The Right Wing has entered and believed the TWILIGHT ZONE

[Psychoblues]

Corporate fraud even to their own detriment doesn't faze them. National secrets revealed to the ENEMIES doesn't faze them. Judicial nominations based on purely partisan considerations doesn't faze them. Even WAR based on false allegations and false pretense doesn't faze them. Where did the America that I have so fervently defended go so WRONG?

Psychoblues

 

[Stephanie]

Corporate fraud even to their own detriment doesn't faze them. National secrets revealed to the ENEMIES doesn't faze them. Judicial nominations based on purely partisan considerations doesn't faze them. Even WAR based on false allegations and false pretense doesn't faze them. Where did the America that I have so fervently defended go so WRONG?

Psychoblues

Ok, I'll ask, WHERE did that America go? No wait, let me prepare to put my earpugs in, so I don't here that damm song. I wish I had a bell that rang so when you got through answering this question, it will wake me up

 

[Psychoblues]

Ok, I'll ask, WHERE did that America go? No wait, let me prepare to put my earpugs in, so I don't here that damm song. I wish I had a bell that rang so when you got through answering this question, it will wake me up

I'll promise not to yell so loud that you have to "here" me.

Pshchoblues

 

[Stephanie]

I'll promise not to yell so loud that you have to "here" me.

Pshchoblues

Oh, excuse me if I insulted your intelligenc because I didn't catch, here and hear.. Your way too birght for me to be speaking too...

 

[Psychoblues]

Oh, excuse me if I insulted your intelligenc because I didn't catch, here and hear.. Your way too birght for me to be speaking too...

Okey dokey. War is peace. Truth is lies. Good is evil. How much more of the drivel can you continue to espouse? Who clued you?

Psychoblues

 

[Stephanie]

Okey dokey. War is peace. Truth is lies. Good is evil. How much more of the drivel can you continue to espouse? Who clued you?

Psychoblues

HUH???

 

[KarlMarx]

Corporate fraud even to their own detriment doesn't faze them.

The corporate fraud you're referring to (i.e. Enron and WorldComm) happened during the Clinton years. The prosecution of those responsible happened during the Bush years.... plus have you ever heard of the Sarbanes-Oxley act?
http://www.sarbanes-oxley.com/

If you can read through it, you're a better man than me! In a nutshell, Sarbanes-Oxley or "SOX" requires that all CEOs validate their financial statements. What that implies is that a small army of people in each corporation must spend thousands of labor hours poring through financial records, databases, financial transactions and the like.

National secrets revealed to the ENEMIES doesn't faze them.

Are you referring to Clinton allowing Loral Corporation to sell missile secrets to the People's Republic of China in exchange for a million dollar donation by its then chairman, Bernard Swartz? The same technology that now gives the PRC capability to target west coast American cities with nuclear weapons?

Judicial nominations based on purely partisan considerations doesn't faze them.

"purely partisan considerations" ---- ALL judicial nominations are based on what you call "partisan considerations"... Clinton didn't nominate any conservative judges to the Supreme Court or any of the lower courts, either. And he didn't "reach out" to the other side (i.e. the Republicans) to get their approval. That's how it works, the party that wins the election gets its way for four years, got it? If both parties had to agree on everything, then we would have nothing more than one party rule, is that what you want?

Even WAR based on false allegations and false pretense doesn't faze them.

The reasons for going to war in Iraq were based on the intelligence that we had at the time. No one purposely fudged it. Anyway, why would the present George Bush go to war in Iraq when his father did something similar yet lost the election anyway? GWB's approval rating has gone south since the Iraq war, so why are we still there?

Also, according the 1991 cease fire agreement, the United Nations was supposed to oversee an oil for food program, based on the assumption that the UN was above corruption. That proved to be a 20 billion dollar mistake, not only is the United Nations corrupt, but many of their top officials were swimming in oil. In addition, the French, the Russians, the Germans and the Chinese, who all sat on the UN Security Council that voted against going to war in Iraq and were contemplating lifting sanctions against Iraq all had large financial interests in the Saddam regime. That is called "conflict of interest". If such a situation were uncovered in our government, especially in the present administration, you'd hear bout little else from the MSM. So how's that for false pretense?

If you want to blame anyone for us being in Iraq, then blame the UN and those countries that gave aid and comfort to the Saddam regime in direct violation of UN resolutions. Countries, by the way, that have not been reprimanded in the least by any member of the International Community.

BTW.... we were supposed to be in Kosovo "for about a year" according to Bill Clinton, and we're still there twelve years later... how's that for false pretense?

Where did the America that I have so fervently defended go so WRONG?

I hear Paris is nice this time of year, why don't you move there and find out for yourself?

 

[Annie]

The corporate fraud you're referring to (i.e. Enron and WorldComm) happened during the Clinton years. The prosecution of those responsible happened during the Bush years.... plus have you ever heard of the Sarbanes-Oxley act?
http://www.sarbanes-oxley.com/

If you can read through it, you're a better man than me! In a nutshell, Sarbanes-Oxley or "SOX" requires that all CEOs validate their financial statements. What that implies is that a small army of people in each corporation must spend thousands of labor hours poring through financial records, databases, financial transactions and the like.


Are you referring to Clinton allowing Loral Corporation to sell missile secrets to the People's Republic of China in exchange for a million dollar donation by its then chairman, Bernard Swartz? The same technology that now gives the PRC capability to target west coast American cities with nuclear weapons?


"purely partisan considerations" ---- ALL judicial nominations are based on what you call "partisan considerations"... Clinton didn't nominate any conservative judges to the Supreme Court or any of the lower courts, either. And he didn't "reach out" to the other side (i.e. the Republicans) to get their approval. That's how it works, the party that wins the election gets its way for four years, got it? If both parties had to agree on everything, then we would have nothing more than one party rule, is that what you want?



The reasons for going to war in Iraq were based on the intelligence that we had at the time. No one purposely fudged it. Anyway, why would the present George Bush go to war in Iraq when his father did something similar yet lost the election anyway? GWB's approval rating has gone south since the Iraq war, so why are we still there?

Also, according the 1991 cease fire agreement, the United Nations was supposed to oversee an oil for food program, based on the assumption that the UN was above corruption. That proved to be a 20 billion dollar mistake, not only is the United Nations corrupt, but many of their top officials were swimming in oil. In addition, the French, the Russians, the Germans and the Chinese, who all sat on the UN Security Council that voted against going to war in Iraq and were contemplating lifting sanctions against Iraq all had large financial interests in the Saddam regime. That is called "conflict of interest". If such a situation were uncovered in our government, especially in the present administration, you'd hear bout little else from the MSM. So how's that for false pretense?

If you want to blame anyone for us being in Iraq, then blame the UN and those countries that gave aid and comfort to the Saddam regime in direct violation of UN resolutions. Countries, by the way, that have not been reprimanded in the least by any member of the International Community.

BTW.... we were supposed to be in Kosovo "for about a year" according to Bill Clinton, and we're still there twelve years later... how's that for false pretense?


I hear Paris is nice this time of year, why don't you move there and find out for yourself?

Tried to rep you! I was too tired to follow up on this, thank you!

 

[Abbey Normal]

The corporate fraud you're referring to (i.e. Enron and WorldComm) happened during the Clinton years. The prosecution of those responsible happened during the Bush years.... plus have you ever heard of the Sarbanes-Oxley act?
http://www.sarbanes-oxley.com/

If you can read through it, you're a better man than me! In a nutshell, Sarbanes-Oxley or "SOX" requires that all CEOs validate their financial statements. What that implies is that a small army of people in each corporation must spend thousands of labor hours poring through financial records, databases, financial transactions and the like.


Are you referring to Clinton allowing Loral Corporation to sell missile secrets to the People's Republic of China in exchange for a million dollar donation by its then chairman, Bernard Swartz? The same technology that now gives the PRC capability to target west coast American cities with nuclear weapons?


"purely partisan considerations" ---- ALL judicial nominations are based on what you call "partisan considerations"... Clinton didn't nominate any conservative judges to the Supreme Court or any of the lower courts, either. And he didn't "reach out" to the other side (i.e. the Republicans) to get their approval. That's how it works, the party that wins the election gets its way for four years, got it? If both parties had to agree on everything, then we would have nothing more than one party rule, is that what you want?



The reasons for going to war in Iraq were based on the intelligence that we had at the time. No one purposely fudged it. Anyway, why would the present George Bush go to war in Iraq when his father did something similar yet lost the election anyway? GWB's approval rating has gone south since the Iraq war, so why are we still there?

Also, according the 1991 cease fire agreement, the United Nations was supposed to oversee an oil for food program, based on the assumption that the UN was above corruption. That proved to be a 20 billion dollar mistake, not only is the United Nations corrupt, but many of their top officials were swimming in oil. In addition, the French, the Russians, the Germans and the Chinese, who all sat on the UN Security Council that voted against going to war in Iraq and were contemplating lifting sanctions against Iraq all had large financial interests in the Saddam regime. That is called "conflict of interest". If such a situation were uncovered in our government, especially in the present administration, you'd hear bout little else from the MSM. So how's that for false pretense?

If you want to blame anyone for us being in Iraq, then blame the UN and those countries that gave aid and comfort to the Saddam regime in direct violation of UN resolutions. Countries, by the way, that have not been reprimanded in the least by any member of the International Community.

BTW.... we were supposed to be in Kosovo "for about a year" according to Bill Clinton, and we're still there twelve years later... how's that for false pretense?


I hear Paris is nice this time of year, why don't you move there and find out for yourself?

Thanks for taking the time to clarify all of this for our unhappy poster. Excellent post!

(I couldn't rep you yet either)

 

[insein]

And with MArx's reply, psycho will exit stage left. He only holds out long enough to be proven wrong, then back into the night he goes waiting to make his next incoherent strike at the heart of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

 

[Gunny]

Corporate fraud even to their own detriment doesn't faze them. National secrets revealed to the ENEMIES doesn't faze them. Judicial nominations based on purely partisan considerations doesn't faze them. Even WAR based on false allegations and false pretense doesn't faze them. Where did the America that I have so fervently defended go so WRONG?

Psychoblues

Dude, you are just SO full of it. Do the world a favor and lock your PC up BEFORE drinking that one beer ...... :alco:

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

And with MArx's reply, psycho will exit stage left. He only holds out long enough to be proven wrong, then back into the night he goes waiting to make his next incoherent strike at the heart of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Yep. It was a weak strike this time, too. Perhaps an ode to the military action of the Clinton years? Fire a couple of missles into the hillside, then run like hell.

Still, I'm rather disappointed. This one was very generic and bland. I expect more from him.

 

[Avatar4321]

Corporate fraud even to their own detriment doesn't faze them. National secrets revealed to the ENEMIES doesn't faze them. Judicial nominations based on purely partisan considerations doesn't faze them. Even WAR based on false allegations and false pretense doesn't faze them. Where did the America that I have so fervently defended go so WRONG?

Psychoblues

What corporate fraud?

What national secrets were revealed to enemies?

Judicial nominations have always been based on partisan considerations. We wouldn't have Marbury v. Madison if they werent. Did you protest when Justice Ginsberg was nominated by Clinton? If not you are a hypocrite.

We havent waged a war on false allegations and false pretenses. It is not your fault that you are just too stupid to understand the strategy and need to liberate Iraq from Saddam and so cold hearted that you wanted to leave that tyrant in power. We've explained the reasons behind it over and over again. You just can't deal with them.

Oh and the America you defended never existed. We have never been socialist. We never will be. You may have been able to fool the American people for a little while but your monopoly over the media is over and your ideas cannot win with intellgent debate.

Oh and please get over your arrogance. The problem isnt the American people. The problem is you.

 

[Avatar4321]

And with MArx's reply, psycho will exit stage left. He only holds out long enough to be proven wrong, then back into the night he goes waiting to make his next incoherent strike at the heart of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

He usually doesnt wait that long. He will post and run. The fact is his viewpoints cant survive in the arena of ideas. so he has to pretend that the opposing view is just stupid and that everyone else is wrong without actually substantiating any of that to anyone. its rather sad actually.

 

[GotZoom]

The corporate fraud you're referring to (i.e. Enron and WorldComm) happened during the Clinton years. The prosecution of those responsible happened during the Bush years.... plus have you ever heard of the Sarbanes-Oxley act?
http://www.sarbanes-oxley.com/

If you can read through it, you're a better man than me! In a nutshell, Sarbanes-Oxley or "SOX" requires that all CEOs validate their financial statements. What that implies is that a small army of people in each corporation must spend thousands of labor hours poring through financial records, databases, financial transactions and the like.


Are you referring to Clinton allowing Loral Corporation to sell missile secrets to the People's Republic of China in exchange for a million dollar donation by its then chairman, Bernard Swartz? The same technology that now gives the PRC capability to target west coast American cities with nuclear weapons?


"purely partisan considerations" ---- ALL judicial nominations are based on what you call "partisan considerations"... Clinton didn't nominate any conservative judges to the Supreme Court or any of the lower courts, either. And he didn't "reach out" to the other side (i.e. the Republicans) to get their approval. That's how it works, the party that wins the election gets its way for four years, got it? If both parties had to agree on everything, then we would have nothing more than one party rule, is that what you want?



The reasons for going to war in Iraq were based on the intelligence that we had at the time. No one purposely fudged it. Anyway, why would the present George Bush go to war in Iraq when his father did something similar yet lost the election anyway? GWB's approval rating has gone south since the Iraq war, so why are we still there?

Also, according the 1991 cease fire agreement, the United Nations was supposed to oversee an oil for food program, based on the assumption that the UN was above corruption. That proved to be a 20 billion dollar mistake, not only is the United Nations corrupt, but many of their top officials were swimming in oil. In addition, the French, the Russians, the Germans and the Chinese, who all sat on the UN Security Council that voted against going to war in Iraq and were contemplating lifting sanctions against Iraq all had large financial interests in the Saddam regime. That is called "conflict of interest". If such a situation were uncovered in our government, especially in the present administration, you'd hear bout little else from the MSM. So how's that for false pretense?

If you want to blame anyone for us being in Iraq, then blame the UN and those countries that gave aid and comfort to the Saddam regime in direct violation of UN resolutions. Countries, by the way, that have not been reprimanded in the least by any member of the International Community.

BTW.... we were supposed to be in Kosovo "for about a year" according to Bill Clinton, and we're still there twelve years later... how's that for false pretense?


I hear Paris is nice this time of year, why don't you move there and find out for yourself?

Rep taken care of.

Excellent Post!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Corporate fraud even to their own detriment doesn't faze them.

I think he's referring to no-bid crony contracts awarded to Halliburton Corp. due to Cheney's history in it's upper management or he might be referring to the indictment of Tom Delay for campaign donation fraud. He's pretty vague, so I don't really know what he's referring to either.

National secrets revealed to the ENEMIES doesn't faze them.

Maybe he's referring to the White House's leaking of the identity of Valerie Plame as punishment for her husband's non-support of the administration's reasons for the Iraq War? Again, very vague so I don't know.

Judicial nominations based on purely partisan considerations doesn't faze them.

Yeah, dude, every president gets to nominate justices who will reflect their own viewpoints. It's the only loophole that allows presidents to continue to influence public policy after they are out of office.

Even WAR based on false allegations and false pretense doesn't faze them. Where did the America that I have so fervently defended go so WRONG?

It's not the end of the world man, we've been in bogus wars before. Chin up!

 

[OCA]

Corporate fraud even to their own detriment doesn't faze them. National secrets revealed to the ENEMIES doesn't faze them. Judicial nominations based on purely partisan considerations doesn't faze them. Even WAR based on false allegations and false pretense doesn't faze them. Where did the America that I have so fervently defended go so WRONG?

Psychoblues

Can you prove any of this? Nah didn't think so. Just more kook left crap from a washed out sellout.

 

[musicman]

... he might be referring to the indictment of Tom Delay for campaign donation fraud.

A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich; imagine what a prosecutor with an agenda can do. No, wait - you don't have to. Just look at the DeLay fiasco.

In answer to Psychoblues' post, "National secrets revealed to the ENEMIES doesn't faze them":

Maybe he's referring to the White House's leaking of the identity of Valerie Plame as punishment for her husband's non-support of the administration's reasons for the Iraq War?

Ah, yes - Valerie Plame. And who were these "enemies" - Staples? Office Depot?

Yeah, dude, every president gets to nominate justices who will reflect their own viewpoints.

Beautifully and accurately stated! Now - would you be a lamb and pass that information on to Kennedy, Schumer, et. al.?

It's not the end of the world man, we've been in bogus wars before. Chin up!

Please name a few of our "bogus wars".

 

[Psychoblues]

A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich; imagine what a prosecutor with an agenda can do. No, wait - you don't have to. Just look at the DeLay fiasco.



Ah, yes - Valerie Plame. And who were these "enemies" - Staples? Office Depot?



Beautifully and accurately stated! Now - would you be a lamb and pass that information on to Kennedy, Schumer, et. al.?



Please name a few of our "bogus wars".

Viet Nam, for a start.

Got Questions?

Psychoblues

 

[Avatar4321]

Viet Nam, for a start.

Got Questions?

Psychoblues

So let me get this straight... You are upset that the Republicans refuse to see that we entered Vietnam under false allegations and false pretenses?

Vietnam was over 30+ years ago. And the war was started by Democrats. It was also ended by Democrat cowards in the house who refused to support the treaty we signed and ended up giving southeast asia to the communist killers. Fabulous policy.