Between the garbage product, the website censorship and the retyping, I don't think I'll be getting the shit papers tomorrow, readers.
I still have blogs to check, and I'm sick of the SHIT LIES and OMISSIONS of AmeriKa's MSM papers!
"Bush asks support on Iraq, economy; No sweeping initiatives in final State of Union" by Michael Kranish and Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | January 29, 2008
WASHINGTON - .... Though Bush called for unity and bipartisanship in addressing major issues, the response of lawmakers to his major themes was decidedly partisan. For example, when Bush urged healthcare reform - a signature issue for Democrats - senators and congress members on that side of the aisle stood and cheered; when the president said that reform should take place through market competition and not government mandates, Republican legislators gave him a standing ovation while Democrats sat silently.
Yeah, except when Bush issued the war call against "Al-CIA-Duh" and Iran -- then everyone stood and cheered.
Which is why I don't cover "politics" very much anymore.
Nothing to cover in a War Party state!
The modest agenda presented last night reflected the difficulty of pushing new programs in the last year of a presidency dragged down by an unpopular war, low approval ratings, and economic distress, Bush's ability has further been limited by the fact that much of the naton is focused on presidential nominations in both parties and the new agendas those candidates are suggesting.
What world is this Globe bullshit-chucker living on, folks?
Why I'm not buying again tomorrow.
I paid 75-cents for CRAP rewrite?!
An ABC News poll completed this month found that Bush's approval rating is 32 percent, the lowest of his presidency, and that 77 percent of those surveyed believe the country is on the wrong track - including 64 percent who say the war in Iraq has not been worth the expense and lives lost.....
32% must be a number they feel they can sell.
And how about that sentiment on the Iraq occupation?
Well, we ain't going anywhere, Murka!
Bush's focus on the fragile state of the economy was striking compared with last year's address, when he boasted that "unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move, and our job is to keep it that way."
Yeah, he LIED AGAIN last year, didn't he?
Everything this fucking mass-murdering shitter says is a god-damn lie!
Last night, he acknowledged that "our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty," due in large part to the bust in the national housing market. But Bush said that "in the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth."
Lie lie lie lie lie!
And once again, I must retype what the web censored!!!
WTF?!
Bush has had mixed success on getting major domestic proposals through Congress. He won bipartisan support for a bill lowering the cost of prescription drugs and for the No Child Left Behind education bill, but could not make headway on proposals to reform immigration and Social Security."
I'm sick of the rewrites of history by the shit MSM, readers.
Tired of being lied to by them!
Oh, and about that threatened veto on the "stimulus?"
"Senate Democrats adding to stimulus" by Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press | January 28, 2008
WASHINGTON --A top Senate Democrat unveiled a $156 billion economic stimulus package Monday that awards rebates to senior citizens living off Social Security and extends unemployment benefits, setting up a clash with the White House and House leaders pushing a narrower package....
The move was in defiance of admonitions from the Bush administration not to risk derailing the deal with changes, and it threatened to slow what was shaping up as an extraordinarily rapid trip through Congress for the stimulus measure....
President Bush, in his State of the Union address Monday night, warned lawmakers not to give in to the temptation to "load up the bill."
"That would delay it or derail it, and neither option is acceptable... This is a good agreement that will keep our economy growing and our people working."
Republicans, though, were among those calling for additions to the plan.
ASSHOLE!!!!!!
Sen. Susan M. Collins, R-Maine, who backs both the rebates for seniors and the unemployment extension:
"Many of these additions have bipartisan support, and I hope that the president will recognize that the White House needs to negotiate with the Senate as well as the House."
Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, a Finance Committee member, called the unemployment extension "critical" and said she supported ensuring that the rebates reached the elderly."
Oh, and about that reduction in spending and earmarks. well, BUSH LIED AGAIN!!!
Just ENJOY this piece, readers!
"Watchdogs spurn Bush's vow of earmark veto" by Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 29, 2008
WASHINGTON - Government-spending watchdogs yesterday swiftly condemned President Bush's announcement of a new initiative against congressional earmarking of funds for pet projects, saying that the White House's plan was empty rhetoric because it will not kick in until Bush is about to leave office.
Pfffffttt!
More HORSESHIT LIES from this president!
"He had an opportunity to really take a stand . . . and we're disappointed that he didn't take that opportunity," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers of Common Sense. "Unfortunately, this is the standard Washington game where you do something to make it appear like you are making a difference, whereas in reality you're not doing anything."
In his State of the Union address, Bush declared that in the future, the executive branch will no longer honor earmarks that lawmakers slip into committee reports but do not write into the official bill - as about 90 percent of earmarks have been handled. He also pledged to veto any future spending bills if they do not cut the total number of earmarks in half from previous levels.
But Bush decided not to touch more than 11,000 earmarks totaling about $16 billion that Congress added to the just-completed 2008 budget, as watchdog groups had urged him to do. Since Congress won't pass more spending bills until the end of this year, Bush will not be president when it comes time to wage the political fight necessary to turn his threat into a reality.
And I don't care.
GET THE FUCK OUT, asshole, and take up residence in a jail cell, you MASS-MURDERING WAR-CRIMINAL!
One Republican senator who has frequently criticized pork-barrel spending, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, reacted angrily to the revelation that Bush's plan would not include taking any action on this year's earmarks.
"Congressmen are in jail today for taking bribes for earmarks, yet Congress and this president are allowing thousands of special interest projects this year for bike paths, museums, baseball parks, and golf charities while our economic growth is slowing," said DeMint in a statement.
He added, "I am glad the President is pledging once again to veto spending bills that don't cut earmarks in half, but it may be too late since Congress may not send him many spending bills this year."
Critics of earmarking argue that the practice leads to corruption and wastes taxpayer money by tying up funds on low-priority projects. If earmarking were eliminated, lawmakers would lose some of their power over spending, while the president and executive agencies would gain more authority to decide how to spend their annual budgets. But Bush's proposal yesterday made clear that such a change will not happen on Bush's watch.
I'm glad Congress can throw money away while the American people suffer, aren't you, readers?
Still, Ohio State University law professor Peter Shane said that Bush's executive order could have some impact a year from now. If Bush's successor decides to allow earmarking to continue, perhaps to avoid a fight with Congress, he or she will still have to pay the political price of rescinding Bush's order, Shane said.
Indeed, in a briefing earlier yesterday, Ed Gillespie, a Bush political aide, said, "This will be on the books, and will be an executive order that future presidents will have to repeal or live with."
But opponents of earmarking said they were hoping for stronger action from Bush.
David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a national nonpartisan group that tracks the favors politicians give to campaign donors, derided the proposal as "disingenuous" and "ineffective" in light of Bush's record of signing many previous budget bills that contained billions of dollars in earmarks.
"This is a president who is looking for headlines, not change," he said.
Well, the MSM certainly gave them to him (puke, puke)!
What a fucking asshole Bush is, huh, readers?
I can't wait to meet him in hell, so I can rips his guts open and feast upon his flesh!
