Discussion:
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
(too old to reply)
Pookie
2005-02-07 23:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest approval
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.

According to the poll, health care costs, education and
the economy were the top three domestic items considered 'extremely
important' for Americans.
By Ron Edmonds, AP

In reversals from a month ago, majorities said that going to war
in Iraq was not a mistake, that things are going well there and that it's
likely democracy will be established in Iraq. (Related item: Poll results)

Bush's approval rating of 57% was his highest since he reached
59% in January 2004. Strategists from both parties attributed the rise to
timing.

The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.

And Bush's domestic agenda continues to diverge from the
priorities cited in the poll. Health care costs, education and the economy
were the top three items considered "extremely important" for Bush and
Congress to deal with. The last four - Social Security, taxes, same-sex
marriage and limits on lawsuits - all are on Bush's front burner.

The poll of 1,010 adults was conducted Friday-Sunday - after the
Jan. 30 elections in Iraq and Bush's State of the Union address Wednesday
highlighting the vote. The poll's margin of error was +/-3 percentage
points.

"Nothing breeds success like success," said Matthew Dowd, a Bush
strategist. People now feel the decisions Bush made "were the right ones,"
he said, and that translates into a general increase of trust in his
leadership.

Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster and strategist, said
Bush's high numbers are a temporary function of "a positive news event" (the
Iraqi elections) and a well-received State of the Union address. He
predicted they would be superseded in coming weeks by "Social Security
privatization and a budget proposal that is deficit-laden, even with huge
cuts in domestic programs."

The Iraq numbers were striking in their consistency. Six in 10
people said the elections there went better than they expected. In other
measures:

.55% said the United States did not make a mistake sending
troops to Iraq, up from 47% last month.

.53% said things are going very or moderately well in Iraq,
compared with 40% last month.

.64% said it is very or somewhat likely a democratic form of
government will be established in Iraq, up from 47% last month.

.10% said more U.S. troops are needed in Iraq, down from 24% who
said that before the elections.

.50% said they approved of how Bush is handling Iraq, up from
42% last month; 48% said they disapproved, down from 56% last month.

Dowd said Bush is at the high end of his approval range, given
"how polarized the country is." But he said the elevation should last longer
than the usual blip, because "people see President Bush's presidency as so
linked to Iraq."

The poll suggests a positive environment for Bush's party.
Republicans received a 56% favorable rating, compared with 46% for
Democrats - a 10-point advantage, up from 6 points in September. And 55%
said Bush's policies would move the country in the right direction - up from
51% last month.

Garin called it "a difficult time for Democrats to get their
message across." He said that would get easier as domestic issues move to
center stage.

"We're likely to see a more even balance" between the parties
when the debate turns to Social Security and the budget, he said.




http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-07-bush-poll_x.htm


begin 666 clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end
Ran Endish
2005-02-07 23:19:55 UTC
Permalink
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
Post by Pookie
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest approval
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.
According to the poll, health care costs, education and
the economy were the top three domestic items considered 'extremely
important' for Americans.
By Ron Edmonds, AP
In reversals from a month ago, majorities said that going to war
in Iraq was not a mistake, that things are going well there and that it's
likely democracy will be established in Iraq. (Related item: Poll results)
Bush's approval rating of 57% was his highest since he reached
59% in January 2004. Strategists from both parties attributed the rise to
timing.
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
And Bush's domestic agenda continues to diverge from the
priorities cited in the poll. Health care costs, education and the economy
were the top three items considered "extremely important" for Bush and
Congress to deal with. The last four - Social Security, taxes, same-sex
marriage and limits on lawsuits - all are on Bush's front burner.
The poll of 1,010 adults was conducted Friday-Sunday - after the
Jan. 30 elections in Iraq and Bush's State of the Union address Wednesday
highlighting the vote. The poll's margin of error was +/-3 percentage
points.
"Nothing breeds success like success," said Matthew Dowd, a Bush
strategist. People now feel the decisions Bush made "were the right ones,"
he said, and that translates into a general increase of trust in his
leadership.
Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster and strategist, said
Bush's high numbers are a temporary function of "a positive news event" (the
Iraqi elections) and a well-received State of the Union address. He
predicted they would be superseded in coming weeks by "Social Security
privatization and a budget proposal that is deficit-laden, even with huge
cuts in domestic programs."
The Iraq numbers were striking in their consistency. Six in 10
people said the elections there went better than they expected. In other
.55% said the United States did not make a mistake sending
troops to Iraq, up from 47% last month.
.53% said things are going very or moderately well in Iraq,
compared with 40% last month.
.64% said it is very or somewhat likely a democratic form of
government will be established in Iraq, up from 47% last month.
.10% said more U.S. troops are needed in Iraq, down from 24% who
said that before the elections.
.50% said they approved of how Bush is handling Iraq, up from
42% last month; 48% said they disapproved, down from 56% last month.
Dowd said Bush is at the high end of his approval range, given
"how polarized the country is." But he said the elevation should last longer
than the usual blip, because "people see President Bush's presidency as so
linked to Iraq."
The poll suggests a positive environment for Bush's party.
Republicans received a 56% favorable rating, compared with 46% for
Democrats - a 10-point advantage, up from 6 points in September. And 55%
said Bush's policies would move the country in the right direction - up from
51% last month.
Garin called it "a difficult time for Democrats to get their
message across." He said that would get easier as domestic issues move to
center stage.
"We're likely to see a more even balance" between the parties
when the debate turns to Social Security and the budget, he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-07-bush-poll_x.htm
Pookie
2005-02-07 23:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Always looking for the silver lining...

Loading Image...
Post by Pookie
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
Post by Pookie
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest
approval
Post by Pookie
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a
USA
Post by Pookie
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.
According to the poll, health care costs, education and
the economy were the top three domestic items considered 'extremely
important' for Americans.
By Ron Edmonds, AP
In reversals from a month ago, majorities said that going to
war
Post by Pookie
in Iraq was not a mistake, that things are going well there and that it's
likely democracy will be established in Iraq. (Related item: Poll results)
Bush's approval rating of 57% was his highest since he reached
59% in January 2004. Strategists from both parties attributed the rise to
timing.
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
And Bush's domestic agenda continues to diverge from the
priorities cited in the poll. Health care costs, education and the economy
were the top three items considered "extremely important" for Bush and
Congress to deal with. The last four - Social Security, taxes, same-sex
marriage and limits on lawsuits - all are on Bush's front burner.
The poll of 1,010 adults was conducted Friday-Sunday - after
the
Post by Pookie
Jan. 30 elections in Iraq and Bush's State of the Union address Wednesday
highlighting the vote. The poll's margin of error was +/-3 percentage
points.
"Nothing breeds success like success," said Matthew Dowd, a
Bush
Post by Pookie
strategist. People now feel the decisions Bush made "were the right ones,"
he said, and that translates into a general increase of trust in his
leadership.
Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster and strategist, said
Bush's high numbers are a temporary function of "a positive news event"
(the
Post by Pookie
Iraqi elections) and a well-received State of the Union address. He
predicted they would be superseded in coming weeks by "Social Security
privatization and a budget proposal that is deficit-laden, even with huge
cuts in domestic programs."
The Iraq numbers were striking in their consistency. Six in 10
people said the elections there went better than they expected. In other
.55% said the United States did not make a mistake sending
troops to Iraq, up from 47% last month.
.53% said things are going very or moderately well in Iraq,
compared with 40% last month.
.64% said it is very or somewhat likely a democratic form of
government will be established in Iraq, up from 47% last month.
.10% said more U.S. troops are needed in Iraq, down from 24%
who
Post by Pookie
said that before the elections.
.50% said they approved of how Bush is handling Iraq, up from
42% last month; 48% said they disapproved, down from 56% last month.
Dowd said Bush is at the high end of his approval range, given
"how polarized the country is." But he said the elevation should last
longer
Post by Pookie
than the usual blip, because "people see President Bush's presidency as so
linked to Iraq."
The poll suggests a positive environment for Bush's party.
Republicans received a 56% favorable rating, compared with 46% for
Democrats - a 10-point advantage, up from 6 points in September. And 55%
said Bush's policies would move the country in the right direction - up
from
Post by Pookie
51% last month.
Garin called it "a difficult time for Democrats to get their
message across." He said that would get easier as domestic issues move to
center stage.
"We're likely to see a more even balance" between the parties
when the debate turns to Social Security and the budget, he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-07-bush-poll_x.htm
VRWC Destruction Machine
2005-02-08 06:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
What poll is that?

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Feb. 3-4, 2005. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for
all adults).

Now on the subject of Social Security: When you retire, do you expect
that Social Security will be able to pay all the benefits you are
entitled to under current law, or not?

39% Will 43% Will Not

President Bush says that Social Security is facing a funding crisis
and that by about 2040 the system will be bankrupt. Based on what
you've heard or read, do you agree or disagree that Social Security
faces a funding crisis?

65% Agree 26% Disagree

The Newsweek poll says Social Security is broke. The Dummycrats have
yet to put their solution on the table.
Deaf Power
2005-02-08 21:54:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:08:59 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by Pookie
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
What poll is that?
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Feb. 3-4, 2005. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for
all adults).
Now on the subject of Social Security: When you retire, do you expect
that Social Security will be able to pay all the benefits you are
entitled to under current law, or not?
39% Will 43% Will Not
Will not. Bush should be impeached for trying to screw up SS. Those
republicans supporting the thug should be kicked out.
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
President Bush says that Social Security is facing a funding crisis
and that by about 2040 the system will be bankrupt. Based on what
you've heard or read, do you agree or disagree that Social Security
faces a funding crisis?
65% Agree 26% Disagree
I disagree. Bush is a sleazy fucking liar. The Social Security will
not be bankrupt. Benefits will continue payout after 2042 (or 2052)
but 70% less. Only minor modification is needed to restore to 100%.
RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
2005-02-08 22:05:57 UTC
Permalink
The problem is not whether it's in a crisis. Every program could be in a
crisis is spending is not renewed or reformed.
It's not in an immediate crisis. That's easy to figure. Bush says it is so
it can't be. We know his knee jerk reactions. "Iraq has WMD poised to be
used against the US"
Now, if allowed to go without some modifications, it will run out of money
in about 45 years. In fact, if you want to believe figures that says it
will run out and need to borrow in 2017, so what? This go. borrows everyday
so why is it such a "crisis" to borrow for SS? We borrow for a worthless war
and we can't borrow to help seniors???? Bush logic which I realize is an
oxymoron but fuzzy math has been taken.
The issue is that to reform the system has lots of options and private
accounts would be only one. Consider them all but of course, the dubya wants
his plan or none. Let's hope that if he doesn't get his way, he'll take his
ball and run home.
Post by Deaf Power
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:08:59 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by Pookie
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
What poll is that?
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Feb. 3-4, 2005. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for
all adults).
Now on the subject of Social Security: When you retire, do you expect
that Social Security will be able to pay all the benefits you are
entitled to under current law, or not?
39% Will 43% Will Not
Will not. Bush should be impeached for trying to screw up SS. Those
republicans supporting the thug should be kicked out.
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
President Bush says that Social Security is facing a funding crisis
and that by about 2040 the system will be bankrupt. Based on what
you've heard or read, do you agree or disagree that Social Security
faces a funding crisis?
65% Agree 26% Disagree
I disagree. Bush is a sleazy fucking liar. The Social Security will
not be bankrupt. Benefits will continue payout after 2042 (or 2052)
but 70% less. Only minor modification is needed to restore to 100%.
Pookie
2005-02-08 22:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
The problem is not whether it's in a crisis. Every program could be in a
crisis is spending is not renewed or reformed.
It's not in an immediate crisis. That's easy to figure. Bush says it is so
it can't be. We know his knee jerk reactions.
It means that...when there was a Democrat president stating that there was a
crisis in '98, Dems agreed...now 6+ years later, Pres. Bush says it's a
problem & Dems say "what problem?"...hypocrites!!!

Back in an era where Senators and Representatives listened to proposals
before opposing them, these Democrats endorsed the idea of personal
accounts. Here are their own words.

Senators: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking
A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The
Private Sector." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 2/14/99)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Press Release: "Durbin Said Due To The Increasing
Number Of 'Baby Boomers' Reaching Retirement Age, Social Security Will Be
Unable To Pay Out Full Benefits . But The Sooner Congress Acts To Avert This
Crisis The Easier And Less Painful It Will Be." (Sen. Dick Durbin,
"Reforming Social Security," Press Release, 9/15/98)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): "Fixing Social Security Is An Urgent Priority. It
Ought To Be At The Top Of Both Parties' Agendas." (Sen. Byron Dorgan,
"Fixing Social Security Must Top Both Parties' Agendas," Roll Call, 12/6/99)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): "The Potential [Social Security] Crisis Should Be
Viewed As An Enormous Success, Because It Means That We Are Living Longer
And Healthier Lives." (Betty Mills, Op-Ed, "What Would You Do About Social
Security?" Bismarck Tribune, 8/5/98)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): "I Was At The Social Security Summit At The White
House, Along With 40 Of My Colleagues, Republicans And Democrats. And There
Was Virtual Unanimity Of Opinion That We Simply Have To Get A Higher Return
From The Social Security Investments." (Fox News' "Special Report," 1/20/99)

House Members: Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI): "People Can See, I Think, A [Social
Security] Crisis Where There Immediate Family Is Affected Even If Not
Immediately . This Is Something That Affects Almost Everybody's Immediate
Family." (Richard A. Ryan, "Social Security Reform Stalls," The Detroit
News, 2/2/02)

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): "I Am One Democrat That Truly Believes That
Democrats Will Not Benefit By Doing Nothing On Social Security." (Rep.
Charles Rangel, Press Conference, 1/21/99)

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA): "I Am An Advocate For Investing A Portion Of
The Surplus In The Private Sector ." (Rep. Edward J. Markey, Committee On
Commerce, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 2/25/99)

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): "[I]t's A Way Of Getting More Money - A Higher
Return On The Trust Fund, And Is A Prudent And Good Thing To Do." (Rep.
Jerrold Nadler, Press Conference, 1/21/99)

Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO): "Why Should Social Security Recipients Be
Disadvantaged By Not Getting To Be Able To Have Higher Returns Out Of The
Stock Market?" (Rep. Dick Gephardt, Press Conference, 1/21/99)

Clinton: President Clinton: "[Investing] Will Earn A Higher Return And Keep
Social Security Sound For 55 Years." (President Bill Clinton, State Of The
Union, 1/19/99)

President Clinton: "[W]hat I Believe We Should Do Is To Invest A Modest
Amount Of This In The Private Sector, The Way Every Other Retirement Plan
Does. The Arizona State Retirement Plan Does; Every Municipal Retirement
Plan Does; Every Private Plan Does." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To The
Citizens Of Tucson On Medicare And Social Security, Tucson, AZ, 2/25/99)

President Clinton: "[E]ven After You Take Account Of The Stock Market Going
Down And Maybe Staying Down For A Few Years, Shouldn't We Consider Investing
Some Of This Money, Because, Otherwise, We'll Have To Either Cut Benefits Or
Raise Taxes To Cover Them, If We Can't Raise The Rate Of Return." (President
Bill Clinton, Remarks Via Satellite To The Regional Congressional Social
Security Forums, Albuquerque, NM, 7/27/98)

Clinton urges voters to save Social Security

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, October 24) -- Fresh from his diplomatic success in
brokering an interim peace accord between Israelis and Palestinians,
President Bill Clinton on Saturday turned back to domestic issues and called
for voter support of his proposed Social Security reforms.

Speaking in his weekly radio address, the president urged Americans to
consider his efforts to save Social Security when they vote on November 3 in
what he called "one of the most important elections in recent years."

"You will help select a Congress that will determine whether we will seize
this moment of prosperity to save Social Security for the 21st century,"
Clinton said.

With Republican hopes of widening their majority in the House and the
outside chance the elections could produce a filibuster-proof Senate for the
GOP, the president warned that a "historic opportunity will be lost" if both
parties don't reach agreement on Social Security reform.

He said the White House would hold a conference on Social Security December
8 and 9 to help mold a bipartisan approach to saving the federally directed
retirement safety net.

Clinton proposed five "core principles" to shape discussions at that
meeting. They are:


a.. strengthening and protecting the system


b.. maintaining fairness


c.. ensuring stable benefits


d.. protecting disabled and low-income wage earners


e.. maintaining fiscal discipline in the program

"For more than 60 years now, Social Security has formed the sacred bond
between the generations," Clinton said. "If the Congress you elect in 10
days chooses progress, it can strengthen that shield for generations to
come."

In his opening remarks, the president praised the Mideast peace agreement,
saying it "strengthens security, increases cooperation against terrorism,
and brings both sides closer to the day when they can live together as free
people."

For the accord to produce a lasting peace, the Israelis and Palestinians
must stand by it, despite pressure, Clinton said.

"But this agreement shows what is possible when the will for peace is
strong," he said.


http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/24/clinton.radio/


More

http://www.ssa.gov/history/clntstmts3.html
Deaf Power
2005-02-09 05:22:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:58:21 -0500, "Pookie"
Post by Pookie
It means that...when there was a Democrat president stating that there was a
crisis in '98, Dems agreed...now 6+ years later, Pres. Bush says it's a
problem & Dems say "what problem?"...hypocrites!!!
George Shultz, your fellow Republican, started the Social Security
privatization push since the 1970s:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/ss_privatization/3203_ss_pamphlet_intro.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/ss_privatization/3203_shultz.html

The Man With the
`Chile Model' of Fascism
by Richard Freeman and Paul Gallagher

This article is excerpted from the pamphlet "Bush's Social Security
Privatization: A Foot in the Door for Fascism," issued by the Lyndon
LaRouche Political Action Committee in December 2004.

No one figure is more responsible for the drive to privatize and loot
Social Security than George Pratt Shultz of Bechtel; senior "fixer" of
the Republican Party; senior recruiter of the George W. Bush White
House team, "the Vulcans"; and, like Robert McNamara before him, a
preeminent "economic hit-man" of the Anglo-American financial order on
the international stage. Shultz was the key official—issuing
instructions to President Richard Nixon—who brought Franklin
Roosevelt's Bretton Woods postwar monetary system to an end in August
1971. He was the master of the "Chicago economists" who dominated Gen.
Augusto Pinochet's 1973 coup and dictatorship in Chile. And Shultz in
1981 demanded from fascist Chile's Labor Minister José Piñera, who had
just privatized social security there, a memo to incoming President
Ronald Reagan on "how Chile did it." This was the first shot, fired 23
years ago, in the war against FDR's Social Security in the United
States. Shultz's banker network and Piñera have collaborated ever
since; and in fact, the "Chicago Boys" team of which Piñera was a part
in Pinochet's Chile, was a product then of Shultz and his pet
economist Milton Friedman.

Shultz, in a PBS-TV interview on Oct. 2, 2000, said of the Chile
events: "The armed forces took over and no doubt did some
unnecessarily brutal things in the process, but nevertheless they took
over. . . . There were in Chile some people who came to be called
`Chicago Boys,' they had studied economics at the University of
Chicago. . . . And so a Chicago School-like economy gradually evolved
in Chile. It worked."

Shultz vs. Roosevelt

Shultz's inside job in getting President Nixon to announce on Aug. 15,
1971, that the United States was going off the gold-reserve
system—toward the floating-exchange-rate system that has ruled
"globalization" ever since—hammered the nails in the coffin of
Roosevelt's protectionist Bretton Woods system. Shultz brought that
system to an official end with his declarations as U.S. Treasury
Secretary, at the September 1973 International Monetary Fund annual
meeting—just two and a half weeks after Pinochet's coup created
Shultz's "Chile model" of fascist economics to be exported
internationally.

Today, Shultz directs two of the bankers' most crucial projects.
First, through the Vulcan team featuring Condoleezza Rice and Paul
Wolfowitz—a team Shultz created for a Bush II Presidency in summer
1998—Shultz controls White House underlying policy. Second, ever since
Shultz assembled the Schwarzenegger for Governor campaign in
California in 2003, he has run the hands-on "Beast-Man Project": to
make Arnie into a Hitler-like live force in this country.

George Shultz was raised to set oligarchical policy; his father, Birl
Earl Shultz, was a major intelligence figure in the Anglo-American
"Trust" operation. The elder Shultz was the personnel director for the
American International Corporation of 120 Broadway, New York, N.Y.,
which was the most powerful hub of World War I-era Anglo-American
financial chicanery. In 1957, George Shultz joined the Chicago School,
becoming an economics professor at the University of Chicago's
Graduate Business School; he was dean of the Business School, 1962-68.
During this time, the Economics Department flourished as the American
command post for the financier oligarchy's Mont Pelerin Society, which
preached the anti-regulation, anti-government cult of speculative
monetarism. Pinochet's Chile, with its jackboot fascism and radical
privatization/looting of the country's national patrimony, was the
personification of the Chicago School ideology. It is not surprising
that the University of Chicago of the Shultz era provided cohabitation
for the neo-liberal Mont Pelerinites and the Hitlerianism of Leo
Strauss and the Straussian promoters of Nazi ideologues Martin
Heidegger and Carl Schmitt.

As a trusted Chicago School agent, in 1969, Shultz was seconded to the
incoming Richard Nixon Administration as Labor Secretary, at which
post he served through June 1970; then, as first head of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), he presided over brutal austerity until
May-June 1972; finally, he functioned as Treasury Secretary until June
1974. Working in tandem with Undersecretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs Paul A. Volcker, Shultz controlled and then replaced
Treasury Secretary John Connally. In 1969, Nixon was induced to sign
National Security Study Memorandum 7, which created a formally
designated "Volcker Group" inside his Administration, directed to
prepare plans to change monetary policy. In May 1971, this group
produced a paper entitled, "Contingency," which already proposed
"suspension of gold convertibility."

As head of OMB, Shultz used the burgeoning U.S. budget and
balance-of-payment crises to push his way into advising Nixon on
international monetary affairs. After a series of monetary crises that
had started with the November 1967 devaluation of Britain's pound
sterling, Shultz and Volcker made their move. According to a State
Department document, International Monetary Policy, 1969-72, on Aug.
2, 1971, and again on Aug. 12, President Nixon sequestered himself
with Shultz and Connally in extensive meetings at which the demolition
of the Bretton Woods system was mapped out. On the matter of the
international monetary system, Connally was constrained to present
Volcker's ideas. After two weeks of secret meetings, culminating in
two days of Camp David meetings, on Aug. 15, President Nixon announced
that he was severing the dollar from the gold reserve system. Nixon
also announced a fascist domestic austerity policy that was part of
the same package.

In his book, Economic Policy Beyond the Headlines, Shultz gloated:
"And it was accepted not only that fixed rates were clearly
impracticable for the time being, but that also we were fortunate to
have in place a flexible market system. That was a bitter pill for
some to swallow. To others, including the U.S., the emergence of a
market-based system was seen as a greater improvement over the
inflexible gold-based system that preceded Camp David" (emphasis
added). In June 1972, Shultz had himself appointed U.S. Treasury
Secretary. In March 1973, he personally arranged, at a tense G-10
Finance Ministers meeting in Paris, to eliminate all support for fixed
exchange rates. Shultz crowed that "markets rather than governments
were explicitly in charge."

`Economic Hit Man'

In 1981, George Shultz, as Bechtel Corp. president and advisor to the
transition team of President-elect Ronald Reagan, paid a visit to José
Piñera, Chile's Minister for Labor and Social Security, who imposed
the privatization of social security at the point of a bayonet. Shultz
got from Piñera a memo on how to privatize Social Security on the
Chilean model. Piñera describes what happened in an entry on his
website, dated January 1981: "George Shultz, former Treasury Secretary
and now advising President-elect Ronald Reagan, visits me in the
Ministry of Mining at the head of a large Bechtel delegation. After
discussing mining issues, he stays alone for another hour and asks me
to explain fully our revolutionary social security reform. At the end,
he asks me for a one-page memo on the reform to give to Reagan. . . .
Next day I delivered it to his hotel. The Dow Jones is at 900."

Shultz apparently could not persuade Reagan. but kept working on the
matter. Today, he is a board member of the Republicans' House Policy
Committee's "Social Security Working Group," leading the push for
Social Security privatization, which George Bush is seeking to
implement now.

In his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," author John
Perkins, a former chief economist for the international consulting
firm Charles T. Main, identifies the process by which "economic
hitmen" working for large financial institutions and other firms
indebt Third World countries, and then use the debt to extract
military and political concessions from the indebted country; and to
commit genocide, so as to devour the country's natural resources.

In his analytical account, Perkins identified that George Shultz, both
as president of Bechtel (1975-82) and as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of
State (1982-89), functioned as the heir to Robert Strange McNamara as
one of the top figures in the new imperial pyramid of power, which
employed the structure of economic hitmen to bleed and crush nations.
Shultz used force to topple governments, such as the Philippines'
Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, and such as the various attacks on Panama,
culminating in the 1989 invasion. On Oct. 1, 1982, Mexican President
José López Portillo, fresh from his courageous imposition of exchange
controls the month before, carried out to protect Mexico's credit,
told the United Nations General Assembly that the world must either
change (Shultz's creation) the international monetary system "or else
enter into a new medieval Dark Age." Then-Secretary of State Shultz
had spoken one day earlier, Sept. 30, threatening the nations present
that they had better stay in line, and pay their debts to the IMF.

But Shultz's power goes further. On Oct. 25, 1984, speaking at the
Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, Shultz, dreaming of world empire,
delivered remarks calling for the U.S. to adopt a preemptive
first-strike policy, such as one might associate with Vice President
Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today. Shultz argued that
the United States had to strike first: "The public must understand
before the fact that some will seek to cast any preemptive or
retaliatory action by us in the worst light . . . The public must
understand before the fact that occasions will come when their
government must act before each and every fact is known."

The Vulcans and Arnie

That the bankers have entrusted to Shultz the special cases of George
W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger, indicates the level of overview and
direction Shultz exercises over the whole system.

In April 1998, at Shultz's Palo Alto, Calif. home, the George W. Bush
for President in 2000 campaign was formulated and launched. Shultz
later agreed to chair the Bush Presidential Exploratory Committee; his
vice chair was Dick Cheney. Recognizing that "Dubya" was one of the
most unqualified individuals ever to run for, let alone hold, high
office, Shultz formed a group to shape the tabula rasa of Bush's mind.
Group participant Condoleezza Rice gave the group the name "Vulcans,"
but it was Shultz who ran it and gave it its neo-conservative
ideology. Starting in autumn 1998, Shultz arranged that every Sunday
night, Condi Rice, and the Straussian Paul Wolfowitz (now #2 at the
Defense Department) would hold a conference call with Bush, then
Governor of Texas. Soon, it is reported, the Cold Warriors and Zionist
Lobby zealots Richard Perle and Dov Zakheim were holding Monday
morning conference calls with Bush. Thus Shultz developed a network
through which, at critical junctures, to set White House policy.

A similar process is underway for Arnie, the iron-pumping,
steroid-chugging import from Austria, who in a 1977 interview said, "I
admired Hitler . . . because he came from being a little man with
almost no formal education, up to power, and I admire him for being
such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people
and so on. . . ."

But how did Arnie get into the Governorship of California?

The deregulated electricity "Enron" rip-off of California in 2000-01,
to the tune of approximately $70 billion, led to the collapse of the
electricity grid, a crisis for basic industry, and a rage within the
population at rising energy bills. The circle that included George
Shultz turned the rage against the Governor, Democrat Gray Davis. On
Aug. 15, 2003, Arnie appeared before the cameras to announce his
campaign for Governor during the recall; he was flanked by his
campaign advisory team leaders George Shultz and Warren Buffett.
Buffett, who runs one of the biggest vulture funds in the world, has
been lionized as the "genius" of the investment world by Wall Street's
John Train.

On Sept 17, 2004, Schwarzenegger announced the establishment of a
16-member Council of Economic Advisors that will help him "in
confronting the economic challenges facing" California. Its chairman
is George Shultz.

Schwarzenegger has already exploded California's state debt by 50% and
savaged its government programs, in a single year as Governor. Now
Shultz is preparing Arnie for a Beast-Man run for the U.S. Presidency.

As his 50-year record shows, when the system is in breakdown, and the
oligarchy desperately needs sources of loot—as now, with Social
Security—George Shultz is the man with the "Chile model."
Pookie
2005-02-09 11:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deaf Power
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:58:21 -0500, "Pookie"
Post by Pookie
It means that...when there was a Democrat president stating that there was a
crisis in '98, Dems agreed...now 6+ years later, Pres. Bush says it's a
problem & Dems say "what problem?"...hypocrites!!!
George Shultz, your fellow Republican, started the Social Security
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/ss_privatization/3203_ss_pamphlet_intro.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/ss_privatization/3203_shultz.html
Post by Deaf Power
The Man With the
`Chile Model' of Fascism
by Richard Freeman and Paul Gallagher
This article is excerpted from the pamphlet "Bush's Social Security
Privatization: A Foot in the Door for Fascism," issued by the Lyndon
LaRouche Political Action Committee in December 2004.
No one figure is more responsible for the drive to privatize and loot
Social Security than George Pratt Shultz of Bechtel; senior "fixer" of
the Republican Party; senior recruiter of the George W. Bush White
House team, "the Vulcans"; and, like Robert McNamara before him, a
preeminent "economic hit-man" of the Anglo-American financial order on
the international stage. Shultz was the key official-issuing
instructions to President Richard Nixon-who brought Franklin
Roosevelt's Bretton Woods postwar monetary system to an end in August
1971. He was the master of the "Chicago economists" who dominated Gen.
Augusto Pinochet's 1973 coup and dictatorship in Chile. And Shultz in
1981 demanded from fascist Chile's Labor Minister José Piñera, who had
just privatized social security there, a memo to incoming President
Ronald Reagan on "how Chile did it." This was the first shot, fired 23
years ago, in the war against FDR's Social Security in the United
States. Shultz's banker network and Piñera have collaborated ever
since; and in fact, the "Chicago Boys" team of which Piñera was a part
in Pinochet's Chile, was a product then of Shultz and his pet
economist Milton Friedman.
Shultz, in a PBS-TV interview on Oct. 2, 2000, said of the Chile
events: "The armed forces took over and no doubt did some
unnecessarily brutal things in the process, but nevertheless they took
over. . . . There were in Chile some people who came to be called
`Chicago Boys,' they had studied economics at the University of
Chicago. . . . And so a Chicago School-like economy gradually evolved
in Chile. It worked."
Shultz vs. Roosevelt
Shultz's inside job in getting President Nixon to announce on Aug. 15,
1971, that the United States was going off the gold-reserve
system-toward the floating-exchange-rate system that has ruled
"globalization" ever since-hammered the nails in the coffin of
Roosevelt's protectionist Bretton Woods system. Shultz brought that
system to an official end with his declarations as U.S. Treasury
Secretary, at the September 1973 International Monetary Fund annual
meeting-just two and a half weeks after Pinochet's coup created
Shultz's "Chile model" of fascist economics to be exported
internationally.
Today, Shultz directs two of the bankers' most crucial projects.
First, through the Vulcan team featuring Condoleezza Rice and Paul
Wolfowitz-a team Shultz created for a Bush II Presidency in summer
1998-Shultz controls White House underlying policy. Second, ever since
Shultz assembled the Schwarzenegger for Governor campaign in
California in 2003, he has run the hands-on "Beast-Man Project": to
make Arnie into a Hitler-like live force in this country.
George Shultz was raised to set oligarchical policy; his father, Birl
Earl Shultz, was a major intelligence figure in the Anglo-American
"Trust" operation. The elder Shultz was the personnel director for the
American International Corporation of 120 Broadway, New York, N.Y.,
which was the most powerful hub of World War I-era Anglo-American
financial chicanery. In 1957, George Shultz joined the Chicago School,
becoming an economics professor at the University of Chicago's
Graduate Business School; he was dean of the Business School, 1962-68.
During this time, the Economics Department flourished as the American
command post for the financier oligarchy's Mont Pelerin Society, which
preached the anti-regulation, anti-government cult of speculative
monetarism. Pinochet's Chile, with its jackboot fascism and radical
privatization/looting of the country's national patrimony, was the
personification of the Chicago School ideology. It is not surprising
that the University of Chicago of the Shultz era provided cohabitation
for the neo-liberal Mont Pelerinites and the Hitlerianism of Leo
Strauss and the Straussian promoters of Nazi ideologues Martin
Heidegger and Carl Schmitt.
As a trusted Chicago School agent, in 1969, Shultz was seconded to the
incoming Richard Nixon Administration as Labor Secretary, at which
post he served through June 1970; then, as first head of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), he presided over brutal austerity until
May-June 1972; finally, he functioned as Treasury Secretary until June
1974. Working in tandem with Undersecretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs Paul A. Volcker, Shultz controlled and then replaced
Treasury Secretary John Connally. In 1969, Nixon was induced to sign
National Security Study Memorandum 7, which created a formally
designated "Volcker Group" inside his Administration, directed to
prepare plans to change monetary policy. In May 1971, this group
produced a paper entitled, "Contingency," which already proposed
"suspension of gold convertibility."
As head of OMB, Shultz used the burgeoning U.S. budget and
balance-of-payment crises to push his way into advising Nixon on
international monetary affairs. After a series of monetary crises that
had started with the November 1967 devaluation of Britain's pound
sterling, Shultz and Volcker made their move. According to a State
Department document, International Monetary Policy, 1969-72, on Aug.
2, 1971, and again on Aug. 12, President Nixon sequestered himself
with Shultz and Connally in extensive meetings at which the demolition
of the Bretton Woods system was mapped out. On the matter of the
international monetary system, Connally was constrained to present
Volcker's ideas. After two weeks of secret meetings, culminating in
two days of Camp David meetings, on Aug. 15, President Nixon announced
that he was severing the dollar from the gold reserve system. Nixon
also announced a fascist domestic austerity policy that was part of
the same package.
"And it was accepted not only that fixed rates were clearly
impracticable for the time being, but that also we were fortunate to
have in place a flexible market system. That was a bitter pill for
some to swallow. To others, including the U.S., the emergence of a
market-based system was seen as a greater improvement over the
inflexible gold-based system that preceded Camp David" (emphasis
added). In June 1972, Shultz had himself appointed U.S. Treasury
Secretary. In March 1973, he personally arranged, at a tense G-10
Finance Ministers meeting in Paris, to eliminate all support for fixed
exchange rates. Shultz crowed that "markets rather than governments
were explicitly in charge."
`Economic Hit Man'
In 1981, George Shultz, as Bechtel Corp. president and advisor to the
transition team of President-elect Ronald Reagan, paid a visit to José
Piñera, Chile's Minister for Labor and Social Security, who imposed
the privatization of social security at the point of a bayonet. Shultz
got from Piñera a memo on how to privatize Social Security on the
Chilean model. Piñera describes what happened in an entry on his
website, dated January 1981: "George Shultz, former Treasury Secretary
and now advising President-elect Ronald Reagan, visits me in the
Ministry of Mining at the head of a large Bechtel delegation. After
discussing mining issues, he stays alone for another hour and asks me
to explain fully our revolutionary social security reform. At the end,
he asks me for a one-page memo on the reform to give to Reagan. . . .
Next day I delivered it to his hotel. The Dow Jones is at 900."
Shultz apparently could not persuade Reagan. but kept working on the
matter. Today, he is a board member of the Republicans' House Policy
Committee's "Social Security Working Group," leading the push for
Social Security privatization, which George Bush is seeking to
implement now.
In his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," author John
Perkins, a former chief economist for the international consulting
firm Charles T. Main, identifies the process by which "economic
hitmen" working for large financial institutions and other firms
indebt Third World countries, and then use the debt to extract
military and political concessions from the indebted country; and to
commit genocide, so as to devour the country's natural resources.
In his analytical account, Perkins identified that George Shultz, both
as president of Bechtel (1975-82) and as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of
State (1982-89), functioned as the heir to Robert Strange McNamara as
one of the top figures in the new imperial pyramid of power, which
employed the structure of economic hitmen to bleed and crush nations.
Shultz used force to topple governments, such as the Philippines'
Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, and such as the various attacks on Panama,
culminating in the 1989 invasion. On Oct. 1, 1982, Mexican President
José López Portillo, fresh from his courageous imposition of exchange
controls the month before, carried out to protect Mexico's credit,
told the United Nations General Assembly that the world must either
change (Shultz's creation) the international monetary system "or else
enter into a new medieval Dark Age." Then-Secretary of State Shultz
had spoken one day earlier, Sept. 30, threatening the nations present
that they had better stay in line, and pay their debts to the IMF.
But Shultz's power goes further. On Oct. 25, 1984, speaking at the
Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, Shultz, dreaming of world empire,
delivered remarks calling for the U.S. to adopt a preemptive
first-strike policy, such as one might associate with Vice President
Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today. Shultz argued that
the United States had to strike first: "The public must understand
before the fact that some will seek to cast any preemptive or
retaliatory action by us in the worst light . . . The public must
understand before the fact that occasions will come when their
government must act before each and every fact is known."
The Vulcans and Arnie
That the bankers have entrusted to Shultz the special cases of George
W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger, indicates the level of overview and
direction Shultz exercises over the whole system.
In April 1998, at Shultz's Palo Alto, Calif. home, the George W. Bush
for President in 2000 campaign was formulated and launched. Shultz
later agreed to chair the Bush Presidential Exploratory Committee; his
vice chair was Dick Cheney. Recognizing that "Dubya" was one of the
most unqualified individuals ever to run for, let alone hold, high
office, Shultz formed a group to shape the tabula rasa of Bush's mind.
Group participant Condoleezza Rice gave the group the name "Vulcans,"
but it was Shultz who ran it and gave it its neo-conservative
ideology. Starting in autumn 1998, Shultz arranged that every Sunday
night, Condi Rice, and the Straussian Paul Wolfowitz (now #2 at the
Defense Department) would hold a conference call with Bush, then
Governor of Texas. Soon, it is reported, the Cold Warriors and Zionist
Lobby zealots Richard Perle and Dov Zakheim were holding Monday
morning conference calls with Bush. Thus Shultz developed a network
through which, at critical junctures, to set White House policy.
A similar process is underway for Arnie, the iron-pumping,
steroid-chugging import from Austria, who in a 1977 interview said, "I
admired Hitler . . . because he came from being a little man with
almost no formal education, up to power, and I admire him for being
such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people
and so on. . . ."
But how did Arnie get into the Governorship of California?
The deregulated electricity "Enron" rip-off of California in 2000-01,
to the tune of approximately $70 billion, led to the collapse of the
electricity grid, a crisis for basic industry, and a rage within the
population at rising energy bills. The circle that included George
Shultz turned the rage against the Governor, Democrat Gray Davis. On
Aug. 15, 2003, Arnie appeared before the cameras to announce his
campaign for Governor during the recall; he was flanked by his
campaign advisory team leaders George Shultz and Warren Buffett.
Buffett, who runs one of the biggest vulture funds in the world, has
been lionized as the "genius" of the investment world by Wall Street's
John Train.
On Sept 17, 2004, Schwarzenegger announced the establishment of a
16-member Council of Economic Advisors that will help him "in
confronting the economic challenges facing" California. Its chairman
is George Shultz.
Schwarzenegger has already exploded California's state debt by 50% and
savaged its government programs, in a single year as Governor. Now
Shultz is preparing Arnie for a Beast-Man run for the U.S. Presidency.
As his 50-year record shows, when the system is in breakdown, and the
oligarchy desperately needs sources of loot-as now, with Social
Security-George Shultz is the man with the "Chile model."
Lyndon Larouche, fascism?

Loading Image...
Deaf Power
2005-02-09 14:54:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 06:44:33 -0500, "Pookie"
Post by Deaf Power
Post by Deaf Power
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:58:21 -0500, "Pookie"
Post by Pookie
It means that...when there was a Democrat president stating that there
was a
Post by Deaf Power
Post by Pookie
crisis in '98, Dems agreed...now 6+ years later, Pres. Bush says it's a
problem & Dems say "what problem?"...hypocrites!!!
George Shultz, your fellow Republican, started the Social Security
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/ss_privatization/3203_ss_pamphlet_intro.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/ss_privatization/3203_shultz.html
Post by Deaf Power
The Man With the
`Chile Model' of Fascism
by Richard Freeman and Paul Gallagher
This article is excerpted from the pamphlet "Bush's Social Security
Privatization: A Foot in the Door for Fascism," issued by the Lyndon
LaRouche Political Action Committee in December 2004.
No one figure is more responsible for the drive to privatize and loot
Social Security than George Pratt Shultz of Bechtel; senior "fixer" of
the Republican Party; senior recruiter of the George W. Bush White
House team, "the Vulcans"; and, like Robert McNamara before him, a
preeminent "economic hit-man" of the Anglo-American financial order on
the international stage. Shultz was the key official-issuing
instructions to President Richard Nixon-who brought Franklin
Roosevelt's Bretton Woods postwar monetary system to an end in August
1971. He was the master of the "Chicago economists" who dominated Gen.
Augusto Pinochet's 1973 coup and dictatorship in Chile. And Shultz in
1981 demanded from fascist Chile's Labor Minister José Piñera, who had
just privatized social security there, a memo to incoming President
Ronald Reagan on "how Chile did it." This was the first shot, fired 23
years ago, in the war against FDR's Social Security in the United
States. Shultz's banker network and Piñera have collaborated ever
since; and in fact, the "Chicago Boys" team of which Piñera was a part
in Pinochet's Chile, was a product then of Shultz and his pet
economist Milton Friedman.
Shultz, in a PBS-TV interview on Oct. 2, 2000, said of the Chile
events: "The armed forces took over and no doubt did some
unnecessarily brutal things in the process, but nevertheless they took
over. . . . There were in Chile some people who came to be called
`Chicago Boys,' they had studied economics at the University of
Chicago. . . . And so a Chicago School-like economy gradually evolved
in Chile. It worked."
Shultz vs. Roosevelt
Shultz's inside job in getting President Nixon to announce on Aug. 15,
1971, that the United States was going off the gold-reserve
system-toward the floating-exchange-rate system that has ruled
"globalization" ever since-hammered the nails in the coffin of
Roosevelt's protectionist Bretton Woods system. Shultz brought that
system to an official end with his declarations as U.S. Treasury
Secretary, at the September 1973 International Monetary Fund annual
meeting-just two and a half weeks after Pinochet's coup created
Shultz's "Chile model" of fascist economics to be exported
internationally.
Today, Shultz directs two of the bankers' most crucial projects.
First, through the Vulcan team featuring Condoleezza Rice and Paul
Wolfowitz-a team Shultz created for a Bush II Presidency in summer
1998-Shultz controls White House underlying policy. Second, ever since
Shultz assembled the Schwarzenegger for Governor campaign in
California in 2003, he has run the hands-on "Beast-Man Project": to
make Arnie into a Hitler-like live force in this country.
George Shultz was raised to set oligarchical policy; his father, Birl
Earl Shultz, was a major intelligence figure in the Anglo-American
"Trust" operation. The elder Shultz was the personnel director for the
American International Corporation of 120 Broadway, New York, N.Y.,
which was the most powerful hub of World War I-era Anglo-American
financial chicanery. In 1957, George Shultz joined the Chicago School,
becoming an economics professor at the University of Chicago's
Graduate Business School; he was dean of the Business School, 1962-68.
During this time, the Economics Department flourished as the American
command post for the financier oligarchy's Mont Pelerin Society, which
preached the anti-regulation, anti-government cult of speculative
monetarism. Pinochet's Chile, with its jackboot fascism and radical
privatization/looting of the country's national patrimony, was the
personification of the Chicago School ideology. It is not surprising
that the University of Chicago of the Shultz era provided cohabitation
for the neo-liberal Mont Pelerinites and the Hitlerianism of Leo
Strauss and the Straussian promoters of Nazi ideologues Martin
Heidegger and Carl Schmitt.
As a trusted Chicago School agent, in 1969, Shultz was seconded to the
incoming Richard Nixon Administration as Labor Secretary, at which
post he served through June 1970; then, as first head of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), he presided over brutal austerity until
May-June 1972; finally, he functioned as Treasury Secretary until June
1974. Working in tandem with Undersecretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs Paul A. Volcker, Shultz controlled and then replaced
Treasury Secretary John Connally. In 1969, Nixon was induced to sign
National Security Study Memorandum 7, which created a formally
designated "Volcker Group" inside his Administration, directed to
prepare plans to change monetary policy. In May 1971, this group
produced a paper entitled, "Contingency," which already proposed
"suspension of gold convertibility."
As head of OMB, Shultz used the burgeoning U.S. budget and
balance-of-payment crises to push his way into advising Nixon on
international monetary affairs. After a series of monetary crises that
had started with the November 1967 devaluation of Britain's pound
sterling, Shultz and Volcker made their move. According to a State
Department document, International Monetary Policy, 1969-72, on Aug.
2, 1971, and again on Aug. 12, President Nixon sequestered himself
with Shultz and Connally in extensive meetings at which the demolition
of the Bretton Woods system was mapped out. On the matter of the
international monetary system, Connally was constrained to present
Volcker's ideas. After two weeks of secret meetings, culminating in
two days of Camp David meetings, on Aug. 15, President Nixon announced
that he was severing the dollar from the gold reserve system. Nixon
also announced a fascist domestic austerity policy that was part of
the same package.
"And it was accepted not only that fixed rates were clearly
impracticable for the time being, but that also we were fortunate to
have in place a flexible market system. That was a bitter pill for
some to swallow. To others, including the U.S., the emergence of a
market-based system was seen as a greater improvement over the
inflexible gold-based system that preceded Camp David" (emphasis
added). In June 1972, Shultz had himself appointed U.S. Treasury
Secretary. In March 1973, he personally arranged, at a tense G-10
Finance Ministers meeting in Paris, to eliminate all support for fixed
exchange rates. Shultz crowed that "markets rather than governments
were explicitly in charge."
`Economic Hit Man'
In 1981, George Shultz, as Bechtel Corp. president and advisor to the
transition team of President-elect Ronald Reagan, paid a visit to José
Piñera, Chile's Minister for Labor and Social Security, who imposed
the privatization of social security at the point of a bayonet. Shultz
got from Piñera a memo on how to privatize Social Security on the
Chilean model. Piñera describes what happened in an entry on his
website, dated January 1981: "George Shultz, former Treasury Secretary
and now advising President-elect Ronald Reagan, visits me in the
Ministry of Mining at the head of a large Bechtel delegation. After
discussing mining issues, he stays alone for another hour and asks me
to explain fully our revolutionary social security reform. At the end,
he asks me for a one-page memo on the reform to give to Reagan. . . .
Next day I delivered it to his hotel. The Dow Jones is at 900."
Shultz apparently could not persuade Reagan. but kept working on the
matter. Today, he is a board member of the Republicans' House Policy
Committee's "Social Security Working Group," leading the push for
Social Security privatization, which George Bush is seeking to
implement now.
In his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," author John
Perkins, a former chief economist for the international consulting
firm Charles T. Main, identifies the process by which "economic
hitmen" working for large financial institutions and other firms
indebt Third World countries, and then use the debt to extract
military and political concessions from the indebted country; and to
commit genocide, so as to devour the country's natural resources.
In his analytical account, Perkins identified that George Shultz, both
as president of Bechtel (1975-82) and as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of
State (1982-89), functioned as the heir to Robert Strange McNamara as
one of the top figures in the new imperial pyramid of power, which
employed the structure of economic hitmen to bleed and crush nations.
Shultz used force to topple governments, such as the Philippines'
Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, and such as the various attacks on Panama,
culminating in the 1989 invasion. On Oct. 1, 1982, Mexican President
José López Portillo, fresh from his courageous imposition of exchange
controls the month before, carried out to protect Mexico's credit,
told the United Nations General Assembly that the world must either
change (Shultz's creation) the international monetary system "or else
enter into a new medieval Dark Age." Then-Secretary of State Shultz
had spoken one day earlier, Sept. 30, threatening the nations present
that they had better stay in line, and pay their debts to the IMF.
But Shultz's power goes further. On Oct. 25, 1984, speaking at the
Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, Shultz, dreaming of world empire,
delivered remarks calling for the U.S. to adopt a preemptive
first-strike policy, such as one might associate with Vice President
Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today. Shultz argued that
the United States had to strike first: "The public must understand
before the fact that some will seek to cast any preemptive or
retaliatory action by us in the worst light . . . The public must
understand before the fact that occasions will come when their
government must act before each and every fact is known."
The Vulcans and Arnie
That the bankers have entrusted to Shultz the special cases of George
W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger, indicates the level of overview and
direction Shultz exercises over the whole system.
In April 1998, at Shultz's Palo Alto, Calif. home, the George W. Bush
for President in 2000 campaign was formulated and launched. Shultz
later agreed to chair the Bush Presidential Exploratory Committee; his
vice chair was Dick Cheney. Recognizing that "Dubya" was one of the
most unqualified individuals ever to run for, let alone hold, high
office, Shultz formed a group to shape the tabula rasa of Bush's mind.
Group participant Condoleezza Rice gave the group the name "Vulcans,"
but it was Shultz who ran it and gave it its neo-conservative
ideology. Starting in autumn 1998, Shultz arranged that every Sunday
night, Condi Rice, and the Straussian Paul Wolfowitz (now #2 at the
Defense Department) would hold a conference call with Bush, then
Governor of Texas. Soon, it is reported, the Cold Warriors and Zionist
Lobby zealots Richard Perle and Dov Zakheim were holding Monday
morning conference calls with Bush. Thus Shultz developed a network
through which, at critical junctures, to set White House policy.
A similar process is underway for Arnie, the iron-pumping,
steroid-chugging import from Austria, who in a 1977 interview said, "I
admired Hitler . . . because he came from being a little man with
almost no formal education, up to power, and I admire him for being
such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people
and so on. . . ."
But how did Arnie get into the Governorship of California?
The deregulated electricity "Enron" rip-off of California in 2000-01,
to the tune of approximately $70 billion, led to the collapse of the
electricity grid, a crisis for basic industry, and a rage within the
population at rising energy bills. The circle that included George
Shultz turned the rage against the Governor, Democrat Gray Davis. On
Aug. 15, 2003, Arnie appeared before the cameras to announce his
campaign for Governor during the recall; he was flanked by his
campaign advisory team leaders George Shultz and Warren Buffett.
Buffett, who runs one of the biggest vulture funds in the world, has
been lionized as the "genius" of the investment world by Wall Street's
John Train.
On Sept 17, 2004, Schwarzenegger announced the establishment of a
16-member Council of Economic Advisors that will help him "in
confronting the economic challenges facing" California. Its chairman
is George Shultz.
Schwarzenegger has already exploded California's state debt by 50% and
savaged its government programs, in a single year as Governor. Now
Shultz is preparing Arnie for a Beast-Man run for the U.S. Presidency.
As his 50-year record shows, when the system is in breakdown, and the
oligarchy desperately needs sources of loot-as now, with Social
Security-George Shultz is the man with the "Chile model."
Lyndon Larouche, fascism?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/i_collect_it/democrat-seal.jpg
Republicans, Bush, fascism?

Loading Image...
Pookie
2005-02-09 14:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deaf Power
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 06:44:33 -0500, "Pookie"
Post by Pookie
Post by Deaf Power
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:58:21 -0500, "Pookie"
Post by Pookie
It means that...when there was a Democrat president stating that there
was a
Post by Deaf Power
Post by Pookie
crisis in '98, Dems agreed...now 6+ years later, Pres. Bush says it's a
problem & Dems say "what problem?"...hypocrites!!!
George Shultz, your fellow Republican, started the Social Security
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/ss_privatization/3203_s
s_pamphlet_intro.html
Post by Deaf Power
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/site_packages/ss_privatization/3203_s
hultz.html
Post by Deaf Power
Post by Pookie
Post by Deaf Power
The Man With the
`Chile Model' of Fascism
by Richard Freeman and Paul Gallagher
This article is excerpted from the pamphlet "Bush's Social Security
Privatization: A Foot in the Door for Fascism," issued by the Lyndon
LaRouche Political Action Committee in December 2004.
No one figure is more responsible for the drive to privatize and loot
Social Security than George Pratt Shultz of Bechtel; senior "fixer" of
the Republican Party; senior recruiter of the George W. Bush White
House team, "the Vulcans"; and, like Robert McNamara before him, a
preeminent "economic hit-man" of the Anglo-American financial order on
the international stage. Shultz was the key official-issuing
instructions to President Richard Nixon-who brought Franklin
Roosevelt's Bretton Woods postwar monetary system to an end in August
1971. He was the master of the "Chicago economists" who dominated Gen.
Augusto Pinochet's 1973 coup and dictatorship in Chile. And Shultz in
1981 demanded from fascist Chile's Labor Minister José Piñera, who had
just privatized social security there, a memo to incoming President
Ronald Reagan on "how Chile did it." This was the first shot, fired 23
years ago, in the war against FDR's Social Security in the United
States. Shultz's banker network and Piñera have collaborated ever
since; and in fact, the "Chicago Boys" team of which Piñera was a part
in Pinochet's Chile, was a product then of Shultz and his pet
economist Milton Friedman.
Shultz, in a PBS-TV interview on Oct. 2, 2000, said of the Chile
events: "The armed forces took over and no doubt did some
unnecessarily brutal things in the process, but nevertheless they took
over. . . . There were in Chile some people who came to be called
`Chicago Boys,' they had studied economics at the University of
Chicago. . . . And so a Chicago School-like economy gradually evolved
in Chile. It worked."
Shultz vs. Roosevelt
Shultz's inside job in getting President Nixon to announce on Aug. 15,
1971, that the United States was going off the gold-reserve
system-toward the floating-exchange-rate system that has ruled
"globalization" ever since-hammered the nails in the coffin of
Roosevelt's protectionist Bretton Woods system. Shultz brought that
system to an official end with his declarations as U.S. Treasury
Secretary, at the September 1973 International Monetary Fund annual
meeting-just two and a half weeks after Pinochet's coup created
Shultz's "Chile model" of fascist economics to be exported
internationally.
Today, Shultz directs two of the bankers' most crucial projects.
First, through the Vulcan team featuring Condoleezza Rice and Paul
Wolfowitz-a team Shultz created for a Bush II Presidency in summer
1998-Shultz controls White House underlying policy. Second, ever since
Shultz assembled the Schwarzenegger for Governor campaign in
California in 2003, he has run the hands-on "Beast-Man Project": to
make Arnie into a Hitler-like live force in this country.
George Shultz was raised to set oligarchical policy; his father, Birl
Earl Shultz, was a major intelligence figure in the Anglo-American
"Trust" operation. The elder Shultz was the personnel director for the
American International Corporation of 120 Broadway, New York, N.Y.,
which was the most powerful hub of World War I-era Anglo-American
financial chicanery. In 1957, George Shultz joined the Chicago School,
becoming an economics professor at the University of Chicago's
Graduate Business School; he was dean of the Business School, 1962-68.
During this time, the Economics Department flourished as the American
command post for the financier oligarchy's Mont Pelerin Society, which
preached the anti-regulation, anti-government cult of speculative
monetarism. Pinochet's Chile, with its jackboot fascism and radical
privatization/looting of the country's national patrimony, was the
personification of the Chicago School ideology. It is not surprising
that the University of Chicago of the Shultz era provided cohabitation
for the neo-liberal Mont Pelerinites and the Hitlerianism of Leo
Strauss and the Straussian promoters of Nazi ideologues Martin
Heidegger and Carl Schmitt.
As a trusted Chicago School agent, in 1969, Shultz was seconded to the
incoming Richard Nixon Administration as Labor Secretary, at which
post he served through June 1970; then, as first head of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), he presided over brutal austerity until
May-June 1972; finally, he functioned as Treasury Secretary until June
1974. Working in tandem with Undersecretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs Paul A. Volcker, Shultz controlled and then replaced
Treasury Secretary John Connally. In 1969, Nixon was induced to sign
National Security Study Memorandum 7, which created a formally
designated "Volcker Group" inside his Administration, directed to
prepare plans to change monetary policy. In May 1971, this group
produced a paper entitled, "Contingency," which already proposed
"suspension of gold convertibility."
As head of OMB, Shultz used the burgeoning U.S. budget and
balance-of-payment crises to push his way into advising Nixon on
international monetary affairs. After a series of monetary crises that
had started with the November 1967 devaluation of Britain's pound
sterling, Shultz and Volcker made their move. According to a State
Department document, International Monetary Policy, 1969-72, on Aug.
2, 1971, and again on Aug. 12, President Nixon sequestered himself
with Shultz and Connally in extensive meetings at which the demolition
of the Bretton Woods system was mapped out. On the matter of the
international monetary system, Connally was constrained to present
Volcker's ideas. After two weeks of secret meetings, culminating in
two days of Camp David meetings, on Aug. 15, President Nixon announced
that he was severing the dollar from the gold reserve system. Nixon
also announced a fascist domestic austerity policy that was part of
the same package.
"And it was accepted not only that fixed rates were clearly
impracticable for the time being, but that also we were fortunate to
have in place a flexible market system. That was a bitter pill for
some to swallow. To others, including the U.S., the emergence of a
market-based system was seen as a greater improvement over the
inflexible gold-based system that preceded Camp David" (emphasis
added). In June 1972, Shultz had himself appointed U.S. Treasury
Secretary. In March 1973, he personally arranged, at a tense G-10
Finance Ministers meeting in Paris, to eliminate all support for fixed
exchange rates. Shultz crowed that "markets rather than governments
were explicitly in charge."
`Economic Hit Man'
In 1981, George Shultz, as Bechtel Corp. president and advisor to the
transition team of President-elect Ronald Reagan, paid a visit to José
Piñera, Chile's Minister for Labor and Social Security, who imposed
the privatization of social security at the point of a bayonet. Shultz
got from Piñera a memo on how to privatize Social Security on the
Chilean model. Piñera describes what happened in an entry on his
website, dated January 1981: "George Shultz, former Treasury Secretary
and now advising President-elect Ronald Reagan, visits me in the
Ministry of Mining at the head of a large Bechtel delegation. After
discussing mining issues, he stays alone for another hour and asks me
to explain fully our revolutionary social security reform. At the end,
he asks me for a one-page memo on the reform to give to Reagan. . . .
Next day I delivered it to his hotel. The Dow Jones is at 900."
Shultz apparently could not persuade Reagan. but kept working on the
matter. Today, he is a board member of the Republicans' House Policy
Committee's "Social Security Working Group," leading the push for
Social Security privatization, which George Bush is seeking to
implement now.
In his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," author John
Perkins, a former chief economist for the international consulting
firm Charles T. Main, identifies the process by which "economic
hitmen" working for large financial institutions and other firms
indebt Third World countries, and then use the debt to extract
military and political concessions from the indebted country; and to
commit genocide, so as to devour the country's natural resources.
In his analytical account, Perkins identified that George Shultz, both
as president of Bechtel (1975-82) and as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of
State (1982-89), functioned as the heir to Robert Strange McNamara as
one of the top figures in the new imperial pyramid of power, which
employed the structure of economic hitmen to bleed and crush nations.
Shultz used force to topple governments, such as the Philippines'
Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, and such as the various attacks on Panama,
culminating in the 1989 invasion. On Oct. 1, 1982, Mexican President
José López Portillo, fresh from his courageous imposition of exchange
controls the month before, carried out to protect Mexico's credit,
told the United Nations General Assembly that the world must either
change (Shultz's creation) the international monetary system "or else
enter into a new medieval Dark Age." Then-Secretary of State Shultz
had spoken one day earlier, Sept. 30, threatening the nations present
that they had better stay in line, and pay their debts to the IMF.
But Shultz's power goes further. On Oct. 25, 1984, speaking at the
Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, Shultz, dreaming of world empire,
delivered remarks calling for the U.S. to adopt a preemptive
first-strike policy, such as one might associate with Vice President
Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today. Shultz argued that
the United States had to strike first: "The public must understand
before the fact that some will seek to cast any preemptive or
retaliatory action by us in the worst light . . . The public must
understand before the fact that occasions will come when their
government must act before each and every fact is known."
The Vulcans and Arnie
That the bankers have entrusted to Shultz the special cases of George
W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger, indicates the level of overview and
direction Shultz exercises over the whole system.
In April 1998, at Shultz's Palo Alto, Calif. home, the George W. Bush
for President in 2000 campaign was formulated and launched. Shultz
later agreed to chair the Bush Presidential Exploratory Committee; his
vice chair was Dick Cheney. Recognizing that "Dubya" was one of the
most unqualified individuals ever to run for, let alone hold, high
office, Shultz formed a group to shape the tabula rasa of Bush's mind.
Group participant Condoleezza Rice gave the group the name "Vulcans,"
but it was Shultz who ran it and gave it its neo-conservative
ideology. Starting in autumn 1998, Shultz arranged that every Sunday
night, Condi Rice, and the Straussian Paul Wolfowitz (now #2 at the
Defense Department) would hold a conference call with Bush, then
Governor of Texas. Soon, it is reported, the Cold Warriors and Zionist
Lobby zealots Richard Perle and Dov Zakheim were holding Monday
morning conference calls with Bush. Thus Shultz developed a network
through which, at critical junctures, to set White House policy.
A similar process is underway for Arnie, the iron-pumping,
steroid-chugging import from Austria, who in a 1977 interview said, "I
admired Hitler . . . because he came from being a little man with
almost no formal education, up to power, and I admire him for being
such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people
and so on. . . ."
But how did Arnie get into the Governorship of California?
The deregulated electricity "Enron" rip-off of California in 2000-01,
to the tune of approximately $70 billion, led to the collapse of the
electricity grid, a crisis for basic industry, and a rage within the
population at rising energy bills. The circle that included George
Shultz turned the rage against the Governor, Democrat Gray Davis. On
Aug. 15, 2003, Arnie appeared before the cameras to announce his
campaign for Governor during the recall; he was flanked by his
campaign advisory team leaders George Shultz and Warren Buffett.
Buffett, who runs one of the biggest vulture funds in the world, has
been lionized as the "genius" of the investment world by Wall Street's
John Train.
On Sept 17, 2004, Schwarzenegger announced the establishment of a
16-member Council of Economic Advisors that will help him "in
confronting the economic challenges facing" California. Its chairman
is George Shultz.
Schwarzenegger has already exploded California's state debt by 50% and
savaged its government programs, in a single year as Governor. Now
Shultz is preparing Arnie for a Beast-Man run for the U.S. Presidency.
As his 50-year record shows, when the system is in breakdown, and the
oligarchy desperately needs sources of loot-as now, with Social
Security-George Shultz is the man with the "Chile model."
Lyndon Larouche, fascism?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/i_collect_it/democrat-seal.jpg
Republicans, Bush, fascism?
http://www.bartcop.com/gop-koolaid.jpg
<img src="Loading Image...">


<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img
src="Loading Image..."><im
g src="Loading Image...">

<img
src="http://www.unitedmedia.com/editoons/asay/archive/images/asay20183087050
208.gif" height="332" width="450">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img
src="http://www.nctimes.com/content/articles/2005/02/08/opinion/cartoon/thor
nhill02082005.jpg">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img
src="http://www.newsobserver.com/images/xtq_photos/2005-1/xtq_20050208-image
s/powelled.GIF">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="http://tinypic.com/1oqgip">

<img
src="Loading Image...">

<img
src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/i_collect_it/democrat-seal.jpg">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img
src="Loading Image...">

<img
src="http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlmainpicture&b
lobheader=image/jpeg&blobkey=id&blobtable=MGImage&blobwhere=1031780608024&ss
binary=true">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img
src="http://vh10018.v1.moc.gbahn.net/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Avis=B2&Dato=20050
208&Kategori=OPINION03&Lopenr=50207019&Ref=AR&MaxW=450">

<img src="Loading Image...">

<img
src="Loading Image..."
VRWC Destruction Machine
2005-02-09 17:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deaf Power
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:08:59 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by Pookie
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
What poll is that?
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Feb. 3-4, 2005. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for
all adults).
Now on the subject of Social Security: When you retire, do you expect
that Social Security will be able to pay all the benefits you are
entitled to under current law, or not?
39% Will 43% Will Not
Will not. Bush should be impeached for trying to screw up SS. Those
republicans supporting the thug should be kicked out.
Your diaper needs changing, little boy.
Post by Deaf Power
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
President Bush says that Social Security is facing a funding crisis
and that by about 2040 the system will be bankrupt. Based on what
you've heard or read, do you agree or disagree that Social Security
faces a funding crisis?
65% Agree 26% Disagree
I disagree. Bush is a sleazy fucking liar. The Social Security will
not be bankrupt. Benefits will continue payout after 2042 (or 2052)
but 70% less. Only minor modification is needed to restore to 100%.
Yeah, with the Dummycrat solution for everything, tax increase. The
Dummycrat Morons can't see there will soon be more people on
retirement than people paying into the system.
Deaf Power
2005-02-09 18:15:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:37 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Yeah, with the Dummycrat solution for everything, tax increase.
Whine, whine, whine. Before you die, stuff all your money in your
coffin so you can go to heaven with your money. Be sure to include
that in your will.
KK
2005-02-09 18:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deaf Power
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:37 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Yeah, with the Dummycrat solution for everything, tax increase.
Whine, whine, whine. Before you die, stuff all your money in your
coffin so you can go to heaven with your money. Be sure to include
that in your will.
Whine, whine, whine is right. The money that's already confiscated from
my paycheck before I even get it is unconscionable. But the
inheritance tax on property that's already been taxed and taxed and
taxed again? You don't think people have a right to pass on what they've
worked for and saved to their children, rather than have Leviathan
government grab it for its own purposes?
VRWC Destruction Machine
2005-02-10 15:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deaf Power
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:37 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Yeah, with the Dummycrat solution for everything, tax increase.
Whine, whine, whine. Before you die, stuff all your money in your
coffin so you can go to heaven with your money. Be sure to include
that in your will.
You're free to sign your paycheck over to the Socialist Dummycrats,
Diaper Boy.

You can't argue my point there will soon be more people on Social
Security than people paying into the system.
Deaf Power
2005-02-10 17:37:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:52:00 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
You can't argue my point there will soon be more people on Social
Security than people paying into the system.
So? It doesn't destroy it anyway. Go do research before spouting lies.
Cheeks
2005-02-13 03:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by Deaf Power
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:37 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Yeah, with the Dummycrat solution for everything, tax increase.
Whine, whine, whine. Before you die, stuff all your money in your
coffin so you can go to heaven with your money. Be sure to include
that in your will.
You're free to sign your paycheck over to the Socialist Dummycrats,
Diaper Boy.
You can't argue my point there will soon be more people on Social
Security than people paying into the system.
How you like that Bush "solution" - simply ignore all
the SS obligations.. The trend could catch on - have the
U.S. government simply ignore its financial obligations.

Of course, when the [Red] Chinese notice that U.S. government
bonds and notes can simply become worthless, who is going to
finance the massive Bush Administration deficit?

Worse, when SS has been consumed by the goddam Republicans, what
mechanism will be used to finance their massive spending? Who
will pay Halliburton?
--
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?

How many hands have I shacked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.

I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where
our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize Society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
Cheeks
2005-02-13 03:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by Deaf Power
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:37 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Yeah, with the Dummycrat solution for everything, tax increase.
Whine, whine, whine. Before you die, stuff all your money in your
coffin so you can go to heaven with your money. Be sure to include
that in your will.
You're free to sign your paycheck over to the Socialist Dummycrats,
Diaper Boy.
You can't argue my point there will soon be more people on Social
Security than people paying into the system.
You're free to remain an ignorant little right wing pile
of human shit, VRWC!
--
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?

How many hands have I shacked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.

I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where
our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize Society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
RICE'S[ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ]TEETH
2005-02-13 19:51:13 UTC
Permalink
This must be an old thread because last week, his approval ratings dropped
as low as they were back in Oct and almost as low as they have ever been.
Post by Cheeks
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by Deaf Power
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:37 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Yeah, with the Dummycrat solution for everything, tax increase.
Whine, whine, whine. Before you die, stuff all your money in your
coffin so you can go to heaven with your money. Be sure to include
that in your will.
You're free to sign your paycheck over to the Socialist Dummycrats,
Diaper Boy.
You can't argue my point there will soon be more people on Social
Security than people paying into the system.
You're free to remain an ignorant little right wing pile
of human shit, VRWC!
--
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shacked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where
our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize Society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
2005-02-09 19:57:32 UTC
Permalink
The only reason dems have to raise taxes is to make up for the fukups the
repugs did previously. It will happen again. Repugs screw it up, dems fix
it. Your stupid president gave back $300 and took that and more just to take
care of rising gas prices. Remember Ray-gun's trickle down that never
trickled beyond the upper 1%. That's right. You mess it up, we'll fix it.
That's the tradition.
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by Deaf Power
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:08:59 -0800, VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
Post by Pookie
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
What poll is that?
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Feb. 3-4, 2005. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for
all adults).
Now on the subject of Social Security: When you retire, do you expect
that Social Security will be able to pay all the benefits you are
entitled to under current law, or not?
39% Will 43% Will Not
Will not. Bush should be impeached for trying to screw up SS. Those
republicans supporting the thug should be kicked out.
Your diaper needs changing, little boy.
Post by Deaf Power
Post by VRWC Destruction Machine
President Bush says that Social Security is facing a funding crisis
and that by about 2040 the system will be bankrupt. Based on what
you've heard or read, do you agree or disagree that Social Security
faces a funding crisis?
65% Agree 26% Disagree
I disagree. Bush is a sleazy fucking liar. The Social Security will
not be bankrupt. Benefits will continue payout after 2042 (or 2052)
but 70% less. Only minor modification is needed to restore to 100%.
Yeah, with the Dummycrat solution for everything, tax increase. The
Dummycrat Morons can't see there will soon be more people on
retirement than people paying into the system.
Steven L.
2005-02-07 23:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest approval
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.
Bush doesn't care one way or the other.

But improved poll numbers may put some iron in the backbone of wavering
Congressional Republicans to stick with the program.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Ran Endish
2005-02-07 23:35:36 UTC
Permalink
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
Post by Steven L.
Post by Pookie
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest approval
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.
Bush doesn't care one way or the other.
But improved poll numbers may put some iron in the backbone of wavering
Congressional Republicans to stick with the program.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Pookie
2005-02-07 23:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Always looking for the silver lining...

http://metafella.topcities.com/election/ep6/crybaby.jpg
Post by Pookie
The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to partially
privatize Social Security, however. Only 44% said they approved of his
approach, compared with 50% who said they disapproved.
Post by Steven L.
Post by Pookie
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest
approval
Post by Steven L.
Post by Pookie
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in
a
Post by Pookie
USA
Post by Steven L.
Post by Pookie
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.
Bush doesn't care one way or the other.
But improved poll numbers may put some iron in the backbone of wavering
Congressional Republicans to stick with the program.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Deaf Power
2005-02-08 03:05:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:30:18 GMT, "Steven L."
Post by Steven L.
Post by Pookie
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest approval
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.
Bush doesn't care one way or the other.
True, it's his last term and he said, fuck it, I have a mandate.

Cleverly, he started with Afghan war, hurried to switch to Iraq just
in time before second election, then fuck with his biggest obsession,
Social Security, knowing its his last term and he will be screwed if
the public turns against him.
DeeOooGee
2005-02-08 01:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest approval
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.
According to the poll, health care costs, education and
the economy were the top three domestic items considered 'extremely
important' for Americans.
By Ron Edmonds, AP
In reversals from a month ago, majorities said that going to war
in Iraq was not a mistake, that things are going well there and that it's
likely democracy will be established in Iraq. (Related item: Poll results)
Bush's approval rating of 57% was his highest since he reached
59% in January 2004. Strategists from both parties attributed the rise to
timing.
<snip> > Republicans received a 56% favorable rating, compared with 46% for
Post by Pookie
Democrats - a 10-point advantage, up from 6 points in September. And 55%
said Bush's policies would move the country in the right direction - up from
51% last month.
Garin called it "a difficult time for Democrats to get their
message across." He said that would get easier as domestic issues move to
center stage.
"We're likely to see a more even balance" between the parties
when the debate turns to Social Security and the budget, he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-07-bush-poll_x.htm
I didn't know this was a binary group!
FuckingBatWings
2005-02-08 04:58:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:24:06 -0500, "Pookie"
Post by Pookie
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest approval
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA
Great! This proves how stupid the Merkin people are once again!
Lucile Wilson
2005-02-09 18:21:41 UTC
Permalink
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
Pookie
2005-02-09 19:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill Clinton who
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/i_collect_it/democrat-seal.jpg
Michael
2005-02-09 19:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill Clinton who
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
or the same bill clinton that the media attributed a 70% "approval" rating
to by equating the status of the economy to his job approval?
--
"I know this story is true."
-Dan Rather, while digging his own grave
John Starrett
2005-02-09 20:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill Clinton who
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
Clinton was legally elected president by the rules set down in the
Constitution. If you don't like how the system works, why don't you move
to another country?

JS
RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
2005-02-09 20:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill Clinton who
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
Clinton was legally elected president by the rules set down in the
Constitution. If you don't like how the system works, why don't you move
to another country?
JS
He/she/it fails to see the significance of the 3 party people that ran. When
three active candidates run, none will get 50% of the vote. Most people that
know nothing about politics fail to understand this simple concept.
lab~rat
2005-02-09 20:54:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:48:00 -0500, "RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill Clinton
who
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
Clinton was legally elected president by the rules set down in the
Constitution. If you don't like how the system works, why don't you move
to another country?
JS
He/she/it fails to see the significance of the 3 party people that ran. When
three active candidates run, none will get 50% of the vote. Most people that
know nothing about politics fail to understand this simple concept.
Interesting, how many parties ran in 2004?

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.
Pookie
2005-02-09 21:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill
Clinton
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
who
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
Clinton was legally elected president by the rules set down in the
Constitution. If you don't like how the system works, why don't you move
to another country?
JS
He/she/it fails to see the significance of the 3 party people that ran. When
three active candidates run, none will get 50% of the vote. Most people that
know nothing about politics fail to understand this simple concept.
I realize that in '92 Perot probably cost George H.W. Bush his reelection. I
point out that no Democrat presidential candidate in the last 40 years has
had as high a % of the popular vote as George W. Bush received in Nov...I
only bring it up because you losers complain that he ONLY got 51% of the
vote (an amount you WISH Kerry would've received)...furthermore, popularity
polls, as mentioned above, are less important than electoral results...even
a Dumbocrat, like you, can probably understand that...probably...
Rightard Whitey
2005-02-09 21:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has
to
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill
Clinton
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
who
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
Clinton was legally elected president by the rules set down in the
Constitution. If you don't like how the system works, why don't you move
to another country?
JS
He/she/it fails to see the significance of the 3 party people that ran.
When
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
three active candidates run, none will get 50% of the vote. Most people
that
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
know nothing about politics fail to understand this simple concept.
I realize that in '92 Perot probably cost George H.W. Bush his reelection. I
point out that no Democrat presidential candidate in the last 40 years has
had as high a % of the popular vote as George W. Bush received in Nov...I
only bring it up because you losers complain that he ONLY got 51% of the
vote (an amount you WISH Kerry would've received)...furthermore, popularity
polls, as mentioned above, are less important than electoral results...even
a Dumbocrat, like you, can probably understand that...probably...
Wait until next week when the Jeff Gannon scandal hits. His ratings will
be in the toilet.
Pookie
2005-02-10 01:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rightard Whitey
"RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH"
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has
to
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill
Clinton
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
who
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
Clinton was legally elected president by the rules set down in the
Constitution. If you don't like how the system works, why don't you move
to another country?
JS
He/she/it fails to see the significance of the 3 party people that ran.
When
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
three active candidates run, none will get 50% of the vote. Most people
that
Post by RICE'S [ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ] TEETH
know nothing about politics fail to understand this simple concept.
I realize that in '92 Perot probably cost George H.W. Bush his reelection. I
point out that no Democrat presidential candidate in the last 40 years has
had as high a % of the popular vote as George W. Bush received in Nov...I
only bring it up because you losers complain that he ONLY got 51% of the
vote (an amount you WISH Kerry would've received)...furthermore, popularity
polls, as mentioned above, are less important than electoral
results...even
Post by Rightard Whitey
a Dumbocrat, like you, can probably understand that...probably...
Wait until next week when the Jeff Gannon scandal hits. His ratings will
be in the toilet.
Guess that means his reelection bid will fail in '08...
John Starrett
2005-02-09 23:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?

JS
N2NUE
2005-02-09 23:52:25 UTC
Permalink
an even better question: "Just how American are you??"

PookieCons: Making America safe for the HolyLand
Pookie
2005-02-10 01:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
John Starrett
2005-02-10 16:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.

Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.

John Starrett
Pookie
2005-02-10 16:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...
John Starrett
2005-02-10 18:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.

John Starrett
lab~rat
2005-02-10 18:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.
John Starrett
How about the old standard "faggot"? Does that work for you?

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.
John Starrett
2005-02-10 21:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by lab~rat
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.
John Starrett
How about the old standard "faggot"? Does that work for you?
No.

JS
lab~rat
2005-02-10 21:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by lab~rat
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.
John Starrett
How about the old standard "faggot"? Does that work for you?
No.
JS
"Retard"?

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.
John Starrett
2005-02-11 01:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by lab~rat
Post by lab~rat
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.
John Starrett
How about the old standard "faggot"? Does that work for you?
No.
JS
"Retard"?
Seriously, those are so tired and worn out. They were never clever or
funny or thought provoking. Surely you can do better, unless you are not
trying.

JS
lab~rat
2005-02-11 13:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Starrett
Post by lab~rat
Post by lab~rat
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.
John Starrett
How about the old standard "faggot"? Does that work for you?
No.
JS
"Retard"?
Seriously, those are so tired and worn out. They were never clever or
funny or thought provoking. Surely you can do better, unless you are not
trying.
JS
Ok, how about "spooge slurper"? I didn't have a dog in this fight so
I really didn't care to put forth too much effort...

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.
Pookie
2005-02-10 18:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.
OK, how about Democrap?
John Starrett
2005-02-10 21:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.
OK, how about Democrap?
Wow.

John Starrett
Jorge W. Arbusto
2005-03-31 00:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.
OK, how about Democrap?
Wow, Punkie, y'all sho' 'nuff kin be creative, when ya put yer miniscule
brain to the task...
Pookie
2005-03-31 04:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorge W. Arbusto
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
I don't lack a sense of humor. I just find name calling sophomoric
unless it is especially clever. Most of the name calling, including the
worn out old "Dumbocrat", is not clever, funny or interesting.
OK, how about Democrap?
Wow, Punkie, y'all sho' 'nuff kin be creative, when ya put yer miniscule
brain to the task...
Hey, George...took you so long to respond that your party's name has changed
yet again to the Deathocrats...

Jorge W. Arbusto
2005-03-31 00:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Dumbocrat
How old are you?
How stupid are you?
Depends on how you measure. I have a high IQ, but I believe that most of
the people I work with are smarter than I.
Age is an absolute measure, up to relativistic correction, though. So,
how old are you? You act like a teenager.
Probably older than you...too bad you lack a sense of humor...
Whoo-hoo...Porkie, you're so funny...
Pookie
2005-02-09 21:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill Clinton who
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
Clinton was legally elected president by the rules set down in the
Constitution. If you don't like how the system works, why don't you move
to another country?
Idiot...I'm not contesting either of Clinton's elections...the other idiot
was comparing GW Bush's latest approval rating with that of Clinton's
highest. Since elections count more that polls, I merely gave a different
comparison. Get it?
John Starrett
2005-02-10 16:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill Clinton
who
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
Clinton was legally elected president by the rules set down in the
Constitution. If you don't like how the system works, why don't you move
to another country?
Idiot...I'm not contesting either of Clinton's elections...the other idiot
was comparing GW Bush's latest approval rating with that of Clinton's
highest. Since elections count more that polls, I merely gave a different
comparison. Get it?
If the discussion was about Bush's poll numbers, your tactic was just a
diversion. Even though elections count more than polls (depending on the
situation), Clinton still won by the rules, just as Bush did in 2000.
Comparing the margins by which they won is equivalent to comparing their
popularity, which is equivalent to comparing polls.

John Starrett
Pookie
2005-02-10 16:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
Post by Lucile Wilson
This shows how fickle Americans are. These polls will change and sink
to a new low.The death of Arafat changing the Palenstine story and the
voting in Iraq contributed to his rise in the polls but he still has to
beat Bill Clinton at 70%.
As long as you're speaking of percentages, is that the same Bill Clinton
who
Post by John Starrett
Post by Pookie
never received 51% of the vote in a presidential election?
Clinton was legally elected president by the rules set down in the
Constitution. If you don't like how the system works, why don't you move
to another country?
Idiot...I'm not contesting either of Clinton's elections...the other idiot
was comparing GW Bush's latest approval rating with that of Clinton's
highest. Since elections count more that polls, I merely gave a different
comparison. Get it?
If the discussion was about Bush's poll numbers, your tactic was just a
diversion. Even though elections count more than polls (depending on the
situation), Clinton still won by the rules, just as Bush did in 2000.
Comparing the margins by which they won is equivalent to comparing their
popularity, which is equivalent to comparing polls.
Not questioning the legality of Clinton's elections &, unlike many
Democrats, not questioning the results of the 2000 or 2004 results. Someone
above had to compare Pres. Bush's current 57% approval rating with Clinton's
highest ever...of course, you/they don't like when Slick Willie is invoked
in any negative context. I pointed out that the percentage of votes one
receives on Election Day is a better measure of what is important & that no
Democrat in 40 years had as high a % as Pres. received in November.

So, other than the fact that you refuse to see a psychiatrist for your PEST
affliction, what's your problem?

Loading Image...
John Starrett
2005-02-10 18:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Post by John Starrett
If the discussion was about Bush's poll numbers, your tactic was just a
diversion. Even though elections count more than polls (depending on the
situation), Clinton still won by the rules, just as Bush did in 2000.
Comparing the margins by which they won is equivalent to comparing their
popularity, which is equivalent to comparing polls.
Not questioning the legality of Clinton's elections &, unlike many
Democrats, not questioning the results of the 2000 or 2004 results. Someone
above had to compare Pres. Bush's current 57% approval rating with Clinton's
highest ever...of course, you/they don't like when Slick Willie is invoked
in any negative context. I pointed out that the percentage of votes one
receives on Election Day is a better measure of what is important & that no
Democrat in 40 years had as high a % as Pres. received in November.
It was only a couple of percentage points higher than the numbers of
voters who voted for Gore in 2000. Clinton beat Bush 1 by about 15%.
It is easy to find favorable ways to light any politician you want.

John Starrett
b***@aol.com
2005-02-10 22:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pookie
Bush shows highest ratings in a year
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Americans gave President Bush his highest approval
rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.
Well, the elections were nice, but they may or may not be significant.
Assuming the Cheney-Lay administration isn't lying (!), we will
militarily occupy Iraq for at least the next ten years, so we'll see
how much they like the war in one year, five years, ten years. Even
the Vietnam War had some illusory good days. There's light at the end
of the tunnel, remember?

In the meantime, HAND OVER YOUR WAR CRIMINALS OR SUFFER THE
CONSEQUENCES.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...