Troubling, tired tactic

[darker]

Bush-Cheney and their republican liars, war-profiteers, big oil profits boosters, for-profit scare mongers have poured middle income Americans' tax dollars into their pockets for 8 years and emptied the USTreasury.

It's the same lies over and over. We're really sick of 'em.

[who pays]

The Bush, McCain neo-conservative warmongering fearmongering puppets keep spouting garbage from his useless trips to Israel in his attempt to ramp up the countdown to attacking Iran. The incompetent Bush administration should go look for Bin Laden and stop the buffoonery and lies about a Mideast peace. He should go to Iraq where he belongs and proclaim "mission accomplished" and sit on his arse until November and start packing for his next job with Haliburton.

[Bill]

Jerome wrote:

Interesting that Bush used the Israeli Knesset as a forum to attack an American candidate for president. I seem to recall the Republicans attacking Bill Clinton for allegedly attending an anti-war demonstration in England, claiming he was disloyal and unpatriotic for expressing displeasure over American policies in another country.

Jerome are you that stupid that you cannot see he is not attacking America or American policy. He was attacking Neville Chamberlain Barak Hussein Obama.

[darker]

Bush-Cheney are not about advancing the nation's interest, but the interesting of their "nanny state for the rich" and their profiteering corporate welfare queens at the expense of lower and middle income Americans whom they intend to bankrupt.
Look at the bottom line and see who has profited the most in these 8 years of BushScam.

[Mary]

obama is scary enough without any help from Bush and I am not a fan of Bush and never have been. Bush probably was referring to Jimmy Carter but at least what Jimmy Carter does didn't hurt or change anything and I am very much afraid that obama will be more like a democratic bush than a JFK. Keep in mind that the person that compared obama to JFK was the head of a terrorist group. The terrible thing about that statement was the fact that those countries think they will be able to continue to do what they want if obama is elected.

[Southbound]

massimo wrote:

The terrorists are US.

Your continued residence and tax money must be supporting this 'terrorism'. If you really feel that way you are obligated to leave. Just go.

[michellefromquee ns]

Credit to Merriam-Webster dictionary

Appeasement (NOUN):to pacify, conilliate, especially to BUY OFF BY CONCESSIONS. also to cause to subside; allay

Diplomacy-the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations, TACT

this constructive engagement policies (ala Reagan and apartheid South Africa) do not work. Nor is it working for Israel and Palestine. Diplomacy is necessary.

[Southbound]

Fa Fa Flo-e wrote:

<quoted text>
No...just full of stories of them chanting death to gays and to those who support abortion...

Being vocal political opponents of your gay agenda and trying to kill you are two different things. I believe the Christian Right limits their opposition to lawful activities.
I don't think many of us would be much more then amused to watch fanitical Muslims chant "Death th America" if it ended there. They are entitled to chant all they like. It is when bombs are planted, and airliners start crashing into buildings that many of us draw the line.
Regarding President Bush; he is simply observing history, and what it might teach us. If you've been paying attention, history teaches us that you cannot negotiate with villians or terrorists without inviting more terror. And the worst of the worst (insert Iranian President here) will look you in the eye and agree while they are preparing the attack they originally planned.
The only thing we know for sure is that we either learn from history, or repeat it.

[Southbound]

michellefromqueens wrote:

Credit to Merriam-Webster dictionary
Appeasement (NOUN):to pacify, conilliate, especially to BUY OFF BY CONCESSIONS. also to cause to subside; allay
Diplomacy-the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations, TACT
this constructive engagement policies (ala Reagan and apartheid South Africa) do not work. Nor is it working for Israel and Palestine. Diplomacy is necessary.

na·ive –adjective 1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous

[Loyal Democrat]

Bush was more likely referring to James Carter, although considering the similarities between Carter's policies and Obama's, it is understandable Obama would take offense.

You Conservatives better learn that when you disagree with a liberal socialist, you are spreading fear or being unfairly devisive.There is no such thing as logical debate.

If Obama keeps this kind of reaction up for much longer, he will begin to resemble Hillary Clinton.

[Common Cents]

He never mentioned Obama.
"Me thinks he doth protest too much!"

[Gail]

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
One question: why do we have so many religions in this country while Islamic countries do not allow for others to practice their beliefs freely? No "Christian right wingers" there....

Well think about it, they do have different factions, the Shite and the others. Yes America does allow other religions thankfully, but if it were up to the Christian right wingers we TOO would have a state religion and of course it would be Christian just ask one of them. They don't even believe in the separation of church and state any longer. They say the constitution never said that.

[Gail]

elbow wrote:

It is a tradegy how this great country has forgotton September 11, 2001. There is no talking with terrorists. President Bush was correct in what he was saying. The moment we let our guard down, this country will be attacked again, and it most certainly will be worse than September 11, 2001.

The terrorists from 9/11 were from Saudia Arabia and Bush talked to him. Did you think they were from Iraq or Palestine?

[Gail]

firedoc wrote:

why is it the newsday's editorial board always favors the liberal (socialist) line? let us hope that cablevision can bring some balance to the editorial board.

Its not the liberal line, its the most intelligent line.

[repugnican liars thieves]

SSDD, or as you put it, "Same <troubling, tired tactic>, different day".

[Southbound]

Gail wrote:

<quoted text>
Its not the liberal line, its the most intelligent line.

Yes, Socialism has worked so well in the other parts of the world where it has been tried. I don't recall seeing Mexicans (or anyone else for that matter) trying to sneak into these liberal/socialistic countries. Even small scale experiments, like Canada's socialized medical coverage has Canadians with any wealth coming to America for their treatments.
Being liberal is great for idealistic college kids. At that age you want to help everyone. Once you've grown up and gotten a job, you tend to want to keep more of the money you've earned.
Liberals only think they are the most intelligent and they work very hard to snuff all other points of view. Any point of view that really was better thought out, and really did carry the truth wouldn't need to supress opposing thought. Think about that.

[The Pragmatist]

its funny how all the bush supporters have returned from the grave. do you have any idea how many republican voters, who endorced bush turned "independents"? your roosting days are numbered! sleaze ball tactic and crying when you get exposed for malfeasance, will not get you far. The public is hip to this game. you are exposed as FRAUDS!

[Gail]

Southbound wrote:

<quoted text>
At that age you want to help everyone. Once you've grown up and gotten a job, you tend to want to keep more of the money you've earned.
Liberals only think they are the most intelligent and they work very hard to snuff all other points of view. Any point of view that really was better thought out, and really did carry the truth wouldn't need to supress opposing thought. Think about that.

So, being kind and helping the less fortunate is something you out grow? How horrible to think that way. I do agree with your statement that a real "truth" wouldn't need to supress opposing thought. This is what the Bush Administration did to us about the threat of Iraq. If you opposed the war you were un-American. So you have described the Bushies perfectly.

[hace]

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
And what a stupid ass**e like yourself does in this country? Why don't you go back to whatever Muslim hole you crawled from?

TRUTH IS A PAINFUL REMEDY.

[hace]

Southbound wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, Socialism has worked so well in the other parts of the world where it has been tried. I don't recall seeing Mexicans (or anyone else for that matter) trying to sneak into these liberal/socialistic countries. Even small scale experiments, like Canada's socialized medical coverage has Canadians with any wealth coming to America for their treatments.
Being liberal is great for idealistic college kids. At that age you want to help everyone. Once you've grown up and gotten a job, you tend to want to keep more of the money you've earned.
Liberals only think they are the most intelligent and they work very hard to snuff all other points of view. Any point of view that really was better thought out, and really did carry the truth wouldn't need to supress opposing thought. Think about that.

Are you even remotely aware of what the US media exclusively broadcasts?
Why would you comment on a subject in which you are completely ignorant?