Just when you think that it's all been said, and that a republican can never change his/her mind, you get O'Reilly: Article - Yahoo! News With Bush's own party now turning against him (Me as well), it's only a matter of time before his approval rating drops and everyone here can be certain that he won't win the election.
Methinks O'Reilly will say whatever boosts his ratings. Otherwise his switch from lunacy to logical is implausible. The idea that Saddam presented a significant threat to Americans was always a joke. There never was an indicator of it. WMDs? Great, how’s he gonna deliver them to us? By SCUD? And why launch them when he’d already paid billions in reparations for Kuwait? There was, however, always a big pot of oil under the country. That might just possibly have a little something to do with why both Bushes focused so much attention on it.
Bush has already lost the invulnerable figure he posed a few months ago. Now stuff like this is happening, leaving you to ponder what will Bush result in doing to save his political career? What? Do I hear something? What about planting WMDs? What about releasing Osama right before the elections?
It's more than I ever would have asked or could have legitimately expected from O'Reilly; whether it's legitimate is for the future to demonstrate, but the apology earns him the benefit of the doubt--respect is his to forfeit, not earn. I'll worry about it the next time I find myself sitting in front of the television, enraptured by the brilliance with which he cons his viewers. Until then, hey ... it's progress. Of all things, I never thought it would come to this. So in some way, I think the O'Reilly factor in November will be more influential or at least reflective of the outcome than the commentator is used to. When I think of some of the "for the mann" voters I know who vote consistently GOP but claim to not be Republicans who are willing to vote against Bush so long as it isn't Dean, Kucinich, or Sharpton--and why I still think Edwards is the better choice than Kerry for the Democratic Party, the nation, and the world--it starts to sink in that the Bush junta really will be over by this time next year. O'Reilly's offering on behalf of a pride that he values very much is well-received as far as I'm concerned. I don't expect that he and I will agree on much in the future, but hey, for once he's thinking of the future as well as the present, and I can respect that.
As I've said elsewhere. We know he's not a graceful loser. As to the type of stunt he might pull, we can only guess, but, I'm still waiting to hear more about this: * http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news13.htm
The one I like is the Bush forecast for job growth in the next year at 3.8 million jobs. That's up from 2.6 million on Monday! Wooeeey the economy is smokin’!!
O'Reilly's a populist, and embraces whatever prevailing ideology exists at the time. This comes as no surprise to me. Blaming the CIA is utterly stupid, however.
For some strange reason, this comment does not amaze me. Nor does this one. Even if a person, who supported Bush in his WMD claims, changes his mind, that person is only out for themselves. This is incredible. Thus proving, in the eyes of sciforums members everywhere, that even if you change your opinion; you're still doing it for show because you were wrong in the first place. Incredible.
Alone, O'Reilly's equivocation doesn't mean a great deal. Collectively, the increasing discord in a formerly harmonious major media cheering section has historic significance. This is America's first sign of a chance at breaking the grip of being frightened and deceived by a radical minority exploiting and feeding on tragedy to enable a series of costly interventions for the singular benefit of Israel. If freedom and clarity of press and thought recover, the blowback from the needless damage done may only last a generation.
In 2003 they predicted 1.7 million jobs. 200000 were lost. Bush and numbers don't seem to mix. Practically any numbers or any information about numbers he provides is wrong: Iraq war, medicare, tax cuts for everyone etc. Is it possible that instead of being evil he is just numerically illerate?
Bush reminds me of China’s Chairman Mao, who once insisted that steel production exceed the US’s. So every neighborhood got a kiln and the people put all their pots & silverware into it. From the molten steel they then made pots & silverware. Needless to say the Great Famine ensued. Tax cuts are like that. I get taxes deducted from my paycheck, then at great expense to the taxpayers and with much fanfare I get a refund check in addition to the normal refund check if any. When stuff like that happens you can forget about a rosy future.
So zanket, do you honestly think the tax cuts and subsequent refund checks did NOTHING to stimulate the economy in the third and fourth quarters last year? To me it is blatantly obvious that the money infused into the economy from the cuts affected the economy in a massive way. Bush's policy was a resounding success, the economy appears to have turned the corner from the recession, a remarkable acheivment in my opinion in so short a time. It of course remains to be seen if it can be sustained and broadened. I am dissappointed in the lack of fiscal conservativism but be that as it may, I don't think any democrat would hold the reigns on spending, certainly not Kerry. So the issue of spending is, and always will be, a loser to me for Democrats. The only reason that Slick Willy had a surplus is because he happened to be in office during a period of unmatched growth in the US, something he had very little to do with. In a way Bill got all the benefit riding the tech boom, and dubya has all the mess to clean up after the bubble burst.
Why mail an extra refund check to me? Why not just adjust the published tax rates? Oh, could it be that Bush wants a political boost at my expense? It probably cost a hundred mil to process & mail out those checks. Yes the cuts predictably affected the economy in a massive way--it torpedoed it! Third & fourth quarters? Are you so short-sighted? Look at his whole term. The economy took its dive almost to the day that the Supreme Court took up the election decision. The smart people took their money out of the market the day they knew Bush was going in. They sensed what was coming and the outlook wasn’t good. I strongly disagree that Clinton had little to do with the growth enjoyed during his term. Practically every week there was some action from his administration that could be translated to economic benefit. The root cause of the growth was his optimism in the country and its future. For example, when the prez says we have so many resources that we can set aside big chunks as national parks & monuments, it sends the message that times are good and employers hire more in anticipation of that. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. A tech boom is always waiting to happen; the only question is, will it be released or dammed? Clinton was easily the most pro-business president in my lifetime. Bush, who says we are in such dire straits that we must un-protect a wildlife refuge to get the oil there, along with a multitude of other gloom & doom messages nearly every week (like orange-alerts that do nothing but send out a giant wave of pessimism) sends the opposite message and the economy has amply responded. It’s no mystery then that the greatest job loss since Hoover is attributable to Bush. Why do you say you don’t think a Democrat would hold the reigns on spending? Clinton didn’t overspend even when the money was there. He was constantly telling congress and the public that the surplus is best used to whittle down the debt. You haven’t heard that from any of the Republicans of the last 23 years. Bush on the other hand is the biggest deficit prez ever and almost everything he’s spent money on just happens to enrich his supporters. The rest of us see little of it. If any Democrat president wants to get re-elected, they know they need to follow Clinton’s lead on the budget. Kerry would likely take that to heart.
