You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Now is the Time
- Thread starter Solo
- Start date
kayleesgrandma
New member
They say if you hear a lie often enough, you begin to believe it...This is why I am even posting further proof of the lies that have been told you by the MainStreamMedia:
<b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a>
<b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a>
<i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a>
<i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a>
While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>5. Katrina</b>
This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a>
There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a>
THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
<b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a>
<b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a>
<i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a>
<i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a>
While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>5. Katrina</b>
This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a>
There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a>
THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
kayleesgrandma
New member
They say if you hear a lie often enough, you begin to believe it...This is why I am even posting further proof of the lies that have been told you by the MainStreamMedia:
<b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a>
<b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a>
<i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a>
<i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a>
While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>5. Katrina</b>
This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a>
There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a>
THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
<b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a>
<b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a>
<i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a>
<i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a>
While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>5. Katrina</b>
This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a>
There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a>
THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
kayleesgrandma
New member
They say if you hear a lie often enough, you begin to believe it...This is why I am even posting further proof of the lies that have been told you by the MainStreamMedia:
<b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a>
<b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a>
<i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a>
<i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a>
While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>5. Katrina</b>
This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a>
There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a>
THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
<b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a>
<b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a>
<i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a>
<i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a>
While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>5. Katrina</b>
This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a>
There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a>
THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
kayleesgrandma
New member
They say if you hear a lie often enough, you begin to believe it...This is why I am even posting further proof of the lies that have been told you by the MainStreamMedia:
<b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a>
<b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a>
<i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a>
<i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a>
While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>5. Katrina</b>
This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a>
There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a>
THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
<b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a>
<b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a>
<i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a>
<i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a>
While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
-----------------------------------------------------------
<b>5. Katrina</b>
This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a>
There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a>
THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
kayleesgrandma
New member
They say if you hear a lie often enough, you begin to believe it...This is why I am even posting further proof of the lies that have been told you by the MainStreamMedia:
<br />
<br /><b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<br />
<br /><b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
<br />
<br />Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<br />
<br /><b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
<br />
<br />Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
<br />
<br />Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a><br />
<br /><b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a><br />
<br /><i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
<br />
<br />The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
<br />
<br />The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
<br />-----------------------------------------------------------
<br /><b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
<br />
<br />Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
<br />
<br />Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
<br />-----------------------------------------------------------
<br /><b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a><br />
<br /><i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
<br />
<br />While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
<br />
<br />There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
<br />
<br />President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
<br />
<br />SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
<br />-----------------------------------------------------------
<br /><b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
<br />
<br />Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<br />
<br /><i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
<br />
<br />You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a><br />
<br />While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
<br />-----------------------------------------------------------
<br /><b>5. Katrina</b>
<br />
<br />This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<br />
<br /><i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<br />
<br /><b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a><br />
<br />There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a><br />
<br />THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
<br />
<br />Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
<br />
<br /><b>Inconvient truths about Bush</b>
<br />
<br /><b>1) Bush Stole the Election! NOT!!!</b>
<br />
<br />Let's have the editors of the NY Times and the consortium of newspapers who took the time to actually Recount Florida Gore's Way testify - under oath - that their 10,000 word article admits that yes, Bush really did win the election, or that no, their piece was a lie. Let's get it on the record. And while we're at it, let's shine a little light on some real voter fraud.
<br />
<br /><b><u><i>A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. </u>
<br />
<br />Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
<br />
<br />Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.</i> </b>
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...931A25752C1A9679C8B63
</a><br />
<br /><b>Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed</b>
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more
">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...-floridamain.htm#more
</a><br />
<br /><i><b>USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties.</b> The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.
<br />
<br />The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
<br />
<br />The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory.</i>
<br />-----------------------------------------------------------
<br /><b>2) Bush Lied Us Into War!</b>
<br />
<br />Let's have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein "had WMD" and given half a chance would "use them," and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) "consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000]," or it was not. <b>Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn't actually mean it, too</b>.
<br />
<br />Let's get it on the record, and settled once and for all - including this transcript.
<br />-----------------------------------------------------------
<br /><b>3. February 26, 2007: Bush greener than Gore - UPDATED</b>
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/02/26/inconvenient-truth-bush-greener-than-gore/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...sh-greener-than-gore/
</a><br />
<br /><i>Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush's home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore</i>.
<br />
<br />While you hear nothing at all about President Bush successfully gaining international co-operation for a green initiative that does not destroy economies like the Kyoto treaty, and you read nothing about how the president is committed to helping the restoration of ancient Iraqi Marshlands, you hear rather too much about all the preening and moralizing going on by Green Al Gore...except when he cancels interviews that might make him address...inconvenient dissent.
<br />
<br />There's an interesting update from Gore's people--very amusing..."Gore has bought his indulgences, so his soul is green and pristine and he will still go to ecology heaven. Whew. Thank goodness! Now the rest of you, just buy your indulgences and you can pollute all you want - it all evens out!"
<br />
<br />President Bush has initiated a plan that moves beyond Kyoto and actually works, and doesn't cripple economies or put us into the odd position the noble Kyoto-ratifying countries now find themselves, wherein they cannot live within their Kyoto-prescribed limits, while America is cutting emissions without Kyoto, but you don't want to hear it. You don't want the reality.
<br />
<br />SO MUCH FOR BUSH BEING "TERRIBLE" FOR THE ENVIORNMENT...You think our economy is bad now--it would have been TWICE as bad with Kyoto aggreements imposed upon our system!
<br />-----------------------------------------------------------
<br /><b>4. Bush awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton!</b>
<br />
<br />Please name the work for which Halliburton was contracted and then expound on what other companies do the same work with the same level of expertise and experience as Halliburton. We'll wait. You should know that 94.7% of all of Halliburton's contract funds came through "full and open competitive bids", shouldn't you?
<br />
<br /><i>Which federal contractor won 94.7% of its contracts in full and open competition?
<br />
<br />You're going to laugh when you read this, but it's ... Halliburton. Halliburton is sixth on the list of government contractors, with $6 billion in FY 2005 contracts, one-quarter of what Lockheed Martin received. Almost all of that came from Army contracts, and almost all of it ($5.4B) went to logistics support. They got 94.7% of their contracts in full and open competition in multibid scenarios, and another 4.7% of them from full and open competition where only the winning bid got submitted. Only 0.6% of their contracts came from any kind of restricted bid process,</i> far away from the overall trend in federal contracting.
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008283.php
">http://www.captainsquartersblo...t/archives/008283.php
</a><br />
<br />While we're at it can we also note that under Bush, Ken Lay was convicted for what he did at Enron while Clinton was in office? I'm just saying! You want to talk about entities having undue influence on a president? Please, please do...
<br />-----------------------------------------------------------
<br /><b>5. Katrina</b>
<br />
<br />This is one I would love to have opened up in court!!! I would love to have all the <b>lies</b> exposed to you liberals that have been screaming every since it happened.
<br />
<br /><i>Oh, I remember it, and I think we should get it out there. Let's impeach President Bush and get this all on the record. Get Blanco's testimony. Get Nagin's. Let's get everyone under oath and finally look good an hard at Katrina, at NOLA, and at why funds earmarked to shore up those levees somehow got diverted. Not by Bush. I'm up for this, let's do it</i>.
<br />
<br /><b>Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report</b>
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2&series=18
">http://www.origin.popularmecha...html?page=2&series=18
</a><br />
<br />There is more: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/10/go-ahead-impeach-bush-try-him/
">http://theanchoressonline.com/...impeach-bush-try-him/
</a><br />
<br />THIS IS ALL "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"--WE HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT NOW. JUST GET OVER YOUR BUSH HATRED...
<br />
<br />Hmmm--where are you going to focus all that hatred now??? What are the comedians going to do? I am waiting for you all to see the "empty suit" you elected is all about "symbolism" and not "substance". I have a pile of shoes just waiting...
Terri
All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
and propaganda...
History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
good day and good night : }
I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
and propaganda...
History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
good day and good night : }
I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
Terri
All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
and propaganda...
History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
good day and good night : }
I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
and propaganda...
History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
good day and good night : }
I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
Terri
All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
and propaganda...
History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
good day and good night : }
I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
and propaganda...
History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
good day and good night : }
I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
Terri
All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
and propaganda...
History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
good day and good night : }
I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
and propaganda...
History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
good day and good night : }
I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
Terri
<br />
<br /> All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
<br />
<br /> I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
<br /> in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
<br /> and propaganda...
<br /> History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
<br />
<br /> good day and good night : }
<br /> I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
<br />
<br />
<br /> All of your links just lead to Someone else's opinion, that all..
<br />
<br /> I don't want some writer to tell me what to think. I listen to the people
<br /> in question. all those sites are nothing more than hear say. A big waste of time
<br /> and propaganda...
<br /> History cannot be rewritten. What is, Is...
<br />
<br /> good day and good night : }
<br /> I have a Party to attend... sorry, didn't mean to rub it in.
<br />
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>65rosessamurai</b></i>
I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote></div>
Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote></div>
Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>65rosessamurai</b></i>
I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote></div>
Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote></div>
Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>65rosessamurai</b></i>
I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote></div>
Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote></div>
Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>65rosessamurai</b></i>
I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote>
Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote>
Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>65rosessamurai</b></i>
<br />I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote>
<br />
<br />Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
<br />
<br />I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
<br />
<br />When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
<br />
<br />How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<br /><img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />I'm gloating?! Because of how the United States operates is why everyone has their freedom, not just you and not just because of BUSH. Compare freedom of the U.S. to other countries.</end quote>
<br />
<br />Well the only reason I said that is because of every single post here you have crudely taken the safest escape route and said I have more freedoms. Now you didn't say because of Bush, but it was hinted at or implied, as you spent the very previous paragraphs defending the criminal. I already am aware of the freedoms of the US compared to those abroad, and quite frankly, that has little to nothing to do with Hannibal Bush, actually he played a huge part in reversing some of the very same freedoms you claim I enjoy because of him.
<br />
<br />I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: ""He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
<br />
<br />When you do not prosecute but instead allow the President to blatantly ignore the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of "protecting your security", you set a model for every president that follows. Fred, you may trust Bush with your security for awhile. But it all starts somewhere. The holocaust started with just 1 Jew, when you give Bush a yard he'll want a mile. Way too many men have died fighting to protect our freedoms and our liberty for us just to hand them over to the president in exchange for some promise of security. So I don't want to hear any of the right complain when President Obama utilizes all the power that Bush and Cheney stole for him. When Bush started illegally wiretapping and performing illegal search and seizures; just because you have ,"nothing to hide" does not mean that it is right. After all, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing, that's why we need to hold Bush accountable for his crimes.
<br />
<br />How about that inauguration! Here's to President Obama and a liberal America (We've had 8 years of a neo-con America, it's our turn!)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif" border="0"><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<br /><img src="http://x17online.com/obamaprez.jpg">
<br />
<br />
<br />