Poll: Bush Resigns, Faces Impeachment, or Jail?

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr.Wow: [b] [quote] Bill Gates does not deserve to keep his billions upon billions of dollars. He did not go out and earn those dollars himself, he rode on the backs of other peoples' labor. [/quote].........and that "labor" produced jobs. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? How many jobs were created because of the tech. BOOM?[/b][/quote]And 100 years ago, when 83% of the workforce was self-employed, we weren't subject to these booms and busts.

[Wow]

[quote] And 100 years ago, when 83% of the workforce was self-employed, we weren't subject to these booms and busts. [/quote]We also had NO income tax. There are ALOT of things that are different.

[Peake]

Such as child labor, short lifespans, death from disease, etc. Wasn't the topic about Bush going to jail? Wow hasn't responded to a single Bush issue.

[Wow]

FREAK, YOU are a one trick pony, and we have seen your trick. Do you have ANYTHING to add FREAK. ANYTHING to push the conversation foward besides GWB sucks. If you keep this up, your gonna get the johnny bralalala treatment.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr.Wow: [b] [quote] And 100 years ago, when 83% of the workforce was self-employed, we weren't subject to these booms and busts. [/quote]We also had NO income tax. There are ALOT of things that are different.[/b][/quote]Things which you believe are for the better. I say Capitalism destroyed a great Republic. Abe Lincoln thought so too, and he wasn't even around to see it happen.

[Wow]

[quote]I say Capitalism destroyed a great Republic. [/quote]...........and what was in place before capitalism in America?

[Griffinator]

Ummmm Being that the corporation wasn't officially recognized as an entity until the turn of the century, it's pretty hard to call what was going on the previous 150 years here capitalism. Money was not something one needed to survive in 18th and 19th century America.

[the stranger]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b][QUOTE]Originally posted by GZsound: [b]Hey Grif..re read my post. I stated in fairly clear terms that economic indicators EXCEPT for unemployment were showing better news. [/b] Point taken. I stand by my statement that [b]jobs[/b] are the #1 indicator of economic movement. When jobs go out the back door, economic stagnation and decline go out the front. Something I can't comprehend about the American corporate mindset. "Hey, our stock isn't performing well enough - let's LAY SOME PEOPLE OFF and make the numbers look better!" This, IMO, is the #1 reason why the economic cycles have gotten faster and faster since the capitalist takeover of this country at the turn of the century. [b]I guess I misunderstand your use of "simple math". When lots of people file bankruptcy, the overall debt level goes down? Let me check this logic.. If I loan you a hundred dollars and you go bankrupt and don't repay me, the overall debt level goes down? Who's overall debt level..Yours? Talk about "fuzzy math". [/b] Nothing fuzzy about it. The government is tracking [b]personal debt[/b]. When someone files bankruptcy, they no longer have [b]personal debt[/b] - it's all wiped out. So the government says that the total [b]personal debt[/b] has decreased. Same problem as the unemployment figures. [b]I agree with you. However, what caused the job loss? The downturn in the economy has a lot of factors to it. You are blaming the results on the administration. You should be looking at the reasons we have such high unemployment. [/b] I never said it was Bush's fault. I know whose fault it is. It's the shortsighted CEOs of American companies closing shops and moving manufacturing offshore. It's the lingering effects of the public's lack of confidence in the stock market (which is in no small part Bush's fault, for putting a corporate stooge in as head of a government division dedicated to sniffing out corporate book-cooking) which causes the corps to react by further "downsizing" in a feeble effort to impress the shareholders. There are a lot of other reasons. I never said "Bush caused it" - you read that into my statement. [b]Small business is the largest employer in our country. Taxes, fees, etc. have been going up steadily for many years. A lot of anti business legislation, higher insurance costs, etc. have caused a decrease in the number of businesses, and thus the number of employees. Government (taxpayer) corporate welfare has hurt. Huge tax breaks for companies that pay minimum wage does not help our economy.[/b] NO shit. Tell that to G Dubya. [b]Cost of inventory and cost of goods has been higher during the last five years than it is now. It was costing more to finance parts, finance new equipment, etc. flooring expenses (check with your own retail store book keeper and ask them what your prime plus flooring rate was three years ago and ask them what it is now) have all gone down in recent years. [/b] Nope. Not in the last 5 years. The prime rate has been low ever since Greenspan started panicking at the end of Clinton's term. He ratcheded the prime rate down to 3 percent by Bush's inauguration (in hopes that he could somehow prevent a recession during a Republican presidency) Sure, in the last year, Alan ratcheded it down to absolutely unheard of levels (1%?!) It doesn't help when people can't get credit because they lost their jobs. Low Prime Rate does [b]not[/b] help the job market - no one borrows money to pay workers unless they're about to go under - and no one hires new people when they're going under. [b]The big government give away in the trade agreements, allowing cheap foreign goods to flow into our country. NAFTA agreements that sent a ton of jobs and business out of our country, etc. all are now having an effect on our employment numbers. [/b] You're dead on there. Ironically, even if Bush Sr. had been elected, NAFTA would have passed. Bush Sr. was the one championing that deal. I was stunned to see Bill sign it. Just proved the point about corruption on both sides of the aisle. [b]We also were attacked on 9/11. The effect of that action on our economy cannot be merely ignored. Massive layoffs in the travel industry, huge amounts of government spending and certainly a very cautious, nervous and scared population. All things that would have a tendency to slow spending on anything but staple items. [/b] Yeah, the travel industry. The same people who whimpered for a federal bailout still cut flights, personnel, etc. even after they were given some $500B to keep their operations stable. Whatta crock. [b]I agree, the overinflated undervalued dot coms, the NAFTA agreements, the phoney book keeping principals all helped create the illusion we were in simply swell times. The bubble had to burst and again, adding in 9/11, it is amazing we have recovered at all in any way. Also keep in mind we had the largest toop deployments since WWII during the last administration prior to 9/11.[/b] Well, what's worse? All that phoney crap creating an illusion of good times? Or half a trillion dollars a year going into lucrative military contracts, creating jobs for as long as those contracts exist, and plunging the Fed into massive debt giving the same illusion? (BTW - that's Reagan, not Bush, albeit Bush seems to be heading down that same destructive path) [b]I would love to see the figures you use to prove the "massive cuts in education" and the swarm of "unfunded mandates". Our school funding has increased at a constant rate well above the growth of our economy here in Oregon. The money to our school system here from the federal government has not decreased..ever. [/b] I'll have to do some digging for the cuts I saw in the 2003 budget. Unfunded mandates? The federal government has not provided a single penny in additional funding to [b]any[/b] school since imposing the SOL testing mandates. This means that localities are compelled to jack up property taxes in order to generate the additional funds necessary for additional classroom construction, additional teachers (to bring bloated class sizes down), resource materials to help the kids study [b]specifically for[/b] the SOL tests (which means they spend their entire school careers working on passing this test, rather than actually learning anything outside of the facts and numbers on those tests - like [b]deductive reasoning[/b]) For those who don't know, deductive reasoning is the most important skill we humans can learn - it's the ability to analyze the data we are presented and come to an intelligent conclusion on our own. Without this skill, we are open to anyone with an agenda to mislead us for their own profit. [b]See, just making broad statements like the one above is not going to make anything any better. All you need to do is actually check the facts with your local school board. Insist on seeing the "all funds" budget. Check with your local taxpayer advocacy group and find out what the growth of your local state government has been compared to the growth in population and real income of those who live in your state. Read the US government census reports on population, average income, tax rates, fees, etc. against your fellow citizens. [/b] Fair enough. I'll be back with figures to back my assertions. [b]You said "those who are slightly left-leaning", which you have accused me of repeatedly, because I don't agree with your views.[/b] [b]And thus you are ashamed of who you are? You hate being called a liberal or "left leaning". I wonder why that is? And you need to notice I almost always use the word "some" when referring to the posters on this list. If you place yourself in the "some" category, then yes, I feel it is silly to continue to chant the liberal mantra. I feel it is un American to hope we are defeated. I feel it is anti American to hope our economy gets worse so we can elect "your" guy. [/b] That's not what you said. You made a generalized statment about "left leaning", which I am - I am a libertarian, but my compassion for other human beings and my disdain for the corporate machine causes me to lean slightly to the left (since the right is [b]decidedly[/b] more capitalist than the left) You then went the step too far by accusing those "left-leaning" to be Un-American. You did [b]not[/b] qualify that statement by mentioning any of the above, which I would agree would be anti-American and totally treasonous. Hence, you got a reaction out of me, even though I do [b]not[/b] hope for any of the things you mentioned. [b]I could care less who the next president is. I want my neighbors and my fellow citizens..even you..to be safe from attack. I want you and everybody in this country to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. I do not want the government to take 60 percent of every dime I earn from me, tell me it's wise to save as much of the 40% I have left and then turn around a tax my kids when I leave them my savings. [/b] But whose labor are they enjoying the fruits of? Their own? Or someone else's? Bill Gates does not deserve to keep his billions upon billions of dollars. He did not go out and earn those dollars himself, he rode on the backs of other peoples' labor. This is the problem with capitalism, and a pro-capitalist government. It was precisely what Abe Lincoln foresaw about the capitalist movement - that the wealth would become centralized into the hands of a powerful few (which it is - the top 2% of the earnings bracket in this country control 98% of the wealth - and therefore should be subject to paying 98% of the taxes, AFAIC) and those powerful few would use their financial power to unduly influence the government and (in his words) [b]destroy this Great Republic[/b] (which they are well on their way to doing.) [b]What, more grade school profanity? Cool..[/b] No, more wrath from a lot of very moderate people who don't fit into your liberal hole, yet still disagree with your viewpoints. [b]Wrong and more wrong. The un-American members of this country and this forum are those who care deeply. They hope deeply this administration will fail in the quest to stop terrorism, they hope deeply the economy will continue to get worse, they hope deeply the body bags will continue to come home, they hope deeply the unemployment will get worse, etc. All so a liberal can get elected. [/b] You completely misunderstand. The people that you describe do [b]not[/b] care about the country. Therefore, they are un-American. There are plenty of people out there who are either similarly pro-right, or people that are utterly apathetic and do not even so much as stay informed about the issues, never mind participate in the process, that are also un-American, because they don't care about anything but their own financial status. [b]I have fought for your right to believe and to say whatever you feel. But when anybody suggests my neighbors son deserves to be killed, that more of my neighbors sons should be killed, all my friends should loose their jobs, and on and on with the liberal dogma just to support a "regime" change in the White House. I'll call those extreme few any damn thing I wish.[/b] There does need to be a "regime" change in the White House - but we don't need a Democrat in there. That's one leg of the "regime" for the other. We need an intelligent third party candidate with strong beliefs in the Constitution and upholding its fundamental principles, and as few ties to major corporate entities as possible.[/b][/quote]:thu:

[Wow]

[quote] Being that the corporation wasn't officially recognized as an entity until the turn of the century, it's pretty hard to call what was going on the previous 150 years here capitalism. Money was not something one needed to survive in 18th and 19th century America [/quote]:freak: :freak: :freak: :freak: :freak: Money has been traded since the beginning of time. Your telling me that NOTHING was traded/bartered before 150 years ago?

[Peake]

Now the trading of money from the peasant to the lords is done more efficiently and with the aid of government military forces. We also have longer life spans in which to bash Bush. So, the topic is should Bush be jailed? I say yes, as he has done nothing to allay suspicions, much less the facts, of personal and cronie profiteering at the cost of American lives. If I'm sort of railing on the "should Bush be jailed" thing, it's because it's the topic of the thread.

[Wow]

PEAK, STOP POSTING HERE AND GO ADDRESS THE OTHER THREAD.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr.Wow: [b] [quote] Being that the corporation wasn't officially recognized as an entity until the turn of the century, it's pretty hard to call what was going on the previous 150 years here capitalism. Money was not something one needed to survive in 18th and 19th century America [/quote]:freak: :freak: :freak: :freak: :freak: Money has been traded since the beginning of time. Your telling me that NOTHING was traded/bartered before 150 years ago?[/b][/quote]You're pretty thick, dude. I said "Money was not something one needed to survive in 18th and 19th century America" It's true. The government gave away plots of land to anyone who would go and work it. A man could take the hoe and scythe his grandfather handed down to him, "borrow" an ear of corn from his friend's crib, and go farm. No money necessary. He builds himself a life with no cash whatsoever. Someone could go off into a mountain and fashion himself a living quarters, and live off whatever he could hunt and forage. No money necessary there - all he needs is a few skills (like how to string a bow, make arrows, etc) Try doing that today - first off you'd be arrested for trespassing (unless you owned the land, in which case you'd still have to pay taxes on it) secondly you'd be watched by the FBI as a suspected terrorist (the Unabomber lived in a shack in the wilderness - therefore anyone who lives in a shack in the wilderness must be the Unabomber) and finally you'd be an outcast forever as that "lazy bastard who won't work for a living like the rest of us" - even after you came back down for reasons #1 and 2. Tell me again how this relates to bartering or trading money on a societal level? I'm saying that it's only been since the capitalist revolution at the turn of the century that every member of the society is dependant upon money to survive - hence the corporation becomes more powerful than the government, because the corporation truly holds the power of life and death in its hand.

[Wow]

[quote] I'm saying that it's only been since the capitalist revolution at the turn of the century that every member of the society is dependant upon money to survive - hence the corporation becomes more powerful than the government, because the corporation truly holds the power of life and death in its hand. [/quote]With all due respect, do you want to do away with capitalism? If not, whats your entire point here. We are a capitalist society. You are overblowing the part about the corporation holding the power, thats the beauty OF capitalism, there is always the next guy to who will offer you a fair wage. People are not bound to one company like they were 50 years ago, we learned, they fire you at retirement. The only shure thing job is to work for the Federal Government and it hurts me to say that because ANY company in the private sector would go under in 2 years the way the Federal Government runs its business. Benefits are there. Problem is, what do you have when everybody works for the government?

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr.Wow: [b]With all due respect, do you want to do away with capitalism? If not, whats your entire point here. We are a capitalist society. You are overblowing the part about the corporation holding the power, thats the beauty OF capitalism, there is always the next guy to who will offer you a fair wage. People are not bound to one company like they were 50 years ago, we learned, they fire you at retirement. The only shure thing job is to work for the Federal Government and it hurts me to say that because ANY company in the private sector would go under in 2 years the way the Federal Government runs its business. Benefits are there. Problem is, what do you have when everybody works for the government?[/b][/quote]I'm not necessarily in favor of ending capitalism, just corporatist capitalism. Reverse the Supreme Court's decision to recognize corporations as legal entities. Hold the shareholders as well as the executive officers in a corporation responsible for that corp's actions. We'll see how well a corp performs on Wall Street when its last bunch of shareholders ended up in prison because of illegal financial dealings (like cooking the books). Abolish liability insurance - make an exemption for medical malpractice - if a doc fucks up bad enough, he'll never have enough money to pay damages to someone he disabled for life. Let a business be forced to pay out of its own assets the damages it inflicts on private citizens, workers, etc. through its own reckless behavior. Put some teeth back into the anti-trust laws. Competition is a vital necessity to a free market. With mega-corporations mergering on a constant basis, competition in most consumer goods nowadays has dropped down to a very few powerful entities with a lot of different badges. Outlaw franchising and chain establishments. This is the ultimate in unfair competition - a small business with limited capital has no chance to compete with a massive corporation with incredible buying power. The ultimate in virtual monopoly. Speaking further on trusts, collusion in the retail gasoline industry is completely out of control. Anti-competitive tactics (price fixing) goes on constantly between gas stations within a local area, creating a mini-trust (you don't cut your prices, I don't cut mine) How do we fix it? Apply the anti-trust law on a localized basis. A trust is a trust, whether on a national level or a local one. That was the original purpose of the anti-trust legislation - to break up localized trusts that throttled competition out of local markets. In short, if you want capitalism, then lets level the playing field and decentralize the wealth.

[jcskid]

Hey Alcohol, [quote] jcskid, what bothers you about the teacher's union? [/quote]first i am all for giving teachers raises, providing they pass so kind of class evaluation thing. as to what i am against? Pretty much everything they stand for... teaching gay lifestyles in sex class, the one thing to come to mind is a book they tried to force down every schools mouth " i have 2 mommies" abortion and allowing underaged kids to have them without parental consent. trying to shut down the charter schools, "the Voucher system" and home schooling. just to name a few. heres the page http://www.educationreview.homestead.com/2002IronTriangle.html scott

[jcskid]

Griffinator, you make some good points, and from a "Mega corp" point of view i tend to agree on most. most large corps are self insured. where a small company like me needs liability, due to the rediculous awards given in law suites. i am all for the anti-trust laws. however i think deregulation has been good for the comunication industry. i dont know how much i agree with the franchise thing. from Mars music to Amway/Mary Kay. i shop at Walmart,Target,Home Depot,Wendy's, Applebee's, Kroger's. on the other hand as a small biz. i can relate to a point. my parents owned resturants all my life, franchises never hurt us. i spent almost 20 yrs in the contruction trade, big biz never hurt me, in fact i was generally better quality for less money. and i generally bought my lumber at a smaller store for better sevice and better quality. (tools at home depot) now the last 5+ yrs as a computer store. in the last 2 yrs several webstores have poped up selling parts at my cost( one of them is actually my vendor Damn them!!) fortunately we are no longer a parts store too much (at least you get service with us) can i compete against Dell on the "get on the internet box's"? nope not for the last 2 yrs, thier selling price is my cost(and i believe thiers also), but then again thats not what we are about. now if you want a real computer i can actually beat them. Mars music... thank God the Audio industry has what called MAP. Minimum Advertised Price. or there is no way i could compete. in fact what hurts me and others is the Ebay whores, who dont have to pay liability insurance or employees or have overhead, and buy from 3rd party sources so they dont have to adhere to MAP or bother tech supporting the product. i think i seen a ebay thread a few days ago come to think of it.... on the other hand if i were a mom and pop auto parts store, grocery store i think i would be out of biz. hard to say i think alot of smaller companies can still make it providing they offer outstanding service and personality. i definately think big corps should be held more responseable for thier actions particularly of criminal or questionable antics. Scott

[Peake]

Over ten years ago, Devo said that we live in a feudalistic corporate society. Interesting overview posted a bit back, regarding the shift from free land if you'll work it, to being babies at the corporate tit just to survive...

[GZsound]

I think the big corporation bashing is fine if we can be fair and equally bash big unions and big government in the mix. Maybe the corporate entity was not created until a few years ago, however, as far as I know, the feudal system is quite similar to the corporate/government structure. Also, it is sort of refreshing to hear a lot of reasons for why we are in an economic downturn that actually make sense instead of the constant Bush did it crap. Our entire system needs an overhaul. A simple fix for most of the problems we experience would be strict accounting and strict controls...on every entity. On the government, on the schools, on the city, on the county, on the unions, on the corporations, on energy, communications, lawyers, etc. If any of you had any idea how much money is wasted in fraud in the social security system, food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc. you would be staggered. So at least there are some real reasons for the difficulties we are now experiencing and some good ideas for changing things. Funny how if you think about it, impeaching Bush, jailing Bush, etc. would not solve any of our current economic problems...

[Dogfur]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b] Our entire system needs an overhaul. A simple fix for most of the problems we experience would be strict accounting and strict controls...on every entity. On the government, on the schools, on the city, on the county, on the unions, on the corporations, on energy, communications, lawyers, etc. [/b] I absolutely agree. I see absolutely no harm in adding sensible accountability to any of the entities you have named. It would be a great start and could lead to a "reform" for lack of a better term that is severely lacking in today's society. I certainly don't know how to get a ball like this started, though. [b] Funny how if you think about it, impeaching Bush, jailing Bush, etc. would not solve any of our current economic problems...[/b][/quote]Here we kind of differ - By impeaching and jailing Bush you are holding him accountable for his actions, and starting a reform that most assuredly would bring about a round of rethinking concerning corporate greed. Could we follow it through? Following through with other members of his administration and putting their activities under a microscope would certainly be in the best interests of propelling a federal financial reform that could echo all the way down to the state & county level. I do agree the short term results might be a bit scary economically, but there is simply no stopping that now. Best to all, Dogfur

[Wow]

Nice post griff, :thu: I dont agree with alot of what you said, but you sure know the issues.

[Griffinator]

Mr. Wow: As long as we both are talking about the same issues and we understand why each of us thinks the way we do, then I don't have a problem agreeing to disagree. It's when shit gets stupid and people start throwing insults around (yeah, I'm guilty too) that I start really disrespecting the people I'm debating.

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Dogfur: Here we kind of differ - By impeaching and jailing Bush you are holding him accountable for his actions, and starting a reform that most assuredly would bring about a round of rethinking concerning corporate greed. Could we follow it through? Following through with other members of his administration and putting their activities under a microscope would certainly be in the best interests of propelling a federal financial reform that could echo all the way down to the state & county level. I do agree the short term results might be a bit scary economically, but there is simply no stopping that now.[/b] See... here is a prime example of good thinking being destroyed by political dogma. Think about what you just suggested. Impeaching and jailing Bush would start a reform and bring a round of rethinking corporate greed? Come on, you cannot possibly be that naive. Impeaching Clinton has no effect on corporate greed did it? Enron was cooking the books, Global Crossing was cooking the books, Arthur Anderson was the chief book cooker. No matter what you do to anybody, it will not send a message to anybody, especially corporations. Any more than it will send a message to government to stop wasting money, stop spending on stupid programs, etc. And please remember that if there was proof Mr. Bush committed a crime, the democratic congress would try to impeach him so fast it would make your head swim. Any idea why it's only the extreme left wing loonies claiming he has committed impeachable crimes? Please try to offer suggestions that would actually work. First you agree that we need to make all entities accountable. You agreed with me that corporations, unions, governments, etc. all need to have some control put on their spending. The issue is how to make that happen. And putting Jesse Jackson in jail for fraud, theft, blackmail, etc. will not have any effect on bogus "civil rights advocacy" groups.. see the point? Putting Jim and Tami Baker in jail didn't stop bogus television evengalists from ripping off the public did it? You should not be half rational...

[Griffinator]

Mark: If I understand you correctly, what you're basically saying is that we shouldn't put Bush on trial because it won't change the situation? Hell, why did we bother going after Nixon? It didn't help either, did it?

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b]Mark: If I understand you correctly, what you're basically saying is that we shouldn't put Bush on trial because it won't change the situation? [/b][/quote]Please re-read it. That is not what he is saying.

[Wow]

I figured out the Dems agenda, they are stacking Amendments(Pork) on the "No child left behind" bill. Then turning around publicly and saying that the Republicans wont pass the bill because their "Evil" This should surprise no one. Its an OLD tactic.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b]Please re-read it. That is not what he is saying.[/b][/quote]I re-read it, and came to the same conclusion. He's saying that putting Clinton on trial didn't change anything, and putting Jesse Jackson on trial wouldn't change anything. The only inference I can draw from this (considering the topic) is that putting Bush on trial wouldn't change anything.

[Peake]

This was just brought to my attention. I have no idea who the writer is, so I expect opposition from his critics, especially if the information is true. http://www.almartinraw.com/public/column106.html

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b]Please re-read it. That is not what he is saying.[/b][/quote]I re-read it, and came to the same conclusion. He's saying that putting Clinton on trial didn't change anything, and putting Jesse Jackson on trial wouldn't change anything. The only inference I can draw from this (considering the topic) is that putting Bush on trial wouldn't change anything.[/b][/quote]Correct. That is what he was saying. But he never said that Bush shouldn't be put on trial. Just that doing so wouldn't send any messages or stop corporate greed. If Bush deserves to go to trial, then he should go to trial...

[Saint Johnny B]

This has become a very interesting thread. I esp love the links to thing like Bushisms, the ecomonic destruction of America by the Bush Gang, and the other links like the crimianl activity engaged in by the Bush Criminal Enterprise. I also like some of the calls for corporate reform. Applying 3 Strikes Laws to Corporations and their top management would go a long way to rectiffying the abuses. And beefing up anti-monopoly laws with vigorous enforcement would also help. Repealing NAFTA and some of these stupid trade deals would also help. I also believe their would be a trickle-down effect if criminals like Ken Lay, George Bush, and Dick Cheney were jailed. I'm proud to be liberal who is tough on crime, esp crime in the suites. These kinds of crimes does far more damage to our society than is reported in the press. The big headline today: Bush Blows Another 60 Billion on IRAQ, Cost of War grossly understated by Bush Regime. I doubt if Bush and Cheney care, it means more money for Halliburton and some of their oil friend butt buddies. And if Bush's Chief Advisor, Karl Rove, is responsible for getting CIA agents killed, well perhaps he should be facing the death penalty when he gets convicted in a court of law. Rove's family links to the Nazis is as distrubing as the Bush Crime Family's links to the Nazi's. Regardless of how people attempt to label you, left, right, center, green, blue, purple, whatever, I hope musicians will have the courage to continue to speak out for what they believe in. And even though I don't agree with much of what he says, that means you too Mr. Wow. Wow can't be all bad, he likes Hendrix. If the vote were held today among us, Bush would be jailed. Thanks to all who expressed their opinions. :)

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]I also believe their would be a trickle-down effect if criminals like Ken Lay, George Bush, and Dick Cheney were jailed. [/quote][/b] You're a fool if you believe that. People are not 'scared straight'. They require a conviction of the heart. [quote][b] The big headline today: Bush Blows Another 60 Billion on IRAQ, Cost of War grossly understated by Bush Regime. [/quote][/b] John McCain just returned from Iraq recently. In his view we need to send more people over there to do the job right. I agree with him. [quote][b] I hope musicians will have the courage to continue to speak out for what they believe in. [/b][/quote]This ain't the 60's anymore. Nobody listens to the lyrics now. Music is a McDonalds Happy Meal.