers (not all parts of California, but most of it). This is well documented. It happened between states and it is the responsibility of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. So clearly Clinton and Gore, at best, failed to do their job of regulating national companies and enforcing the law. And since they are both lawyers it cannot be claimed that they did not realize laws were being violated. In addition, the fraud clearly could not have happened without the cooperation of California politicians. It simply happened on too large a scale to believe that. I was in San Francisco at the time, summer of 2000, and I well remember the power going on and off and realizing that something quite fishy was going on. At that time, SF had a Democratic mayor, a Democratic city council, a Democratic Board of Supervisors, and California had Democratic majorities in both the state senate and the state assembly plus a Democrat as governor. Besides a Democratic President and VP. Democrats in ALL of the positions that were responsible for protecting the taxpayers from corporate crime. And you're claiming that it was all the fault of the Republicans, of the Texas GOP? Sorry, but that simply doesn't add up, not in any way. The Democrats knew exactly what Enron was doing and were in fact involved. There was no way it could have happened without widespread and systemic corruption throughout all levels of the Democratic party. There simply is no other explanation possible. (True, Bush had close ties with Enron and profited from what they were doing. But he wasn't in charge of regulating national corporations at the time, Clinton and Gore were.)
Median wages may have increased during the mid-1990s, but they soon began to decline. What increases there were was due mostly to the internet boom, which Clinton and Gore had little to do with. They just happened to be in office at the right time these technological changes happened. Whether the gap between rich and poor happened at a slower rate during their administration is irrelevant. The fact was that the gap continued to increase, which was what counts, and they knew it and they did nothing. Instead, they strongly supported policies that encouraged it, policies that continue to haunt us to this day. Since they got out of office they have received their payoff. The two Clintons and Gore have pocketed at least a quarter of a billion dollars from corporate sources, probably much more. We don't know how much more since Clinton refuses to release the figures regarding his so-called library. It may be double that. But they certainly have become immensely wealthy individuals, both worth a lot more than the McCains are.
So sorry, I don't see any difference between the two parties' economic policies. Or their foreign policies either. 1.2 million Iraqis died as a result of the illegal sanctions and bombings that Clinton and Gore supported. I won't even mention Vietnam, which was begun by Democrats, and which has never been investigated, and for which no one has ever been prosecuted.
Vote for who who want. But don't think it's going to make any difference, because it won't.
2008
· 1 year ago
yeah, it does have consequences. And a hearty "FYou!" to all the sadistic chumps who voted for Bush, especially when even they knew, somewhat, that he was amounting to a complete disaster... Granted, 2004 was prior to the Hurricane Katrina botched Fed. emergency management; the ongoing, obscene disaster of the "wars" we started in the Middle East; and this horrendous deregulated market meltdown -all his fault-, but STILL....
Kerry, you would have been great! And I would love to have had a beer w/ ya!!
Wild_Weasel
· 1 year ago
. . . and so does NOT VOTING!
feeba
· 1 year ago
Dear Friend:
Are you ready yet for the November 4th Elections? How about your friends, family, and neighbors? More Americans are expected to vote this year than ever before in history, so don’t be left out! Be sure to ask everyone you know the following questions: • Are you registered to vote? If you moved recently, have you updated your voter registration? • Did you apply for an Absentee Ballot? Do you know your state may not require any reason? • Can you find your local Polling Place? Do you know it may have changed from last time? The answers to these questions -- and all your voting needs -- can be found at www.StateDemocracy.org
All Comments
again.
And only a nitwit would vote for McCain after he picked a nitwit as VP.......'man or woman they’d most like to have over for dinner, or hang out at a barbecue with,'.......and that's all that Palin is for some......and it matters when the candidate is 72 yrs old....whether she has the wisdom and intellectual capacity to deal with the mess we are in.......if she did she would be giving press conferences, be on Meet the Press, etc.
Good god, when did we stop acting like responsible citizens?
I read this first thing this morning. Thanks for posting. You picked the perfect excerpt.
It $4.7 TRILLION dollars.
Suckers.
It had a Dr. with a temper..
Damn, When it got to the end....the Dr.'s temper erupted.
When McCain today said he'll Whip Obama's (you know what)........It now reminds me of the Dr. who just lost his temper.
(((((shaking my head at myself)))))))
Thing is that this cycle Barack IS a nicer guy than McCain, so the adage "guy I'd like to have a drink with" that ran true during the G. W. days, IMO, shouldn't be used when we have a cycle wherein the nicer guy is ALSO the guy with everything else going for him.
Thumbs DOWN to Herbert on this one.
If it was this easy to take it down , why should anyone want to build it back up? So the next generation can destroy it again? It was too easy to pass over what was learned. It will be just as easy, if not easier the next time. If we ever get a next time. The world will not treat us kindly. Why should they? We fucked them over. We took advantage of the willing. Not any longer.
Actually, for the last two years of it the Democrats have controlled Congress and thus have had entire control over anything that the federal government does. The ridiculous bailout bill was forced through mostly by the Democratic leadership in Congress, led by Barack Obama. My impression was that people voted for Bush instead of Gore because they were disgusted by the massive corruption of the dot-com years, Enron, WorldCom and all the other scandals of the Clinton-Gore years. The gap between rich and poor soared under them. They might have been different or better at one point but now they're clearly under the control of the corporates and the warmongers.
Vote third party if you care at all about your 401K or anything else. That's the only way to begin putting this country on the right course again. Otherwise expect more of the same.
Enron imploded in late 2001, almost a year after the election. WorldCom collapsed in mid-2002.
Voting for Bush out of disgust with Enron would have been ludicrous, given that the company was the largest single bankroller of Idiot Chimp's political career and massively benefited from the cozy cronyism of the Texas GOP.
The rich-poor gap has increased steadily over the past few decades, but rose at a slower rate during the Clinton years due to (according to most economists) his tax bill of 1993 which raised upper tax rates and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit for lower-paid workers. And median wages actually rose for a few years in the mid-90s, which they hadn't done since 1973; since Chimp took office they have done nothing but decline.
Not stellar economic achievements in absolute terms, but by far the better of the two major parties.
Let me review the history here. During 2000 (when Clinton and Gore were in charge and before the election) Texas-based Enron engaged in massive manipulation and fraud of the California energy markets, resulting in massive payouts in the billions by California energy consumers (not all parts of California, but most of it). This is well documented. It happened between states and it is the responsibility of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. So clearly Clinton and Gore, at best, failed to do their job of regulating national companies and enforcing the law. And since they are both lawyers it cannot be claimed that they did not realize laws were being violated. In addition, the fraud clearly could not have happened without the cooperation of California politicians. It simply happened on too large a scale to believe that. I was in San Francisco at the time, summer of 2000, and I well remember the power going on and off and realizing that something quite fishy was going on. At that time, SF had a Democratic mayor, a Democratic city council, a Democratic Board of Supervisors, and California had Democratic majorities in both the state senate and the state assembly plus a Democrat as governor. Besides a Democratic President and VP. Democrats in ALL of the positions that were responsible for protecting the taxpayers from corporate crime. And you're claiming that it was all the fault of the Republicans, of the Texas GOP? Sorry, but that simply doesn't add up, not in any way. The Democrats knew exactly what Enron was doing and were in fact involved. There was no way it could have happened without widespread and systemic corruption throughout all levels of the Democratic party. There simply is no other explanation possible. (True, Bush had close ties with Enron and profited from what they were doing. But he wasn't in charge of regulating national corporations at the time, Clinton and Gore were.)
Median wages may have increased during the mid-1990s, but they soon began to decline. What increases there were was due mostly to the internet boom, which Clinton and Gore had little to do with. They just happened to be in office at the right time these technological changes happened. Whether the gap between rich and poor happened at a slower rate during their administration is irrelevant. The fact was that the gap continued to increase, which was what counts, and they knew it and they did nothing. Instead, they strongly supported policies that encouraged it, policies that continue to haunt us to this day. Since they got out of office they have received their payoff. The two Clintons and Gore have pocketed at least a quarter of a billion dollars from corporate sources, probably much more. We don't know how much more since Clinton refuses to release the figures regarding his so-called library. It may be double that. But they certainly have become immensely wealthy individuals, both worth a lot more than the McCains are.
So sorry, I don't see any difference between the two parties' economic policies. Or their foreign policies either. 1.2 million Iraqis died as a result of the illegal sanctions and bombings that Clinton and Gore supported. I won't even mention Vietnam, which was begun by Democrats, and which has never been investigated, and for which no one has ever been prosecuted.
Vote for who who want. But don't think it's going to make any difference, because it won't.
Kerry, you would have been great! And I would love to have had a beer w/ ya!!
Are you ready yet for the November 4th Elections? How about your friends, family, and neighbors?
More Americans are expected to vote this year than ever before in history, so don’t be left out! Be sure to ask everyone you know the following questions:
• Are you registered to vote? If you moved recently, have you updated your voter registration?
• Did you apply for an Absentee Ballot? Do you know your state may not require any reason?
• Can you find your local Polling Place? Do you know it may have changed from last time?
The answers to these questions -- and all your voting needs -- can be found at www.StateDemocracy.org