Blogs @ Augusta.comLooking for photos? Check out Spotted

Recent comments

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Please sign in to post or comment.

Thank you, President Bush.

Posted by gimpel on July 12, 2006 - 6:32 AM

For doing whatever is necessary to prevent this:

Mumbai commuter train blasts kill 170
At least 170 people were killed and hundreds more injured on Tuesday after a series of co-ordinated explosions ripped through Mumbai’s commuter transport network in the middle of the evening rush hour.
No warning was given for the blasts, which came within hours of a wave of explosions in Srinigar, the capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir, where a series of grenade attacks killed eight people and wounded more than two dozen.

And thank you for preventing terrorism on our soil without violating anyone’s freedoms or anyone’s rights.
Thanks to our President Bush, and our brave soldiers, not a single American has died on American soil because of a terrorist attack since 9-11.
Not a single American has suffered even one little inconvenience because of phone tapping, internet surveillance, or financial transaction tracking.
To be sure, in other times, the government could use these programs for unlawful things, but they have not.
To be sure, a terrorist attack could happen tomorrow.
But not today.
President Bush has shown himself to be honest, trustworthy, and effective in protecting America.
And no freedom has been damaged in the process.

Submitted by rbutterflly on July 13, 2006 - 7:26 PM.

Why is others pain and suffering, a pat on our back or the back of the President?


Submitted by rottie on July 17, 2006 - 11:04 PM.

"And thank you for preventing terrorism on our soil without violating anyone’s freedoms or anyone’s rights."

Illegal wiretaps, denying the accused the right to access to attorneys and due process, and surveillance of millions of Americans is not violating anyone's rights and freedoms?

"Thanks to our President Bush, and our brave soldiers, not a single American has died on American soil because of a terrorist attack since 9-11."

Do you know this to be 100% true? If so, prove it.

"Not a single American has suffered even one little inconvenience because of phone tapping, internet surveillance, or financial transaction tracking."

Yeah...right.

"To be sure, in other times, the government could use these programs for unlawful things, but they have not."

Again, do you have evidence?

"To be sure, a terrorist attack could happen tomorrow.
But not today."

Terrorism can only succeed if you allow yourself to be terrorized. If it had been handled correctly, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. Instead of diverting attention and resources from Afganistan, the military should have been given what was needed to finish the job. Instead, it was half-way done so that Halliburton and Raytheon could make billions in Iraq.

"President Bush has shown himself to be honest, trustworthy, and effective in protecting America."

Bush has lied to the American people so many times, I don't even think he can tell the difference between a lie and the truth.

"And no freedom has been damaged in the process."

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


Submitted by gimpel on July 18, 2006 - 8:50 PM.

Please, just name one person. Just one, whose rights have been violated.
And please expound on your elegant, “Yeah, right,” by explaining why Ben Franklin included the words “essential” and “little temporary.”


Submitted by mydtwc on July 21, 2006 - 6:16 PM.

gimpel, I have made my mind up not to look at your assinine post and let them go unanswered.

The Bush administration is without any doubt the crookedest, least moral, most inept adminstration in the history of this country.

They have bungled almost everything they have done or attempted to do.

The Homeland Security agency and FEMA are a total joke.
We are bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq that he has absolutely no exit strategy for. Of course in his book it is MISSION ACCOMPLISHED......... And I guess for him and Cheney, it is mission accomplished. Gas ptices are $3.00 a gallon. His big contributors the weapons industry is happy. And Cheney's ex employer Halliburton has been given billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts. YEAH I GUESS FOR BUSH AND CHENEY IT IS MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.............

And speaking of employers: I am still waiting to hear whose yours is. Let us all know where you are really coming from with this drivel you keep throwing out.

Oh and I should mention that Bush is doing such a great job that the members of his own party are trying to distance themselves from him.


Submitted by lazydazy on July 21, 2006 - 9:28 PM.

I love the way you let Gimpel's assinine posts go unanswered. Good one.

I've tried to read your replies to his other blogs. I couldn't even finish most of them. I had to prop my eyelids open with toothpicks.

I understand that you are living on a totally different planet than the rest of us, but can you spare us from YOUR drivel? I love people like you. You make it so easy for the rest of us to realize why the Democrats are so screwed up. Blame everything on Bush. That's the obvious answer, right? It was Bush's fault that Katrina flattened Mississippi. And all anybody talks about is New Orleans...which, by the way, didn't even take a direct hit. That couldn't have possibly been Nagin's or Blanco's fault, right? It's all Bush's fault that Isreal is bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Isreal doesn't have the right to defend itself...at least that's the way I think you look at it. It was Bush's fault that tsunami hit Indonesia too, isn't it? As much as I abhor the Clintons, I could not, in all sanity, think of blaming either one for a natural disaster or blaming them for another country for defending themselves from an entity that wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. You think we should have just laid down and rolled over after 9/11, don't you? What do you think our response to 9/11 should have been? Diplomacy? Read your history books. That doesn't work. Show of force works.

And, speaking of Katrina, she couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the price of gas, right? Even though she shut down half of our oil refineries...but wait...I forgot...Katrina was Bush's fault anyway. The loop is closed.

And why are you so obsessed with who Gimpel works for? I find that strange, in itself. Who cares who he works for? What possible difference could it make? Maybe he works at SRS....maybe he works in a machine shop....who cares? Except you. By the way....who do YOU work for? The ACLU maybe?

I don't agree with a lot of Bush's politics lately, but I swear I haven't seen a mass of Republicans trying to "distance" themselves from him as you claim.


Submitted by mydtwc on July 21, 2006 - 11:36 PM.

lazydazy, I can understand your having problems staying awake.
You are obviously on some strong medication that has you half goofy.

As for my blaming everything on Bush I am the type that always likes to give credit where credit is due. And he is definitely due an awful big bunch of it.

As for your STUPID, ASSININE remarks about me or anybody else blaming Dubya for Katrina, that is typical right wing rhetoric to try and make it look like somebody is blaming him for the hurricane and not his pitiful response to it. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING that was an editorial from one of your RIGHT WING newspaper editors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
N.H. Editorial Blasts Bush's Response to Katrina
It's not just the left criticizing President Bush over his belated response to the Katrina catastrophe, it's also those that used to praise him:

AS THE EXTENT of Hurricane Katrinas devastation became clearer on Tuesday millions without power, tens of thousands homeless, a death toll unknowable because rescue crews cant reach some regions President Bush carried on with his plans to speak in San Diego, as if nothing important had happened the day before. Katrina already is measured as one of the worst storms in American history. And yet, President Bush decided that his plans to commemorate the 60th anniversary of VJ Day with a speech were more pressing than responding to the carnage.

A better leader would have flown straight to the disaster zone and announced the immediate mobilization of every available resource to rescue the stranded, find and bury the dead, and keep the survivors fed, clothed, sheltered and free of disease.

The cool, confident, intuitive leadership Bush exhibited in his first term, particularly in the months immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, has vanished. In its place is a diffident detachment unsuitable for the leader of a nation facing war, natural disaster and economic uncertainty.....
----------------------------------------------------------------
And as bad as anything else was him sitting there lying saying NO ONE could have foresaw the levee breaking when I saw a tape myself with him being told that there was a very real worry that the levee could break.

And then you asked the REALLY STUPID QUESTION:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"You think we should have just laid down and rolled over after 9/11, don't you? What do you think our response to 9/11 should have been? Diplomacy? Read your history books. That doesn't work. Show of force works."
---------------------------------------------------------------
UH NO I DON'T.. I think we should have went into Afghanistan and gotten everybody that we could that was affiliated with Al-Quaida and actually gotten the man that was behind 9/11, Osama Bin Laden. It seems he has now become Osama Bin Forgotten. All of this time and we haven't been able to find a 6'4" man that is on DIALYSIS. Seems kind of strange to me. Especially when you take George Bush's close tie-ins to the Bin Laden family. As a matter of fact Bin Laden supported Bush for president. Dubya must REALLY be appreciative.

And as far as force working, it is just doing a jam up job isn't it? 2,500 of our troops killed and 20,000 wounded with half of those missing arms, legs, eyes and in some cases more than one of the above. Innocent civilian Iraqis are dying at the rate of over 100 a day BUUUTTTT they are liberated. ANNDDDD we did get the man that wanted to kill his daddy and we did create billions of dollars of no-bid work for Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.etc. and that's the important thing right????

Now we have created thousands of terrorist where none existed before our invasion. I can tell you this, it has created one major problem in that whole area and I can tell you Iraq will change us before we change it.

Now I am wondering how you have been on here 28 weeks and never knew this blog existed. Probably not unlike old I4Putt/Webdesign you are posting under more than one name. That's the kind of things you GOOD RIGHT WING CHRISTIANS like to do.

And as far as wanting gimpel to tell me what his real agenda is and who he works for, I'm pretty sure I already know and I just think everybody needs to know where he is coming from with all of this right wing HOGWASH. AND WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT, WHY DON'T YOU TELL US ABOUT YOU?????

Oh and as for your statement:
----------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't agree with a lot of Bush's politics lately, but I swear I haven't seen a mass of Republicans trying to "distance" themselves from him as you claim."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Even good old Faux news has reported that.


Submitted by lazydazy on July 23, 2006 - 11:16 PM.

mydtwc,

Apparently, I struck an exposed nerve with Katrina, which was honestly not my intent. I'll hit on that again later.

The first thing I want to say is that you have a tendency to dole out some pretty undeserved insults. The only thing that I said to you was that your comments were boring and that they were "drivel"...just as you have said about other's posts. I never called you stupid, or assinine even. That has been your description of anything that YOU don't agree with. I never told you that you asked a stupid question. That would be completely rude. But since YOU did, my "stupid question" was supposed to be facetious (but you seem to have absolutely no sense of humor and take everything way too personally). And how dare you accuse me of being medicated. You are the one that sounds like you're ready to blow a head gasket at any moment. Why do you have to be so hostile? Why can't we have an intelligent conversation without you getting OBVIOUSLY angry?

I've not brought religion into any of this, but I'm about to. The Jesus that I know (yes, from reading the bible) was a meek man...the Lamb of God. No, he did not thrive on conflict, or violence of any kind. He was definitely all about peace and the old cliche (in layman's terms) "Why can't we all just get along?" In my own little world, I ask that question all the time. But the answer is simple....they (Islam) do not WANT to get along. They want to wipe all Christians (and Jews), otherwise known as "The Infidels" off the face of the earth. How pompous is that? I also know that history tells me that Christians from a century ago were also into destroying our assumed infidels....something I don't agree with either, but it happened. I'm willing to accept that whatever they believe. I'm sure they believe it with the same faith that I have in Jesus Christ. Just leave me and mine out of it.

It will all work out in the end...either Christians and/or Jews are right, or Islam is right. We, on earth, will not know that until "judgement day", but until then, I will continue to believe what I believe in faith and if I'm wrong (which I don't think I am) then I'm wrong. But I prefer to believe this over the alternative....Jesus taught me to love, not hate. I confess, I have not read the Koran, but it seems that Mohammad taught the exact opposite. I've known many Muslims in my life and they all deny that Islam is about hate. So I choose to believe (in faith) that they are telling me the truth and the ones that are waging Jehad are plainly fanatics.

This war in the middle east is some 4,000 years old and not until the 21st century is it being fought for somewhat right reasons. We aren't necessarily fighting for a religious reason, we are fighting against an evil that has reared it's ugly head, once again. Only this time, we don't have a territorily defined enemy. We didn't bring the terrorist to Iraq nor did we create them. They were already there. And now, they are everywhere. In every country in the world. Over the last 800 years, the fanatics have spread their hatred for "the infidel" over the entire planet. There are terrorist attacks in every region of the world. That sounds like a losing battle, but my Bible, and my faith, tells me that we will prevail. I have to believe that or I will be betraying my faith.

As far as the number of people we have lost during the present war vs. the number of our SOLDIERS we have lost during other wars..ie. WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam.....you can look it up for yourself. Just google it. This is bearly a drop in the bucket. But one thing is certain....it was all worth it. Freedom is not free. Just go to DC and look at the Korean War memorial. That's what's inscribed at the bottom of one of the monuments. As a matter of fact, just go down to Broad Street right before you get to 5th street going north. There's a big stone monument that repeats those exact words. Freedom comes at a cost and I lay down my hat (coat, or whatever piece of clothing (or my body) down to our soldiers that are willing to give their life so that I can live in a place without worry of bombs blasting my neighborhood, or some nut blowing themselves up in the middle of Walmart while I'm trying to go on with my life.

Now, as far as me being on here for 28 weeks and not noticing the blogs....I have no clue how you know how long I've been coming to the augusta chronicle and I don't really care. I go to the chronicle to find out about local news and to look at the movie schedule, or maybe the classifieds every now and then. I actually have a life. I do not thrive on starting, or finishing arguments with people like you. Not that you deserve an explaination, but one of the blogs just happened to catch my eye the other day and out of curiousity, I clicked on the link and started reading. I wasn't trying to get into a "blog war" with you or anybody else. No, I do not have multiple sign-on names. Man, how paranoid are you? Trust me, there is no boogey-man. I'm an honest person and have no desire to try to "fool" anyone of my identity. And if you must know, I work for a local credit union. That's all the info about myself I'm giving.

So at least you could tell me, and Gimpel, what type of business you are in. I fessed up. Can you?

I'm really tired now, and if you really want to know what I think about your Katrina comments, I'll oblige....just not tonight.


Submitted by imdstuf on July 24, 2006 - 2:39 PM.

Give up arguing with people who like Bush. God himself could come down and tell them Bush is not a good president, and they would say, "I am sorry God, but I have to disagree."


Submitted by jbob on July 24, 2006 - 3:32 PM.

your damn right


Submitted by gimpel on July 25, 2006 - 6:24 AM.

well, neither side can "argue" with the other, but we should be able to reason... would you mind telling why you think liberals can't argue with conservatives, and conservatives can't argue with liberals?
and do you think we can have reasonable dialogue?
sad we have to seem so different, when the world views us as largely the same...


Submitted by imdstuf on July 25, 2006 - 10:09 AM.

Gimpel, the problem is people take the labels such as liberal, conservative, democrat, republican...these labels are so divisive. I am not any of these things. I am just me. Everyone talks along "party lines." I do not believe the country can be divided into just two sets of opinions though.

Washington was right in denouncing political parties and warning us against them. I think politicians in these two large parties are often corrupt. Both parties are out to serve big business/themselves.

I voted for W. Bush his first time around. I am not too proud to admit I was wrong though after four years and I did not vote for him this last time. I believe others will not swallow their pride once they "choose sides" as it seems. Since you like Ronald Reagan let me say I used a question he posed once during the last election when choosing to not vote for Bush again...I asked myself, "Am I better off now than I was four years ago?" The for me and the country is definately a no.

I liked the idea of less national government controling things ( one of the supposed ideals of the conversvative) yet I see under our current administration the goverment growing into something akin to what was in the fictional novel "1984."

Even the President has a system of checks and balances. He is not an emperor. He is not above the law. When someone who served under Richard Nixon claims that Bush has done worse actions than even Nixon, you know that some even in his own party do not like him.

Finally, we do need to show a national strength, but to have a cocky president he basically called out Iraq, North Korea and Iran, then attacked the first, shows that he is not afraid to start world war III. Even though Iraq tried to show they had no weapons of mass destruction we went in anyways( as the Downing Street Memos proved later was going to happen regardless). So why shouldn't Iran and North Korea be trying to get weapons to defend itself. As I have said previously in other posts, people let patriotism lead them to think we are "the good guys" like some hero in a movie, when in actuality, we are just as bad as the the supposed "evil" countries that we fight with. The real key is we do what is best for ourselves....just look up the history of how Saddam Hussein came to power.