Reasons Why Chavez Is Up For Noble Peace Prize

• Reasons Why Chavez Is Up For Noble Peace Prize - gt
  • I didn't see a source for this article. Also, it says a lot about you - ....
  • So you have to be some sort of HUMANITARIAN to be nominated. - Libby
    • Bush peace prize, LOL - gt
      • LOL! I was referring to - Libby
        • Oh geez..isnt that called *Heaven* ? - gt
          • Sigh.... I know... - Libby
        • One more thing about Chavez. - Libby
          • socialism-capitalism - gt
            • You are one frightening and uninformed person. - ...
            • I agree with you as far as - Libby
              • It's more like that the conservatives know history and are better informed. - ...
                • Exactly - Rep
    • Some thoughts on Bush... - Observer
      • Bush just the front man - gt
        • I agree with you both. - Libby
          • LOL - gt
            • Seems I just can't win! - Libby

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Nobel Peace Prize winners since 1975

did you post a list of inflammatory statements about race out of any context whatsoever.

Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?

Like George did, the new generation of Bushes let other Americans do the dying for them.

Bush has derided the mothers and fathers of our nation's war dead for not wanting any more young American men and women to die in Iraq. We owe them [the already killed and wounded soldiers] something, he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion, according to Maureen Dowd). We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.

BUSH EXTENDED FAMILY PHOTO taken January 20, 2005

Yet, not one -- not one -- of any of Bush's children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.

Here is the full list of the children of Bush and his siblings who have chosen to let other young men and women -- mostly poor, rural and minorities -- die for them, because they have no desire to die for George W. Bush's alleged noble cause (assuming an eligible age of 17 with parental consent to join the military):

Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.

Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush
Marshall Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond

Here is the complete chart:

Click image for full size

Furthermore, not one of George's siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another noble war, Vietnam.

Why do George W. Bush, his siblings, and their children think that the war is noble enough for kids like Casey Sheehan to die in, but not them?

Sign this petition, demanding that the Bush sibling children serve in George's noble war or he must bring the troops home now. Because if it's not noble enough for the Bush family to risk their lives fighting for, it's just a disastrous graveyard for poor and middle class Americans, dug deep to advance Bush's partisan agenda.

Bush can be brave with other people's children, because he has nothing personally to risk.

Just imagine what COULD happen, though.

Chavez could take a good long look at all the problems with America that you have listed, decide that Bush is an evil, greedy tyrant, declare war on the USA to free us of this tyrant, with the promise of free medical care for all, no more homeless people, no more street crime, no more children being brutally molested and murdered, no more starvation for the poor, reasonable gas prices, etc., etc., etc. 

He could invade and occupy the USA, killing some innocent Americans, destroying our water supply, taking out our electricity, terrifying us all while he does it, turning our streets into IED targets, and do it with most of the world disapproving of such an action.

Sure is a good thing we don't live in a world where one president can actually to do such a thing, right???  RIGHT????!!! 

saw some thread either here or there (another board here) where someone challenged Chavez and said he is not a dictator....well, the middle class and upper class are leaving in droves....watch this from 2 days ago...(and I know they began leaving 8-10 years ago coming here to the states).

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=71705&videoChannel=2602

There are a few articles that I have read on this..here is one that originated from Reuters.  GT

Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 08:06 PM MDT

Chavez Offers Cheap Gas To Poor In U.S.

Published on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 by Reuters

By David Pace

HAVANA, Cuba - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, popular with the poor at home, offered on Tuesday to help needy Americans with cheap supplies of gasoline.

Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," the populist leader told reporters at the end of a visit to Communist-run Cuba.

Chavez did not say how Venezuela would go about providing gasoline to poor communities. Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA owns Citgo, which has 14,000 gas stations in the United States.


The offer may sound attractive to Americans feeling pinched by soaring prices at the pump but not to the U.S. government, which sees Chavez as a left-wing troublemaker in Latin America.

Gasoline is cheaper than mineral water in oil-producing Venezuela, where consumers can fill their tanks for less than $2. Average gas prices have risen to $2.61 a gallon in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Chavez said Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.

Article from Juan Gonzalez, a NY Daily News columnist, RE:  Hugo Chavez and his oil versus American oil companies:

http://voanews.com/english/2007-12-03-voa7.cfm

(more info at above link) 

And I'm not required to answer to you for any of them since your only purpose here is to demean people who don't agree with you.  (I see that yesterday Mystic left the door wide open and invited friendly, respectful, intelligent dialogue with you below, but you chose to ignore that in favor of continuing on with your rudeness to others in your other posts.)  You remind me of a pesky fly that disturbs the peace surrounding the person it invades.  If this is typical Israeli behavior, then maybe it's time to take a fresh look at why Israel is having so many problems coexisting in peace with its neighbors.

For any L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S who read the L-I-B-E-R-A-L board and are interested in my reasons for posting this, I'd be glad to list them.  After reading this article, these are the questions that came to my mind, and I would appreciate it if LIBERALS would add to this list any questions that are raised in their minds after reading it.

1.  I'm trying to understand Hezbollah's commitment to a cease fire.  I'm wondering if they would spend the time, effort and money (Iran's)  to begin to rebuild if they had plans to violate the cease fire.

2.  I'm wondering what impact their doing this will have on other nations of the world in relationship to how they will view Israel and the United States.  Will they garner more support, and is it justified?

3.  In furtherance of #2 above, will their role in the Lebanese government grow as a result of their concern (be it real or fake) for the Lebanese people whose homes have been destroyed?

4.  Finally, I was wondering how long it would take the two-headed snake known as the Bush administration to compete with Hezbollah in the rebuilding of Lebanon, after arming Israel with some of the weapons that caused the destruction, and whether or not Israel will feel betrayed as a result.  As you will see below, not long.  (Think of all the money we spend there that could be much better used here to truly fight terrorism by keeping our ports, borders and rail systems safer.  Is that really where you want your tax dollars to go?  Do you want your tax dollars used to supply the weapons to tear down a nation and then supply the money to rebuild it a month later in this cat and mouse game that Bush is playing in the Middle East?)

U.S. Hopes to Rival Hezbollah With Rebuilding Effort

By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer

August 17, 2006

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is scrambling to assemble a plan to help rebuild Lebanon, hoping that by competing with Hezbollah for the public's favor it can undo the damage the war has inflicted on its image and goals for the Middle East.

Administration officials fear that unless they move quickly to demonstrate U.S. commitment, the Lebanese will turn more fully to the militant group, which has begun rolling out an ambitious reconstruction program that Washington believes is bankrolled by Iran.

American officials also believe that the administration must restore its influence to keep a newly assertive Syria from undermining U.S.-supported reformers in Lebanon.

A major rebuilding investment would put the United States in the position of subsidizing both the Israeli munitions that caused the damage and the reconstruction work that will repair it. Such a proposal could meet with resistance from Congress, but administration officials said that the need for action was urgent.

People have been seized by the need to do more, in a tangible way, and they're working feverishly on this, said a senior administration official who asked to remain unidentified because he was speaking about plans still in development. They know we're in a race against time to turn around these perceptions.

U.S. officials and private experts agree that the administration faces an uphill effort trying to outdo Hezbollah, which has a broad local base, well-developed social service programs and the confidence of many Lebanese.

Hezbollah is deeply integrated into Lebanese society, said Jon Alterman, a former State Department official who is head of Middle East studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

We're coming in when there's a sense that we stood by the destruction of Lebanon by an ally, with U.S. weapons, and didn't complain. So we may be too late.

Even so, Alterman said he supported the idea of trying to rebuild U.S. influence in Lebanon at a time when the political situation there is in flux.

The United States has only $50 million in the pipeline for relief and rebuilding in Lebanon, a figure dwarfed by multibillion-dollar estimates of the need. The U.S. is lagging behind some other contributors, such as Saudi Arabia, which has pledged $1.5 billion. An international donors conference is to be held Aug. 31.

But American officials say they expect to expand the effort, which is largely focused on rebuilding the airport, restoring electric power, cleaning up environmental damage and reconstructing some of the estimated 150 destroyed bridges.

The U.S. effort is aimed in part at supporting its allies in the fragile Lebanese central government, which is competing with Hezbollah for influence. Moving rapidly, Hezbollah officials fanned out across the country this week, canvassing the needs of residents and promising help. In some areas of the south, Hezbollah already had fielded cleanup teams with bulldozers.

The U.S. official said talk of a deeper rebuilding role was one of several discussions underway within the administration. He said there was talk about launching a broader diplomatic and economic initiative for the Middle East aimed at increasing involvement in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as in regional economic development and politics.

Officials are focused on the idea that things better change, or we're going to have serious problems, he said. Many people in the region believe the United States was a co-combatant in the war, he acknowledged.

With Congress on its August break, lawmakers have not explicitly taken positions on funding for rebuilding. But some influential members have given indications.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said he would like the United States to take a lead role in the rebuilding by giving generously and organizing meetings of donors. He has argued that the U.S. missed an opportunity by failing to do more in Lebanon last year, as Syria withdrew its troops from the country, leaving a partial vacuum.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voted for a resolution that called for a postwar donors conference. But he made it clear that there should be careful planning before the U.S. committed large sums, an aide noted.

Alterman, the analyst, said providing aid posed complicated challenges in Lebanon, and that the money could easily be wasted without the United States getting any advantage from it.

Lebanon is a tough commercial environment…. It's tough coming from the outside, trying to identify reliable people, he said. We could end up getting no credit — or, worse yet, it could end up in the bank accounts of the very people who are trying to get us out.

10 Reasons Why Conservatives' Fiscal Ideas Are Dangerous

By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on February 27, 2009, Printed on February 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/128900/

Yes, it's true. The conservatives -- that's right, the very same folks who just dragged us along on an eight-year drunken binge during which they borrowed-and-spent us into the deepest financial catastrophe in nearly a century -- are now standing there, faces full of moral rectitude, fingers pointing and shaking in our faces, righteously lecturing the rest of us on the topic of "fiscal responsibility."

I didn't think it was possible. I mean, they were mean enough drunk -- but hung over, in the clear light of morning, it turns out they're even worse.

I know. The choice is hard. Laugh? Cry? Scream? All three at once? It would almost be funny, if it weren't such clear evidence of a complete break with objective reality -- and their ideas of what that "fiscal responsibility" means weren't so dangerous to the future of the country.

The next episode in this surreal moral drama is set to take place next Monday, when President Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House to discuss the right's bright new idea for getting us out of this hole: let's just dismantle Social Security and Medicare.

As usual, this proposal is encrusted with a thick layer of diversions, misconceptions, factual errors and out-and-out lies. Here are some of the most pungent ones, along with the facts you need to fire back.

1. Conservatives are "fiscally responsible." Progressives just want to spend, spend, spend.

The comeback to the first assertion is easy: Just point and laugh. Any party that thought giving cost-plus, no-bid contracts to Halliburton was fiscally responsible (and let's not even get started on handing Hank Paulson $700 billion, no questions asked) deserves to be made fun of for using words that are simply beyond its limited comprehension.

And a quick look back at actual history makes them into even bigger fools. For decades now, liberal presidents have been far and away more restrained in their spending, and more likely to turn in balanced budgets. Part of this is that they've got a good grasp of Keynes, and know that the best way out of bad financial times is to make some up-front investments in the American people -- investments which have almost always, in the end, returned far more than we put in.

Conservatives believe wholeheartedly in investment and wealth-building when individuals, families, and corporations do it. But their faith in the power of money well-spent -- and the value of accumulated capital -- completely vanishes when it comes to government spending. They think it's morally wrong for government to ever invest or hold capital -- despite the long trail of successes that have enriched us all and transformed the face of the nation.

Under the conservative definition of "fiscal responsibility, " we'd have never set up the GI Bill and the FHA, which between them launched the post-war middle class (and made possible the consumer culture that generated so much private profit for so many). We wouldn't have 150 years of investment in public education, which for most of the 20th century gave American business access to the smartest workers in the world; or the interstate highway system, which broadened trade and tourism; or research investment via NASA and DARPA, the defense research agency that gave us the microchip and the Internet and made a whole new world of commerce possible. There wouldn't be the consumer protection infrastructure that allowed us to accept new products with easy confidence; or building and food inspectors who guarantee that you're not taking your life in your hands when you flip on a light or sit down to dinner.

What we're proposing now is not "spending." It's the next round of investment that will create the next great chapter in the American future. And the most fiscally irresponsible thing we can do right now is lose our nerve, and fail to prepare for what's ahead.

2. It's not gonna work. Everybody knows the Democrats spent us into this mess in the first place.

The only remaining "everybodys" who "know" this are the ones who are simply impervious to facts.

Ronald Reagan came into office with a national debt of less than $1 trillion. Mostly by cutting taxes on the rich, he grew that debt to $2.6 trillion. George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge, but it wasn't enough to keep the debt from ballooning another 50 percent, to $4.2 trillion.

Bill Clinton''s aggressive budget balancing slowed the growth rate a bit: eight years later, he left office with a debt of $5.7 trillion -- and a tight budget in place that, if followed, would have paid whole thing off by 2006. Unfortunately, George W. Bush had no intention of following through with Clinton's plan: on his watch, the debt nearly doubled, from $5.7 to $10.6 trillion. So, nearly 80 percent of the current debt -- about which conservatives now complain -- was acquired on the watch of the three most recent conservative Presidents.

3. $10.6 trillion? But I got this e-mail that says we're looking at a national debt of $56 trillion...

Wow. That's a big, scary number, all right. It's also a perfect example of one of the classic ways people lie with statistics.

This particular mathematical confection was whipped up by Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon Commerce Secretary Pete Peterson, whose Peterson Foundation is the driving force behind the effort to defund Social Security. According to this group, "As of September 30, 2008, the federal government was in a $56 trillion-plus fiscal hole based on the official financial consolidated statements of the U.S. government. This amount is equal to $483,000 per household and $184,000 per American."

This "fact" is only true if you're willing to do a reckless amount of time traveling. The $56 trillion number is what you get if you project the entire U.S. debt a full 75 years into the future, which is how far out you have to go before you can get into numbers that big. In other words: we're not in that hole now -- but we might be in 2084, if we keep going the way we're going now.

Of course, it should be obvious that we're not going to keep going that way -- and that's the other fatal flaw. Peterson's calculations assume that there will be exactly no changes in Social Security and Medicare policy or inputs in the next 75 years -- something that has almost a zero chance of actually happening. Also, there's the usual problem with any kind of long-range projection: even a small error in the calculations at the start will compound over time, creating enormous errors at the end of the range. If he's off by even one percent (which is highly likely), the projection's worthless, even 20 years down the road.

Peterson and his posse are laying bets that Americans are too mathematically and logically challenged to notice the flaws in his reasoning -- even though the holes are big enough to drive an entire generation of retired Boomers through.

4. Whatever. It's still irresponsible to take on that much debt.

Even John McCain's economic adviser thinks this one's wrong. Here's what Mark Zandi said about the U.S. national debt on the February 1 edition of Meet The Press:

It's 40 percent of GDP now. If the projections are right, we get to 60, maybe 70 percent of GDP, which is high, but it's manageable in our historic -- in our history we've been higher, as you pointed out. And moreover, it's very consistent with other countries and their debt loads. And more -- just as important, investors understand this. They know this and they're still buying our debt and interest rates are still very, very low. So we need to take this opportunity and be very aggressive and use the resources that we have at our disposal.

To repeat: Debt is never a good thing; but history is on our side here. We've carried a lot more debt than this in the past; and so have other fiscally responsible countries. And the world's investors are still flocking to buy U.S. bonds -- even though with inflation, they're getting slightly negative interest rates, which means they're effectively paying us to use their money. If they have that much faith in our economy, we're probably not wrong to have a little faith in ourselves. By world standards, we're still looking like a very good bet.

5. But Social Security is headed for disaster. It's out of control!

It's a testament to the short attention spans of the media that the cons try to launch this talking point every six months or so -- and every damned time, the punditocracy goes running flat-out after the bait, fur flying, like an eager but not particularly bright Irish Setter. And then people like us need to collar them, make them sit, scratch their ears, and calmly explain all over again (as if it were brand-new information) that Social Security is in perfectly fine shape, and the conservatives are making much ado about nothing -- again.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Social Security trust fund will continue to run a surplus until 2019. (More conservative fund trustees put the date at 2017.) The fund's total assets should hold out until 2046. And that's assuming that nothing changes at all.

If it turns out we do need to make adjustments, there are two very simple ones that will more than make up the difference. One is that we could raise the cap. Right now, people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $102,000 they earn; everything over that goes into their pockets tax-free. Increasing that amount would cover even a fairly large shortfall. And in the unlikely event that fails, we can talk about raising the retirement age to 70 -- a sensible step, given how much longer we live now.

6. Ending Social Security would be well worth it, because putting those deductions back in people's pockets would provide a big enough stimulus to get us out of this mess.

Anyone who spouts this is apparently not counting on the 70 million Boomers whose wallets would snap shut permanently if you withdrew their retirement benefits just a few years before they're going to need them. As Digby put it:

Boomers are still sitting on a vast pile of wealth that's badly needed to be put to work investing in this country. But it's shrinking dramatically and it's making people very nervous. As [Dean] Baker writes, if one of the purposes of the stimulus is to restore some confidence in the future, then talk of fiddling with social security and medicare is extremely counterproductive. If they want to see the baby boomers put their remaining money in the mattress or bury in the back yard instead of prudently investing it, they'd better stop talking about "entitlement reform." This is a politically savvy generation and they know what that means.

If they perceive that social security is now on the menu, after losing vast amounts in real estate and stocks, you can bet those who still have a nestegg are going to start hoarding their savings and refusing to put it back into the economy. They'd be stupid not to.

Bad economies get that way because people no longer trust the future, and refuse to take on the risks associated with spending, lending, or investing. Social Security was created in the first place because FDR understood that a guaranteed old-age income is a major risk-reducer -- not just for elders, but also for their working adult children. And it still is. Affirming the strength of Social Security not only raises the confidence of the Boomers, as Dean and Digby have pointed out, but also of their Xer and Millennial children, who are going to have to add "looking after Mom and Dad" to their list of big-ticket financial obligations if that promise is broken.

Breaking a 70-year-old generational promise for the sake of a little temporary financial stimulus is the very definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish.

7. OK, forget I even mentioned Social Security. Besides, the real problem is Medicare.

Finally, we come down to the truth. There's no question that exponentially rising health care costs -- both Medicare and private insurance -- are unaffordable in the long term; and that getting ourselves back on track financially means getting serious about addressing that.

On close examination, even Peterson's figures eventually reveal this truth. (About 85% of his projected 2084 debt comes from expected Medicare.) Unfortunately, though, most of his materials lump Social Security and Medicare together, creating a fantasy figure that blows the real problem so far out of proportion that you can't even begin to have a rational conversation about it -- which was, of course, the whole point of ginning those numbers up in the first place.

8. Next, you're going to tell me that some kind of government-sponsored health care is the answer.

Yes, we are. The Congressional Budget Office notes that health care costs were only 7 percent of the GDP in 1970 -- and are over double that, at 14.8 percent, now.

Much of that increase came about because in 1970, most health care providers ran on a not-for-profit basis. Hospitals were run by governments, universities, or religious-based groups; in some states, private for-profit care was actually illegal. Even insurance companies, like Blue Cross, were non-profit corporations. AdminIstrators and doctors were still paid handsomely; but there were no shareholders in the picture trying to pull profits out of other people's misfortune.

The first step to restoring affordability is to kick the profiteers out of the system. (According to the most conservative estimates, this one step would drop the national health care bill by at least $200 billion a year.) The second is to put it in the hands of administrators whose first concern is providing high-quality care instead of big bottom lines; and who are accountable to the voters if they fail to perform. Our experience with Medicare and the VA -- which, between them, currently provide care to over 70 million Americans, or about 22% of the country -- proves that we are perfectly capable of providing first-class, affordable care through the government.

If Costa Rica and Canada can manage this, why can't we?

9. But this Peterson guy's a billionaire Wall Streeter. Obviously, he knows something about finance...

Let's punt this one to William Greider:

Peterson, who made his fortune on Wall Street, never raised a word about the dangers of hyper leveraged finance houses gambling other people's money. He never expressed qualms about the leveraged buyout artists who were using debt finance to rip apart companies. He didn't fund an all out effort to stop Bush from raiding the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

But now he wants folks headed into retirement who have already prepaid a surplus of $2.5 trillion to cover their Social Security retirements to take a cut and to work a few years longer to cover the money squandered on bailing out banks, wars of choice abroad, and tax cuts for the few.

Basically, we're only having this conversation in the first place because a conservative ideologue was willing to pony up $1 billion of his own money to fund a "foundation" devoted to killing Social Security. Given that most politicians -- both Democrat and Republican -- are extremely unwilling to touch the notorious "third rail of politics," it's pretty clear that next Monday's "fiscal responsibility summit" wouldn't even be happening if Peterson wasn't bankrolling the Beltway buzz on this terrible idea.

10. OK -- if killing Social Security isn't the answer, just how do you propose to get us out of this?

The idea of a White House summit on fiscal responsibility is a good one -- but only if it focuses on real solutions to our real problems.

Cutting health care costs by getting all Americans into a rationally-managed system that puts delivering excellent care above delivering shareholder profits has to be a central part of any long-term economic health strategy. We're also about 15 years overdue for a complete overhaul of our military budget, too much of which is still focused on fighting the Soviet Union instead of responding to the actual challenges we're currently facing. Finally, it's time to ask the wealthy -- who've profited more than anyone from the past 15 years, and yet haven't paid anywhere near their fair share -- to step in a pay up for the system that enabled them to build that pile in the first place.

There's plenty we can be doing to actually reduce the national debt, and really stimulate the economy for both the short run and the long haul, without ending Social Security and sending hundreds of millions of Americans into sudden panic over their retirement. True "fiscal responsibility" can never be achieved by breaking promises.

Sara Robinson is a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future, and a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle. One of the few trained social futurists in North America, she has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006, and is a founding member of Group News Blog.

deficit in American history, caused by WHAT?

And I just love how anyone who doesn't agree with them is labeled as having no values.

What kind of values does someone have to take a healthy surplus upon entering office and not only SQUANDERING it but then going on to create the biggest deficit in American history?

What kind of values does someone have to send our children to an unnecessary war to die and/or be injured while neglecting to give them inadequate supplies?

What kind of values does someone have to send our children off to a foreign land to die for his own personal bogus war, when he was too much of a coward to serve in combat duty himself?

What kind of values does someone have to take the blood of 9/11 victims and the fear of all other Americans and USE it to wage a bogus war against Iraq when that was his goal before he was even elected President?

What kind of values does someone have to not care enough about securing or borders or our ports or protecting our airspace and chemical/nuclear plants and decreases the budget for rail and subway security?

What kind of values does someone have to have to neglect to develop enough smallpox vaccines FOUR YEARS after the worst attack in American history, when bio attacks using smallpox was felt to be a threat?

What kind of values does someone have to have to make sure that his huge war budget includes FREE comprehensive medical benefits for all Iraqi citizens while he presides over a country where many of his own citizens who work 40 hours or more a week can't even afford health insurance?

What kind of values does someone have to have to deny American scientists the opportunity to study stem cell research, using the argument that he wants to "protect life" when he presides over a country where our children are being routinely molested and MURDERED by animals who the government refuses to keep in jail? 

Out of all the talk on these boards about life being "precious" as it regards stem cell research, I have yet to see ONE SINGLE POST about the multitude of children that have been abducted, sexually abused and murdered in this country in the last six months.  What kind of values does someone have to have to care more about cells in a petrie dish than the children who are already here?

Those examples aren't values. Those examples do nothing but reflect the values that are ABSENT in an egotistical moron of a president who, at his very BEST, is nothing but DANGEROUS.

I see the neocons have been trashing you on their board.......again, insisting that my posts were posted by YOU, which you and I both know isn't true.