mbbythesea

what do you expect from the 5th dumbest guy in his graduating class? posted 03/25/2008 at 15:04:30

please supply data that shows that 4000+ people are killed yearly by illegal immigrants. that is hard to believe....and seems to be an unjust mis-statement. illegals have driven down wage scales--which I protest mightily, but most of them are simply here trying to work and make more money than they can in their countries. Also Ms. Huffington is not aligned with Bush in any sense. do you work for bill o'reilly by any chance pooka749? posted 03/24/2008 at 13:42:48

While the Bush admin squanders our future prosperity with war debt, it should be noted that half of the 'boots on the ground' are hired hands. The real number of dead and wounded should include these men and women. This would certainly almost double the numbers reported by the White House but this data is shrouded in corporate secrecy.
My question is...if the Iraqis need security--which they seem to say they do--and half the war personnel are contractors, why don't we add two and two? In other words, get the voluntary (and under-compensated) military the hell out of there and get the American taxpayer money out of there. We cannot afford to pick up the tab for another country's civil war--and it makes no sense for us to do so. Americans can join the U.N. and NATO countries in an advisory role. We have that $736 million embassy to hang out in--we can play 'democracy quarterback' from there.
These Iraqis have OIL MONEY. THEY CAN AFFORD TO HIRE HALLIBURTON, KBR, BLACKWATER AND ALL THE OTHER SECURITY FORCES THAT THEY WANT.
posted 03/24/2008 at 13:30:31

4000 soldiers and an unknown number of gov't contractors have been killed in Iraq.
Bush has outsourced war expenses--paying for them on borrowed funds to be billed to all subsequent citizens--while he and cheney skate free with corporate profits. These contractors can get up to $1000 per day. Half the boots on the ground are contractors--which allows the Bush admin to conceal the real number of dead and wounded. If half the 'troops' are contractors, you can probably almost double the number of deaths reported to get an accurate number.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/faqs/


posted 03/23/2008 at 23:41:17

I'm surprised her ANTM writers are not stalking her after she failed to support them in getting decent wages and benefits. it's fine for tyra to make $18 million in a year, how much will she have to make before she supports appropriate compensation for the people that got her there?
She is a childish moron, constantly trying to upstage her talk show guests and the model contestants-none of whom have actually made it in any significant way--because like a disney villianess, tyra kicks off those whose beauty threatens her-and putting the rest through various types of humiliations meant to pass as 'entertainment' . it would be nice to see less of her stupid, oversized ass in the media--tyra is a tyrant! posted 03/23/2008 at 15:52:41

geoge bush had failed businesses in the private sector
he did not rise to prominence, he never 'scrimped and saved'
he did not glean anything from the working man
he is the privileged son of a president who had everything handed to him
and still managed to squander it
bad poem "sa"
posted 03/22/2008 at 23:21:43

I have a question. The Iraqis want security troops. Iraq has resources in the form of OIL, yes? Why don't they just hire Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater et al directly? This would make the shareholders happy, and keep the war profits rolling in. Clearly the middle east has enough angst to keep those companies in business for at least 100 years. Just get the voluntary military and American taxpayer money out of the equation. PLEASE. Iraqis need renta-cops and renta-soldiers? These multi-national corporations have them--fully equipped and in stock. In fact, the Bush admin has outsourced to these companies, so they don't have to reveal that there is about twice the ground forces and twice the casualties than are represented by just the military numbers--but these facts remain mum--company 'secrets.' Once the Iraqis get the bill for security services, maybe that will get them to get their act together. In the meantime, everyone's goals are met, the Iraqis needs for security, the multinational need for business. The American's need to no longer underwrite middle east nonsense. The U.S. and NATO countries can join with the U.N. in an advisory role. Does this sound like a plan that everyone can agree on?
posted 03/22/2008 at 03:18:11

O'Reilly casually talks on his radio show about such obscene and deeply disturbing topics as lynching an African American woman...and then rails against Ms. Huffington for the comments of others? (comments which were perhaps insensitive, perhaps planted, but again not her comments...and not as bad as O'Reilly's own remarks). He is a jerk with a mike, end of story. I don't get how he has made it this long in the spotlight. But then again, I don't get anything about Republicans. Why do they think they can conduct a war and also get tax cuts? If 911 was the instigator of said war, why do they think it is okay to have attacked the wrong country? Why do they think they can outsource all the good jobs and make things via slave labor to sell in this country? Guess what a-holes? if no one has decent jobs thanks to outsourcing, there will be no market for your tawdry items. Get it? Post Lincoln, why are Republicans so into promoting slavery anyway? For the most part, they are the ones that hired illegal immigrants--to work low paid jobs on construction sites, landscaping, agriculture and in meat packing plants, and now they are upset because if they are made citiizens, it will not be as easy to take advantage. So only now are they up in arms. Did they care when good jobs turned into slave labor? Of course not! So when it's no longer convenient to bring the slaves in--Republicans outsource jobs to the them. For years Republicans have been hell bent on eroding wages of good domestic jobs and cutting benefits--all the while thinking they should only pay 15% on their passive incomes--while the wage earner pays over 30%. Where's the sense of fair play? Where is the fiscal conservatism when it comes to things like the bloated defense budget? Does it even matter that most Americans don't want to finance this war and its bloodshed? (Dick Cheney "So?") Isn't it supposed to matter in a democracy? Isn't that the definition of a democracy? posted 03/21/2008 at 17:28:48