West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Ant on January 26, 2005, 08:10:05 AM
-
Today bad news seems to come in threes.
First, after promising to cut the deficit in half, we learn that the deficit is again set to rise in 2005, making it the 3rd straight year in a row Bush set a record for deficit spending.
"The White House announced on Tuesday that the federal budget deficit was expected to rise this year to $427 billion, a figure that includes a new request from President Bush to help pay for the war in Iraq." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/politics/26deficit.html?hp&ex=1106802000&en=c7126fc1dd9acc44&ei=5094&partner=homepage
____
Then, 35 marines died today in Iraq, and still we are left without an explanation for what we are trying to accomplish there.
"Thirty-one marines died today when a transport helicopter crashed in the desert in western Iraq, Gen. George Casey Jr. said here today." Another four died in a seperate attack.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/politics/26deficit.html?hp&ex=1106802000&en=c7126fc1dd9acc44&ei=5094&partner=homepage
____
Finally, its uncovered that yet another journalist was being paid off by the Bush Administration to promote its policies. This time it was a journalist at the National Review.
"In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families. But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal."
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3mg.htm
-
"In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families. But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal."
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3mg.htm
That's really the only thing that makes sense to me anyway. I can't imagine an intelligent mind defending Bush if there's no personal profit involved, so that doesnt suprise me. Good that it's official now though.
-
"In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families. But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal."
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3mg.htm
That's really the only thing that makes sense to me anyway. I can't imagine an intelligent mind defending Bush if there's no personal profit involved, so that doesnt suprise me. Good that it's official now though.
Well actually National Review is a conservative magazine, which makes it a little more odd that they are paying off conservatives to say nice things about their policies. You would expect someone at the National Review to naturally say good things about Bush, and I bet they do.. this seems more like a reward for loyalty than a form of coercion, but either way its completely irresonsible for the U.S. government to be paying journalists to say nice things about them... if we actually understood fascism we'd be a little concerned here, but modern day republicans are devoid of logic and a sense of history.
-
Well, at least sometimes, there's a difference between being a conservative and being a dumbass. If you are conservative, you can still be against Bush. Just being for Bush and for the republican party and all actions they are responsible for because you consider yourself conservative makes you a fucking dumbass sheep. I'm sure there are many conservatives that don't dig the current US policies. Unfortunately Americans still disappointed me on Nov. 2nd. But I disgress. Bottom line is: I might be a fan of the Mavericks, still if they traded some good ass players for a retard player I'd call them morons. To me it seems many people forget that you can support a certain thing in general, and still criticize it when it is so damn obvious that a part of it is very, very fucked up. Journalists should be able to accomplish that. I don't really know what the heck the National Review is, cause there's a difference between being right wing biased or belonging in some way to the republican party or something.