Monday, July 31, 2006

Cynthia "Hamas" McKinney

I compare Cynthia to Hamas not because they're both evil terrorists or some other half baked neocon nonsense like that. But because they were both legitimately elected and yet even though they come from two different sides of the globe, they both somehow managed to piss off the same Establishment. And their constituents, though different in many ways, are both paying the same price for their actions. It happens all the time, and if you consider the fact that Cynthia is pretty much "alone" in congress, you begin to realize that we really have lost our government. The mechanisms of power and control are apparently far too great to overcome. I'm not sure if her district is going to see through all the lies and do what's right. And why should they, when no one else does? Why should they stand behind a congresswoman who practically ensures that less money will go to their district? It's nice that she stands up to the neocon elite crime syndicate, but it really won't change anything so long as no one else stands with her. Every other congresscritter will just go along to get along. And for that they will be awarded with pork. It's disgusting. It makes me want to be a vegetarian...

I don't hold much hope that her district will actually show up and vote for her. And that is sad, because she has always been a magnet for the "truth to power" message, and we need that message now more than ever. You'd think she should be more immune to drive-by style media assassinations. But the latest polls show that people really are shallow, greedy, and totally pliable when it comes to big money and media control. It appears that almost anyone's opinion can be bought for a price, and that anyone will believe the lies if told them often enough.

I'm just wondering... which is it? Which has more effect on people?

The media spin attacks and political assassinations,


the simple, down-to-earth practical truth--the fact that another representative will bring more money to their district?

Is it really that simple? And if so, I can only ask this: Should we all just throw our hands up right now, give in, and vote for the biggest neocon corporate shill we can find, because he/she will bring the most pork home? Why bother screwing around? If pork is the way to go then lets just rework this whole country into a gigantic feeding trough. It'll be fun, I promise. We can roll around in crap all day long while our rights, and our jobs, go byebye.

Is this how the founding fathers intended the congress to function? I don't recall seeing the word "pork" in the constitution. It's not even in the bill of rights. Yet it is the single most powerful weapon used to blackmail our congress in this day and age. Surely, it MUST be in the constitution?

Something seems majorly wrong here. Is this how a country transforms from a bastion of freedom into a land of tyranny? And even knowing all this, would you even care enough to stop it, even if you could? Will the voters in Cynthia's district think about any of this? Will they understand the significance of the choice they are making?

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Israel's Plan

What is Israel's master plan? In a word: Agitation. They know that if they just go around killing civilians (Lebanese civilians, not Hezbollah) they will eventually take on so much criticism that it will ultimately destroy the country (or hopefully just get the crazies removed from power). It might take a long long time and a great many atrocities, but even the overwhelmingly biased western media will eventually condemn Israel if they keep doing what they're doing. (Assuming the response to Israel's attacks is limited.)

I believe the evidence is clear that Israel is intentionally targetting civilians. I've read too many reports by too many sources ... some claim that as many as 1/3 of all the casualties have been children. While the corporate media would have us all believe that these children were all terrorists, common sense must intervene! Maybe a couple of them would have been corrupted enough to actually want to pick up a gun and fire it at an Israeli, but the vast majority of them had to be victims, pure and simple. I can't even believe that there are people in this country who are so mentally whacked that they'd think otherwise.

So yes, Israel cannot continue carrying out such massively disproportioned "retaliatory attacks"... unless they know for sure that Hezbollah will retaliate. And of course they have. But as of yet Hezbollah's retaliation has been limited. But eventually--and I think the Israeli leadership knows this -- eventually Hezbollah is going to suicide bomb some Israeli civilian (ie Lebanon Occupation Force) target and kill 100 people. It will make headlines around the world and this will "vindicate" Israel. The vast majority of western citizens will then give their full support to Israel which will allow them to step up their offensive even more. Such is the power of terrorism--it always aids the leadership of the people who are terrorized. If a terrorist kills a bunch of Israeli citizens, the Israeli government gets even more support and power. The same is true for this country's government after 9/11. And it also applies to Israel's enemies. If Israel carries out terrorism ("violence against civilians to promote political change--the removal of Hezbollah in this case") then it actually empowers Hezbollah. This is almost always true for every act of terrorism all around the world. And yet governments continue to respond to terrorism with more terrorism. It's funny how so many people say the middle east is so complicated, yet they refuse to accept even this most simplistic bit of reality. No wonder they think it's so complicated!

There will eventually be some kind of large scale terrorist attack against Israel. And like I said I think the Israeli leadership knows this, but more than that, I think they desire such an act of terrorism. Because they need it. If they don't get it they will lose popular support from the west. And if that happens that country is in serious trouble. Why am I so sure there will be a big terrorist attack on Israel? Because their own aggression is eventually going to kill the wrong innocent civilian. Perhaps it already has. Maybe some father had to watch his only child be torn in two by an Israeli rocket. While most people would try to seek a civilized form of vengeance (civilized vengeance--it's an oxymoron, I know), it is only a matter of time before someone straps on 50 pounds of explosives.

The only way to win a "war on terror" is to appeal to everyone's civilized instincts. It's not like any other struggle where you can accept steady statistical progress. For example, if you are struggling to win a cultural war against obesity, you can look at the numbers and take pride when the statistics improve. But with terrorism the statistics are meaningless. Your statistics can indicate that you have terrorism 99% contained, and then all the sudden, boom!, you're hit with that elusive 1% that feels more like it's 50%. It's like fighting cancer. You cannot accept 99% containment. Even one cancer cell can spread through the whole body.

And where governments really go wrong is on their theories of what containment means. You can't draw a line around an entire bloc of people and basically treat them all as terrorists. That's the number one mistake made by governments time and time again. ("Iraq harbors terrorists" Solution: treat all Iraqis as terrorists. Tell me that's not exactly what happened. And now Israel is doing the same exact thing to Lebanon. The... Same...Exact...Thing. Gee, guess how this is going to turn out.)

You have to eliminate the motive behind terrorism. We are taught by the corrupt media institutions that the terrorists hate us for no rational reason... they don't need a reason in other words.

Some people even equate middle east extremists with those in this country who "go postal". It's a serious mistake to make that connection.

People "go postal" because they are under heavy stress, and they don't exercise to release that stress, and often they compound the problem by taking some horrible drug with horrible side effects to treat their stress, depression, anxiety, or whatnot. It's sad to see so many people so completely misinformed as to how simple it is to cure stress. But that's a testament to the power of the drug companies. Well it's the same for the defense industry and terrorism... or communism or whatever the evil of the week is. They have no interest in stopping terrorism any more than the drug companies have in informing their victims about the time tested "whacky alternative healing mumbo jumbo nonsense" about exercise. Exercise relieving stress? Oh that's so silly. Yes, people actually make that exact argument. Hell, they actually argue that exercise increases stress!

But real terrorists don't "go postal". They don't "snap". They live many months, years, possibly many decades, knowing exactly what they want to do. They just wait around for someone from Iran, or Al Qaeda, or the CIA, to supply them with some bombs. It's not at all like "going postal".

I predict Israel will have it's "one thousandth terror casualty" sometime in October. Then the repugs will argue that the dimocrats are weak on national security and they were wrong to condemn Israel. Israel is truly under attack! It won't matter who really caused it. Just like it doesn't matter who really caused Iraq to descend into civil war. Notice it took over two years for Iraq to "make the transition". I give Lebanon 6 months. But it's so hard to predict because the goal can't be Lebanon. Where is the big money motive behind Lebanon? I mean with Iraq, BushCo's motives were clear: a half trillion dollar handout to the defense industry and many millions to all the little neocon worms crawling around within it. Not to mention the Distraction Factor. BushCo's war in Iraq has taken much of the focus off his multi-trillion dollar mass looting of the treasury! Plus the instability in Iraq had a direct impact on oil prices, leading to accumulated profits of many more billions--not just for the OECD but for OPEC too! It's nice that Bush even included his Saudi friends in on the deal. See, he knows what he's doing! So yes I see the clear 5 trillion dollar motive for invading Iraq, but what is Israel really going to get out of Lebanon? Not much. Syria? Yeah right. The focus has to be Iran. War with Iran will bring the neocons and their supporters at least another 5 trillion. Perhaps many times more than that once the Iranian terrorists reach US shores. And the Left will be wiped out under a new generation of McCarthyism. That, as they say in the credit card commercial, would be priceless.

All because of 2 kidnapped Israeli soldiers? Yeah right. This is big business in action. By the way, those soldiers were captured in Lebanon, not that it matters, because everyone knows that Israeli troops can invade whatever countries they want, consequences be damned.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

My five minutes

When skimming over messageboards or listening to interviews, I believe that most of the time, our minds are made up within a very short period of time. Within anywhere from 30 seconds to a few minutes, we start assigning labels to people.

"Oh that person is a loony leftie."
"Oh she's a neocon shill."
"He's just an ignorant redd'neck."
"He's some yuppity know it all New-Englander."

whatever. There's a million such labels. I wish it weren't true... I wish people could actually listen to others without pigeonholing them, but alas this is the world we live in.

I've come to the conclusion that a person only gets at most about five minutes of open honest consideration before things degenerate into a tangled web of preconceived notions that drown out any hopes of rational discourse.

So here is my five minutes. Here are the words I'd like to get out before people can peg me as one thing or another so they have an excuse not to listen any more:

It's sad to live in a time when the majority of Americans can't approve of their own President. Rationalize it all you will, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true. It doesn't matter what we are (daggone libruls, neocon hacks, etc), we're still Americans.

We have to ask the question... indeed we must find out what brought us to this point.

There are a few competing theories.

One. Liberals and particularly the liberal media have weakened the military and the country to the point where we could not even stop some crazies with a few box cutters and a lot of willpower. On the fiscal side of the issue, government should be small, and taxes should be low, because the people know better how to spend their own money and run their own lives.

Two. "Conservatives" have hijacked public opinion through a massive think-tank-run campaign of corporate sponsored propaganda. And lie after lie has turned so many people off that we basically surrendered our country to wealthy elite interests. Issue after issue is clouded and corrupted by the media to the point where people repeatedly vote against their own interests. The "death tax" is a fine example. Here is an issue that puts the top 0.1% against everyone else, and yet the big money media has duped millions into seriously considering the complaints of the elite minority. This is called "fair and balanced." And yet the real issues... the ones that put the bottom 50% against the top 50%, those issues are ignored by the media. Take poverty and the minimum wage for example. So the rich get richer, by orders of magnitude, while the bottom 1/2 of the population sees their Real Wages decline.

Obviously I fall into category two. Honestly I have a hard time even explaining the position of the other side because it is so rediculous.

First of all the media is not liberally biased. The hugely magnified focus on the top 0.1%'s issue (the death tax) is direct evidence of this. There is simply no other way to explain it, unless the top 0.1% are liberals! Not even Rush Limbaugh could spin this convincingly. But he's got his listeners so scared of daggone liberals that they rarely exercise their critical thinking skills.

Now look at one of the central tenets of Conservative Ideology: small government and low taxes. (I'm going to ignore the fact that under Bush the government has grown faster than under any president since FDR.) It's what all conservatives agree on most.

But it exposes the major flaw in conservative ideology: contempt of government. Isn't a government supposed to be "we the people, by the people, for the people"? And indeed if this is what you think then what sense does it make to want to reduce the size of government. Doesn't that mean we get less of the "we the people, by the people, for the people"?


That's what you believe if, in your heart, you really do have contempt for government. You know government is bad, because you know it is ruled by corporate interests. So you want to reduce it's size and scope and power. But what do you get by doing this? You get rule by the wealthy. That's really what conservatives are arguing for.

It's total nonsense. Government is a group of people, elected to represent the interests of the people. And those representatives get together and use their combined powers to make life better for the people they represent.

Take one simple example. An analogy. Let's say you have an apartment bulding. Each tenant is paying $40 a month for high speed internet service. They agree on one thing: they're paying too much! They all agree they'd like to pay less. So one of them comes up with a brilliant scheme. Why not buy a fiber line with enough bandwidth to service the entire building? So that's what they do. They buy the line and they buy a fiber switch and run a line to each apartment. They all pay part of the cost each month. And now they're paying $9 a month instead of $39! This is government in action. It's not what we think of as government but that's basically what it is. And that's what socialism is in a nutshell.

The funny thing is that most people who listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, etc, they are so scared of socialism that they don't even stop for a moment to think about what socialism really is. "It's communism! Damn commies, I really hate them!" Who are you to hate this? I'll tell you. You are someone who has spent too much time listening to the viewpoint of the elite wealthy. That is what Limbaugh and his ilk represent. That is the view they must have in order to get onto the corporate owned media outlets. And yes socialism is bad in their view. Go back to the apartment analogy. $9 a month is bad for the cable companies. So they sick their big money lobbyists on congress and try to make it illegal to do something that by all rights should be legal. That's bad. Yet that's what our government is. But by god the solution is not to cut down the size of the government... in essence to cut down on the power of the people. The solution is to get rid of the corporate influence. It has no place in a government by the people, for the people.

Like I said people like Limbaugh must shill for corporate interests or else they will not be heard. And that is how we are in the bind we are in. They've been doing it for so long now... the elite wealthy has used their money to control the debate, to win public opinion on issue after issue. They used this power to consolidate the media, and that gave them even more power. And every step of the way our country has declined because of it. I use the internet apartment analogy because nowhere is it more obvious what they are doing. That's why our internet service ranks so low compared to other industrialized nations. They will not let people work together to build intelligent infrastructure which saves money. They want us isolated, they want us believing that government wastes money-- that it is the big dumb government that spends $600 on a toilet seat! But it's just not true. Look at the last energy bill. Look at what happened during the passing of the CAFTA bill. Anyone who opposed the bills was given a big fat earmark, a barrel of pork to shut them up and make them go along. That's the kind of crap that leads to $600 toilet seats. Lobbyists in control of everything... Whether it's an oil company doing it, or a labor union, it's bad. (I think that's where a lot of the false left/right debate comes from.)

The truth is there for you to see it. Take a look at suburbia. What the hell is this? Who designed this? Well, no one really. And that's the problem with it. We spend over a billion dollars a day just on gasoline for our cars. This is a damn nightmare and it's growing by the day. If we don't wake up we're all going to lose everything. Instead of listening to neocon shills on the radio, we need to start using our brains. If we had done that years ago we would have put some thought into how we built our communities. So that it wouldn't cost us a billion dollars a day in wasted gasoline. For the money we spend each year on gasoline, we could have built the most elaborate mass transport systems the earth has ever seen. We'd have trains to take us everywhere not within walking distance, and these trains would always be on time. There'd be less accidents, less insurance payouts for medical bills and property damage. Not to mention less pollution. We'd pay for it with higher taxes. But when you factor in the utterly massive amounts of money we'd all save, it's a no brainer. Who cares if I pay more in taxes if it means what's left of my paycheck is going to go a hell of a lot farther? That's the one thing so many people have such a difficult time understanding. And the reason for that lack of understanding is because we have so many big money shills telling us what to think. What they want us to think.

I can't blame them for trying, because cars are big money makers, in ways I'll bet you've never even considered. Yeah you know that cars make us burn up more gas which is good for the oil companies. And they make us burn up more rubber which is also good for... the oil companies. And they make us build more roads, which is good for construction companies and their labor unions too. (Obviously labor unions, ie, UAW had a big role in all of this.) And they make us take out big loans which is good for the bankers. And they encourage us to stop at more places, like fast food joints, so we can spend more money and get fatter. But consider this: what aren't we doing when we're driving a car, that we could be doing when we're riding a train?

Reading a newspaper? Talking to people? Hmm? It's true we at least have cellphones now but isn't it important to just talk to people at random? Heavens no, they don't want us doing that. They want us to be good little slaves. We must sit in a car for two hours a day and our only thought toward our fellow man should be "get the hell out of my way, you jerk." And they want us to listen to the corporate propaganda on the radio. (You see, the rich media controllers have known for a long time that when you're stuck in traffic and you're pissed off, that is the best time to get you thinking exactly what they want you to be thinking.) And then they want us to go home and sit in front of the tv where again we are subjected to this awful one way communication of propaganda. We feel empty somehow, and that gadget we see on the tv will make us happier. So we must slave for however many hours it takes to buy that thing which will make us happier.

Look, there isn't a soul in the country who hasn't heard a story where the moral is "money isn't everything". Those little stories are the counterbalance to this steaming pile of corporate dung that pervades all our lives. It's madness. And the changes our country has gone through over the past 50 years have placed us, like pawns in a game of chess, into positions where we are less likely to be exposed to this counterbalance. So we are left with the madness and have nothing to counter it. This is no accident. It is a product of many minds of the elite wealthy. It is being done by design. And if you think liberalism (or socialism) is in any way responsible for this then you are mistaken. And no matter how many times they repeat that lie, it will not make it true.

Monday, July 17, 2006

kos has lost it

I hate it when I'm right and it forces me to agree with the neocons, but I predicted this. Liberals are going to get creamed thanks in part to this kos character.

"kos: Why I won't write about Israel/Lebanon/Palestine fighting "

And I, for one, sure as heck have no desire to get sucked into that no-win situation. I just hope that war-fatigue sets in at some point.

It's not going to, you jackass. Why? Because we fund Israel's terror machine. Israel's military DWARFS all the rest of the middle east. And it's our tax money that paid for much of it. Too much. And that makes it our problem.

The dynamics of the current conflict were predictable. The Palestinians elected Hamas and the west didn't like that move so they cut the people off and hung them out to dry. That was a big step toward more instability.

Israel's prime minister says Israel will continue to attack Lebanon until two Israeli prisoners are freed and Hezbollah militants leave the area along Israel's northern border.

Clearly, Israel bombed Lebanon to send the following message: do something about Hezbollah. In other words, Israel is using the threat of violence and oppression to bring about political change. This is state sponsored terrorism. They did it to Palestine and now they're doing it to Lebanon. In fact they've been doing it throughout the history of the country. And our tax dollars have been used to that end.

And yet we're supposed to believe that the terrorists are everyone except Israel. As long as such a huge bias exists, the conflict will never be solved.

People like kos cannot understand that because they are too afraid to examine the dark underbelly of US foreign policy. Liberals don't stand a chance as long as this remains so.

They will lose because they are accepting an impossibly weak position based on lies and secrecy. This weakness leads to unjustifiable and irrational behavior. I've exposed this weakness of kos and others on the fake left many times. Here's just one recent example:

"kos: MySpace is foxified "

lol what a jackass. This guy has the nerve to criticize for censorship, and yet if you mention anything that criticizes the governments official story on 9/11, you get censored. Hypocrisy is a key sign of weakness. Especially when the hypocrisy is so blatant.

Tell me something. If Myspace is really practicing censorship, then how do you explain this page:


Notice how many friends and comments he has. Sheesh he's infected Myspace, you'd think they ought to do something about him!

I hope you enjoy 2 more years of republican rule! Maybe you'll wake the hell up before 2008. But I won't hold my breath.

Jefferson's Freezer

Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are corrupt. Everyone is corrupt! That seems to be the message some in the media have been quietly sending to the electorate. So if everyone is corrupt, then why vote out the rethugs because they're corrupt? That would be a mistake!

We'd still have corruption with a democratic congress. I bet the refrigerator business would get a huge boost with dems in control, but other than that things would be the same.

Or would they?

I'm playing devil's advocate here. (The role many right wing pundits try to play.)

It sounds somewhat convincing to the average apolitical person.

But here's something to think about. But first, check out this story for some background info: $90,000 found in congressman's freezer

Now consider this:

If you take the money that this republican administration has stolen from the people, you'd have enough money to line the freezer of EVERY SINGLE BUSH VOTER with $90,000.

This is of course a rough estimate. One can't be sure exactly how much the national debt will be when Bush leaves office. So it could be less. But then again it could be much much more than $90,000, because many Bush voters might share the same freezer. Some freezers might serve half a dozen Bush voters. And what scary freezers they would be!

Too bad most of those 50 million Bush voters didn't really get any money. Because most of them aren't in the top 2%.

But yeah, dems are just as corrupt as repugs, because one of them had $90,000 in his freezer

Sunday, July 16, 2006

We Love To Believe Big Lies

For years, certain crackpot "scientists" have been pushing the crackpot theory that the earth has been growing... that its volume is at least 10 times greater than it was a few hundred million years ago!

Isn't that absolutely nuts? No one in their right mind would ever believe such a stupid baseless theory.

There's just one problem with the theory. It's true! Undeterred by the criticisms from mainstream science, the proponents of this theory have struggled onward and now their theory is undeniable.

See the proof for yourself.

Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3

And what about the great lakes being formed by glaciers?

Great Lakes Origin

Friday, July 14, 2006

Big Oil Lies Again:

I saw an add on tv. A bunch of people were asking questions about oil and gasoline. They were halfway decent questions, and it sounded like they really wanted answers. One of them said "tell us the truth." lol fat chance of that happening.

I checked out the site they mentioned at the end of the ad.

First of all, I was disturbed to see this statement right on the home page: "Seventy percent of the nation's goods are transported in diesel-powered vehicles, helping to make it America's primary commercial fuel."


In my search for an answer to that question, I clicked on the link labeled "Diesel"
Did they answer that question? Of course not. The first thing I noticed was a colorful graph that basically tells me that taxes are responsible for high prices!

Yeah those evil taxes! Damn libruls...

Well it took me about this long to figure out what this site is really about...
When I think about how much money we'd save by having a real railway infrastructure, it makes the tax seem somewhat insignificant.

And here's an interesting thought: since this country has shifted toward the big-box retail approach, why not use railways to ship goods directly to the stores? Hell you wouldn't even need trucks at all. One of the big reasons for trucks is to ship goods over "the last mile" ... Big box retailers have essentially eliminated "the last mile", so why not supply them by rail? Could it be because we're #$@%ing stupid? Or could it be because the oil companies want us to waste as much oil as possible? Hmmm....

I'm just one person, with little education and background in the economics of the trucking and oil industries. Yet I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that trains are better than trucks for supplying big box retailers. Not only is it cheaper, but also safer! A third of all deadly highway accidents involves a truck. Doesn't that statistic just piss you off? Forget 9/11. Our trucking industry is more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

We pay the price in blood. We pay the price at the pump. So why the hell hasn't Bush declared War on Trucking? And why is this site ignoring those facts?

This wasn't meant to be a tirade against the trucking industry. It just happened to be the first thing that came to mind.


The next thing I noticed about this bogus web site is that it's horribly slow for something sponsored by the oil companies. It took 3 minutes to download the file OilPrimer.pdf

I'm disappointed! And I haven't even read the thing yet.

"Why the Sustained Rise in Oil Prices Over the
Past Few Years?
The price of crude oil increased because worldwide demand
has increased in response to global economic growth – and
supply has not fully kept pace. This growth has included both
developed countries, such as the United States, and emerging
countries, such as China.10"

Lies. Peak Oil has caused the increase in prices. To place the blame on China is ludicrous. China has been growing at a steady rate for at least the last decade. They've been growing fast, yes, but that growth was NOT unexpected. Also, when oil was $15 a barrel back in 1999, the projected demand for 2006 was actually higher than it is now. Probably because we had an economic slowdown in 2000-2003... So clearly they are lying through their teeth.

Let's see what an alternative source has to say on the issue.

"Peak production was reached in many countries e.g. in the USA (1970). Recent "members“ joining the club of 50+ countries with declining production rates are UK (1999), Australia (2000), Oman (2000) and Norway (2001)."

What's important about this statement is that fact that all of these countries were forecasted to peak much later. (The US was supposed to peak in 2017!) The North Sea was projected to peak in 2007. But instead it peaked in 1999. That more than anything is why prices are so high now. Alaska and the North Sea were supposed to be the saving graces of western civilization. Yet some called them nothing more than a band aid. And for that they were ridiculed and reviled! Well they were right all along. The band aid has fallen off, and now we are in trouble. Now more than ever, we rely on oil from the most unstable regions in the world. Nowhere in that bogus primer do they bother to mention any of this.

Come on API, you can lie more convincingly than this, can't you?

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The Corporate Media's 296 Billion Dollar Field Goal

Imagine if the media covered football games the same way they covered politics. What would we see on the tv? We'd see the ball get snapped, and then we'd see the offensive and defensive lines clash and erupt into a big cloud of dust. Wow look at that play, wasn't it exciting? Barf...

There is such a thing as a ball, and if you keep your eye on the ball, you can see what's really going on! Gosh, what a concept!

The republicans are the offensive line, and the democrats are the defensive line. America is the ball. And the repugs are about to kick another field goal.

A $296 billion field goal!

How is this a victory for the repugs? Because Bush has stolen at least $3 trillion so far. That's how much the national debt has gone up on Bush's watch. Hmm lemme see, that's, erm, $600+ billion a year! And yet if you add up all the published "official" deficits, it adds up to about half of that. Huh? I don't want to hear any cracks about social security. 3 trillion is 3 trillion. 600 billion a year IS 600 billion a year, no matter how you slice it or spin it. THAT is how much these tax cuts have cost. So why is it that I never hear a democratic congressman mention any number greater than 420 billion? Are they stupid? What the hell is wrong with these people? $600 billion is like... over $2000 per person in America. Imagine if Bush had sent us all a check for $2000. Hehe of course the economy would get a boost. Duh. But Bush didn't even do that. (That would have been fair, but still irresponsible.) What he did was more like sending a check for $20,000 to the top 10%. Every year! It's fraud, and it's criminal. Why haven't democrats been screaming about this?

Obviously it's because democrats like to lose. Enjoy your game you idiots.