Pat's Real Deal Blog

No More Posts Will Be Made Here

2007-01-15T17:27:00.000-07:00

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, there will be no more posts to this blog. That is because I have moved it to here. Details on this move can be found here.

This blog will only exist as an archive. NO POSTS WILL BE CROSS-POSTED TO THE NEW SITE. There will also be no further all-text posts. More details on this can be found here.

Of course the feed, all webrings and everyone/everything else that needs updated will be once the project is complete. In the meantime, please take the time to bookmark the new blog URL today.

Bye Bye Rummy.....

2006-11-09T17:00:00.000-07:00

.....Bye bye!

VIDEO - Presidential News Conference On Rumsfeld Ouster

2006-11-09T16:37:00.000-07:00

Take this for what you think it's worth peoples.....

VIDEO - Pundits & Analysts PREDICTED Rummy Would Get Chicken and Cut & Run

2006-11-08T12:20:00.000-07:00

MORE AS DEVELOPMENTS WARRANT

BREAKING NEWS - Rummy Resigns

2006-11-08T11:10:00.000-07:00

....HE 'S OUT!

Story here....

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1425915&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1

MORE AS DEVELOPMENTS WARRANT

Now back to regular programming....

CNN Anchor Caught In Ladies Room Faux De Paux

2006-08-30T19:14:00.000-06:00

Of course NewsBusters, like all Conservative sites, thinks this is just yet another sign of a "Liberal" bias in the media with their post on the subject here but we all know what a bold faced lie that is, now don't we?

Students At Overland High School Walk Out Over Controversy Surrounding Geography Teacher

2006-07-23T15:14:00.000-06:00
I don't know how I could've missed THIS one....

Courtesy of nsbradfield via YouTube.com

Republicans...No comment from the Peanut Gallery.

Pat's VideoCast Episode 3 CROSS-POST

2006-07-23T15:03:00.000-06:00
Figured this was worth the cross-post....

TOPICS FEATURED:
================

* MY Take On The Immigration Issue

* Announcement of addition of Missing Persons video clip at end of each show

PROMOS & PSAs FEATURED:
========================

* Latest video from MissingAlert.com

...And to top it all off, there's THESE two videos from jake3456 & gouko787 on YouTube.com which was posted to YouTube.com back in March. This first one being during a Presidential visit by George W. Bush.

Israel vs. Hezbollah & A Reason Why The Lebanese Government IS NOT Taking Back Its Own Country

2006-07-19T22:37:00.000-06:00
I keep hearing on all the cable news talk shows the same ol' question Why doesn't the Lebanese Government reclaim It's own land back from Hezbollah? or comments like The Lebanese Government needs to start reclaiming its own land back from Hezbollah.

Well, that'd be a little hard to do IF (And so far that's all it is) the Lebanese Government is somehow BACKING Hezbollah. Either with monetary funds, weaponry or even (God forbid) militarily.

Yet NO ONE here in America wants to even think of that.

But you know what's EVEN WORSE????

The fear that our elected leaders in Washington (Particularly the one whose residence just happens to be 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) once again coming to the SO-CALLED "aid" of the boy who keeps crying "wolf".

That "boy" that I'm referring to BTW (For you clueless, close-minded Right Wingists out there) being Israel.

Face it Republicans....Even you have to begin to wonder (And I'm sure a small scant of you are. Too bad you're out-numbered by the clueless, close-minded majority who aren't though) just how many times Washington is going to respond to every cry of "wolf" Israel makes before it begins to show cynicism or a sliver of skepticm about whether or not Israel is really in danger while it also begins to wonder if there's some truth to some of the things that AT LEAST some parts of the Arab world have been saying about Israel over the years.

In addition, Washington will also begin to wonder if Israel has been poltically pulling our legs and stringing us along all the while.

I think that's exactly what's happening. Of course, since I'm a Liberal, such comments are hardly a surprise to you Republicans. Afterall, if you listen to people like Bill O'Reilly & Rush Limbaugh long enough, they'll have you
following them right off a cliff. Throw in a little Ann Coulter, and she'll have you believing that we Liberals are the root of all evil and should be exterminated.

How does OUR political environment relate to the topic at hand? Very simple.

For YEARS (Admittedly during many of which were while a Democrat in the Oval Office) America (And much of the Western Hemisphere for that matter) has been Israel's political "playmate" as it were. Each & Every Time they cry "wolf", WE ARE RIGHT THERE AT THEIR DOORSTEP ASKING WHAT WE CAN DO. It's as if we are Israel's bodyguard from the proverbial "big bad bully" or "the boogie man" or what have you.

Don't you think it's time to break the cycle & stop responding? i do. In fact, I call to question as to whether Israel ITSELF is a terrorist state.

But NO ONE even wants to consider THAT possibility (Especially Washington), which isn't as remote as you might think.

And THAT, ladies & gentlemen, is today's REAL DEAL.

Bush On Iraqi Miliary: Won't Be Ready In 18 Months As Iraqis Suggest

2006-06-09T21:17:00.000-06:00
What does HE know about Iraq's military readiness? He's not in Baghdad. He's some 10,000 miles away..

He also has the audacity to insult the intelligence of even the most Conservative of Americans (Not to mention the loved ones of our troops) by saying that while he would like to bring the troops home ASAP, the "truth" (The quotations are mine BTW) is that he's not convinced that they won't be wthdrawn in 18 months as suggested by the Iraqis and most people on the left.

Why doesn't Bush just admit it - He has NO intention of EVER bringing our troops home. He wants them in Iraq till it becomes HIS "idea" of a (sic) "free" Iraq. NOT the Iraqis idea of a free iraq.

Am I THE ONLY one who feels this way?

Abu Al Zarqawi Dead? Don't Believe It.

2006-06-09T20:10:00.000-06:00
Here goes yet another take on the REAL deal...

The reporting of the death of Abu Al Zarqawi is nothing more than the Republican Spin Machine hard at work.

Why? Simple.

The Bush Administration knows that his numbers are at an all time low. As such, they will stop at nothing - nothing to pump life into them. But you see, they have one small problem.

It's all about the War against Iraq and NOT about domestic issues here on the home front that they're supposed to care about. As such, I have but three words to say in response to the spin machine latest bit of USELESS NEWS...

Don't buy into it.

Night is not day and all is CERTAINLY NOT all hunkey dorey as Bush & the Republicans would like to have you believe things are both here and abroad. Sure we dealt a major blow to Al Qaeda (That is if you really believe he's actually dead like the conservative Media and talking heads have been boasting and blabbing and bragging about all fuckin' day OR if you believe that Al Zarqawi was an actual person to begin with. More on that in a moment) BUT let's not kid ourselves here by suddenly allowing ourselves to be led to believe that everything reported by the Conservative Media to be the truth and gospel.

Now, do I really believe Al Zarqawi is dead? ABSOLUTELY NOT! In fact, I doubt he was ever actually a living person to begin with. Same goes with Osama Bin Laden. I mean, when was the last time you saw an American journalist interview either one of them? I don't ever recall seeing such an interview. (I do recall however some interviews with Saddam Hussein, but he's a living person, so his situation is different).

I may as well come right out and say it. I thinking that both Osama Bin Laden and Abu Al Zarqawi are (or were?) fictional characters wose names were whipped out at the whim of the Bush Administration whenever it pleased them. I'm also beginning to believe that it was the Bush Administration that was behind 9/11 as well. More on that in another post some other time.

Getting back to the Al Zarqawi business, I think that (Assuming we're even talking about a physically real human being here), he's in hiding. He always has been (Ever notice how it is the media only shows a sketch drawing of him?). Same with Osama Bin Laden (How old is that tape of him walking up those mountains that the media keeps using anyway? It's gotta be more than a few years old).

And what about those "appearances" by Osama Bin Laden on Al Jazeera TV? My take on those???

While the network itself may be real, I think Osama Bin Laden's "appearances" (If one even dares to call them that, which I, for one, don't) are all fake. THE ONLY ones that are real and genuine are the ones of him on and before 9/11 and the one with him climbing up those mountains.

ANYTHING ELSE after the war with Afghanistan IS FAKE. I know. You know it. The Bush Administration in particular knows it.

One other thing. When it comes to the subject of progress, why is it that all the Republicans can see is all the "tremendous" progress taking shape in Iraq and Afghanistan? At least the media tries to retain some sense of neutrality, but even that's because of the experience some (if not all) of the journalists over there have in covering wars. The Republicans won't even breach the subject themselves.

One of my brothers who now lives in Arizona was in town over the weekend and he summed the Bush Administration and its legacy up this way (Mind you I'm paraphrasing here)...

The Bush Administration would have you believe that night is day, roses are red, violets are blue and we don't have a woory in the world because everything is all hunkey dorey.

Ohh...How he couldn't be more right.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is today's Real Deal.

Our Right to Privacy - Coming To An End?

2006-05-24T22:05:00.000-06:00

Get this video and more at MySpace.com
If THIS is our future.....Be afraid. Be very afraid.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is today's REAL Real Deal.

Bill O'Reilly & The Dixie Chicks - ROUND TWO....

2006-05-24T19:54:00.000-06:00
....As reported by Keith Olbermann duirng his Countdown Show of May 23, 2006....

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is today's "Real Deal".

Ohh wait....Wrong show, isn't it? Sorry. I almost forgot that we're not Joe Scarborough here. My bad. :)

Then again...It could be worse. This could be like one of Bill O'Reilly's stupid Talking Points Memos or something.

Anyhow....Enjoy. :)

Proposed Legislation To Buffer Children From Porn - But At What REAL Cost???

2006-03-22T11:22:00.000-07:00
Is it just me or does Washington need yet another dose of reality when it comes to life on the Internet?

I ask this because according to this article, there is legislation working its way through Washington that would, in effect, tax merchandise bought via porn websites UP THE KAZOO!!!

That is the main focus of Today's Real Deal.

Now normally, in full disclosure, one would think that a Republican came up with this idea. Ironically, the idea came from a Democrat.

Two of them in fact. Senator Mark Pryor & Senator Max Baucus.

The proposed legislation, called The Cyber Safety For Kids Act, would (along with another piece of legislation proposed by Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln) impose a whopping TWENTY FIVE PERCENT (that's 25% for those of you who can't read) on transactions conducted via porn websites. Lincoln's Bill is now in the Senate Finance Committee.

Ohh...By the way, many in the porn industry consider this an attack on what is constitutionally protected free speech and would also have a chilling effect on it as well.

Additionally, many of these companies and/or individuals who run porn websites are either offshore or in foreign countries where US laws don't apply. This is yet another example of Washington being under the mistaken (not to mention the terribly misguided impression that the Internet doesn't even exist outside the U.S.

One more thing....Many people (more on the subject of people later) in the porn industry are parents themselves!!!!

Does Washington not think these people know how to guard THEIR OWN kids from online porn??? HHHHeeeellllooooo

These people know the ins and outs of the industry LIKE THE BACK OF THEIR HAND

Don't believe me, just ask someone who's in the industry such as Nora Louise Kuzma (aka Traci Lords), Jennifer Marie Massoli (aka Jenna Jameson) or even guys like Peter North (Not to say they all have kids of course, but I'm sure you get the point - At least I *hope* you do :) ).

And to top it all off, this is to say nothing of the (what should the obvious) fact that porn websites aren't even targeted towards kids in the first place.

But anyhow...Like I said, more on the subject of parents as it relates to this later.

Meanwhile...Back to the subject at hand....It seems as though these three Senators have forgotten which party they belong to. Perhaps the consituents could remind them of this come state primary time (if not then, then perhaps come this November)? Looks to me as if they are buckling under pressure from the GOP.

If that is the case, I have but one thing to say - We WILL NOT give in!!!!

I say this because (again), this is a move you would expect from a bible-toting Republican who's trying to come up with ways to help good ol' buddy President George "Dubya" Bushpay for a war we had no business starting in Iraq (Don't even get me started on that). NOT A DEMOCRAT.

If Washington insists on levying a 25% tax on America, then I say levy it on those who purchase tobacco products since they A). Continue to support a habit this country has had since (at least!) The Days of Hitler and B). Put MY OWN HEALTH as well as theirs at risk while smoking it (sometimes knowingly to boot).

QUIT PUNISHING THE REST OF US WASHINGTON!!!!!

THAT ALL SAID THOUGH, I am in COMPLETE support of a "buffer zone" for children (I firmly believe there should be one). But I DO NOT believe it should be politically motivated, which I believe it is. These three Senators are feeling the pressure from the GOP, which has their respective states (Arkansas & Montana) BY THE BALLS. As such, the heat is on and they are getting desperate. So, instead of standing for what they believe in, they're caving in to Republican pressure without their having to do a damned thing.

And as if all this wasn't enough, by their own admission, all three Senators say that not completely protect children from porn

Given, this, here is what I propose as a fair alternative....

Create the *.xxx Domain Name (or allow a registrar company to do it), but DO NOT attempt to "subsidize" (if I even dare use that word to describe what the proposals in Washington call it) it by imposing the 25% tax on Internet porn transactions onto the rest of us (I've outlined what I believe is behind this above so I won't bother repeating it here).

Either create (or allow a registrar company to do it) a *.kid & a *.fam for kid and family-oriened websites. This way, there will be no controversy (and ISPs won't be stuck hosting web pages of people and their families).

Speaking of ISPs, ISPs could also create server-side software designed to detect on properly installed net nanny software end users' computers. This could be used to filter out porn sites registered under the *.xxx Domain name from appearing on end users' screens or (in the case of search engines like Google) appearing in search results.

But the keywords are properly installed.

I say because many parents are either too naive or just plain STUPID to think that their kid won't visit porn sites. This same group of *ahem* so-called "parents" are also the ones you see on the news crying their eyes out while pleading with some online predator to either return their kid or turn themselves in (if not both) because they didn't have properly installed net nanny software on the kid's computer.

It is because of this, I don't call these people "parents".

As such, I say if they're too stupid, too naive, or have too much fuckin' pride to even consider the idea of protecting their kids online, well then (as Victor Drazen [Dennis Hopper's character during Season One of the TV show 24] once told George Mason [the then-acting Director of CTU on 24], if you're only the acting Director, you're not the the Director of anything at all), they're really not "parents" at all. They're just simply grown up children who just happen to have children of their own..

Not even The Government can fix that.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Today's (albeit two-pronged) Real Deal.

NET NANNY SOFTWARE REFERENCES:
==============================

Google Search Results
CNET Download.com Results
SourceForge Search Results

A History Lesson For Me....

2006-03-09T20:47:00.000-07:00
I'm almost ashamed to publish this (especially here). But here goes (what I hope turns out to be) nothing....

You Failed the US Citizenship Test

Oops, you only got 5 out of 10 right!
Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

New Cam Link

2006-01-24T11:47:00.000-07:00
Click on the Winamp logo below to view my cam

In order to view this cam properly, you need to install an H.264 Decoder
NOTE: This cam is also used to produce the LIVE video version of Pat's Podcast as well. When this happens (Check the calendar above for times), simply copy the above URL from this page and paste it into the OPEN URL dialog box in Winamp & change the port no. (that's the number AFTER the : to 8040). Also...If you are not able to connect, NO NEED TO CONTACT ME. I will quickly notice the reason why. If you see darkness, it is because it is nighttime and I am therefore most likely in bed sleeping.

More Right-Wing Babble From Our "Friends" (cough cough) From Stop The ACLU

2005-12-20T23:01:00.000-07:00
The babble is all here. Only now seem to have problems telling the difference between an Animal Rights Organization and an Environmental Preservation Organzation and a Terrorists group.

These nuthead Neo-Cons seem to think people who care about animals and the environment are all terrorists. Hmm....I'm almost afraid to even ask who they don't define as a "terrorist"

But then again, I suppose it's to be expected from the Right Wing & their Double-Talk Machine. If they're not using their Spin Machine, their using the Double-Talk Machine. Somehow these people actually that if they use these machines long enough, undecided voters will vote Right-Wing. But you see, what they have yet to figure out is that it's backfiring. People aren't stupid (Ohh yeah, that reminds me...Don't forget to notice the so-called "Patriotic" gear offered on their website too).

Till next time. :)

The Death Penalty - WHY Do We Have It?

2005-12-19T20:00:00.000-07:00
Umm...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here, but I didn't know we were supposed to give a damn about those who are issued Death sentences for crimes they've been found guilty and were convicted of.

Yet it seems like like executions are now getting more and more media attention. Add in the world of cyberspace, and you've got a worldwide online prescence as well. I'm referring to this article on the Tookie Williams story

Where does it end America??

That is the subject of tonight's Real Deal.

I was always led to believe that if you kill someone and are charged with the crime, fairly tried, convicted and sentenced to death, that no one is supposed to give a fuckin' holy crappin' (or is that holy crippin' in Tookie's case?) shit about you. But gee....I guess I was wrong.

Seems as though those on the Far Far left who seem to think such hardened criminals either are or can be "reformed" simply because they've "taken in the Bible" or (here's my favorite one of all) have been "saved", they can somehow be reformed.

Well....Sorry Charlie. It don't work like that.

Hardened criminals, especially ones like Tookie Williams, belong in prison with NO chance for parole, NO time off for "good behavior", and ABSULTELY POSITIVELY NO sentence commuting. Them's just the facts folks. They can read the bible through and through and I could give a shit.

I know it sounds like I'm being cold and heartless on criminals, but look at it this way. Their victims didn't get a chance to "plea bargain" or to "strike a deal" to avoid becoming a victim in the first place, so WHY the criminal be awarded the opportunity to do the same to avoid a stiff sentence or being prosecuted altogether?

On top of all this, wouldn't you want the media to be at your funeral as your loved ones step up to the podium or microphone or whatever and eulogize and remember you? That would almost be a dream come true for me.

It's not fair to see that a convicted criminal getting what amounts to a state funeral(albeit at taxpayer expense) while you have to pay up the butt for yours. It doesn't make sense. Not at all

That is tonight's Real Deal.

RACIST & BIGOTED North Carolina Billboard Comes Under Fire

2005-12-15T20:53:00.000-07:00
Boy...Just when you thought the Right Wing couldn't possibly stoop any lower, along comes this article.

Here's an excerpt...

A group that is trying to tighten the standards for obtaining driver's licenses has come under fire for plans to post a billboard with a picture of an Arab clutching a grenade and a North Carolina license.

Now I have to ask...Have we become so obsessed with the War on Terror and Homeland Security that we don't trust anyone who wasn't born in American anymore?

That's the subject of Tonight's Real Deal.

The billboard, scheduled to go up this month near the State Capitol in , shows a man in traditional Arab scarf. The billboard reads Don't license terrorists, North Carolina.

And here's the scary part - North Carolina won't be alone. Similar boards are slated for New Mexico and Wisconsin, according to

This group claims that their goal is a "safer" America. I have no problem with that BUT....

If this this their biggest concern, I've got a newsflash for them - America is in FAR GREATER danger from DRUNK DRIVERS and other people who persist on running from the law in high speed pursuits that it is from (supposedly licensed) "terrorists".

If you ask me, I think its high time the Right Wing STOP picking on Arab Americans and painting ALL Arabs with the same goddamn fuckin' brush. We have bigger & far worse domestic problems than this. Don't fall for it.

Amanda Bowman, President of The Coalition for a Secure Driver's License, care to share any of your data that supports your claims that terrorists are still being licensed? If so, I'd love to see/hear it.

Or are you just spewing forth a bunch of Right Wing Spin Machine Mumbo Jumbo nonsense that's only supposed to make sense?

That, ladies & gentlemen, is Tonight's Real Deal.

A Perfect Summary Of George W. Bush's Legacy....

2005-12-13T17:04:00.000-07:00
....Brought to you by (Permalink is at Limerick Savant: Poetic license revoked ).

Read all about it there @ the Permalink URL above.

FBI: Muslims detained at stadium weren't profiled

2005-11-14T23:19:00.000-07:00
Former Presidents George Bush Sr. & Bill Clinton decide to go to a football game.

The end result - Five Muslims Detained at Giants Stadium

Today's Real Deal is plain and simple.

The FBI told CNN that they weren't profiling them.

Really?

Well if that was the case, then why were they detained?

This is yet yet another way our government is spying on us. The Right Wing will be quick to remind us of the war against terror. But it's quite obvious that some people need to be reminded that there are some good honest working Muslims who live and work in this country legally and have NO interest OR desire to bring harm to Americans.

That is what these muslims are. THEY MEAN NO HARM

In the article, it says that "Some of the Muslims said they did not know they were in a sensitive area, and they complained that they were subjected to racial profiling while they were praying, as their faith requires five times a day."

Does the FBI not respect religion?

Here are some other interesting points (paraquoted from the CNN article)

At a news conference Wednesday, Sami Shaban, a 27-year-old Seton Hall Law School student who lives in Piscataway, said he and four friends had just gotten to the September 19 New York Giants-New Orleans Saints game when they left their seats to pray. Around halftime, 10 security officers and three state troopers approached the men and told them to come with them, Shaban said.

He also said that they were questioned and not allowed to return to their seats, but were assigned seats in another section.

Gee....If they posed such a security threat, why let them back in at all???

The FBI told CNN that theyu aroused suspicion because "they were congregating near the main air intake duct" and that Bush Sr. was in the stadium that night as part of the Hurricane Katrina fundraising campaign along with former President Bill Clinton.

"You had 80,000 people there, Bush 41 was there, and you had a group of gentlemen gathering in an area not normally used by the public right near the main air intake duct for the stadium, and a food preparation facility," Siegel said. "It was where they were, not what they were doing."

Okay....Lemme get this straight. If I were to be seen hovering near an air intake duct at Invesco Field here in Denver, I can expect to be detained for questioning. Am I right? [Look at my picture to the left. Do I look Muslim to you?] Is that what they're telling us? If so, I'm afraid I can't completely buy it.

Racial profiling is a part of law enforcement regardless of geographical location or level of government . It is second nature to them. This may sound "ultra-liberal" (if not downright paranoid), but I believe there are less-intrusinve methods of enforcing the law and ensuring Homeland Security than violating someone's constitutional right to Freedom of Religion (or any other rights for that matter).

The objective now is to find those methods. And the sooner the better.

And that's Today's Real Deal.

Libby Indicted, Rove Cleared (For Now)

2005-10-29T15:23:00.000-06:00
Those of who regularly read or at least check my blog know that I'm a reasonably objective guy, right? Well, that will change somewhat as I've now found someone I can have a debate via with here in the blogosphere.

Everyone - Meet Shelley The Republican. The latest addition to our Conservative Bloggers list (and our latest political adversary).

The reason is the focus of Today's Real Deal....

In what many Republicans including this one are calling a `witch hunt', "Scooter" Libby was indicted for leaking the identity of an undercover CIA Operative whom we now know as being Valerie Plame.

I ask how is this a 'witch hunt'? Is it because the Special Prosecutor was a Democrat as opposed to a Republican that this came into being? Help me out here.

Shelley (and all you other die-hard Conservatives out there), you know darned well that had the White House been under a Democratic Presidential Administration such as Al Gore's, hyou would've been calling for noNOT ONLY the resignation of the advisor of Gore's VP, but you'd also be looking for a way to impeach Gore as well. You know that as well as I do.

Furthermore, my newly-found "friend" (if you call blogging and/or podcasting a form of "friendship") and political adversary Shelley the Republican was also quick to spew forth this piece of crap (FYI...the quoted portion is in bold text for easy reference).

Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in which this all surrounds, was more harmed by her husband than by Libby, Rove or anyone else. Her husband had an axe to grind and the administration's only mistake was allowing that man to keep his job as long as he did. What is particularly bothersome is the lack of ethics Plame used in hiring her husband to help the Democratic party.

What the hell prompted you to make THAT statement Shelley? What were you smoking or drinking? Are you sure you weren't at some bar hangin' out with the boys when you typed that?

Talk about UNAMERICAN *FROWN*

And then my newly-found political adversary had the nerve to spew forth THIS piece of crap....

The reality is that Valerie Plame had a desk job in Washington that she had for a while. She had new baby twins, which she was taking care of and she and her husband were making contributions to the Democratic Party. How is a woman behind a desk, running around as a Washington socialite, and sending her husband on CIA gigs claim she was ousted?

Umm...Tell us Shelley, what evidence do you have (or that is available online) that indicates that she was (as you put it) "running around as a Washington socialite" and "sending her husband on CIA gigs". Every news account I've heard including those aired on the obviously Conservatively-biased FOX News Channel have all indicated that Valerie's husband was asked by the CIA itself. NOT BY HER!!!!

Furthermore, what does this have to do with Hilary Clinton? (In noticed the comments she posted before the quoted text immediately above)

Getting back to the topic at hand, wasn't one of the big reasons (if not THE BIGGEST reason) why WE THE PEOPLE (notice my objectivity?) put Bush in office was to restore "Honesty & Integrety" back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? I seemingly recall that being the case.

Kinda hard to do that when you've got corrupt politicians giving *cough* *cough* "advice" to the two highest ranking politicians (That being President & Vice President) in America, now isn't it?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is Today's Real Deal....

The Great Republican Collapse

2005-10-25T17:37:00.000-06:00
Courtesy of The Nate & Di Show....

.....Need I say more?

BREAKING NEWS: Bombs BOOM In London

2005-07-07T11:57:00.000-06:00

Local News Story (How I Learned Of This Terrible Tragedy)

A song that fits the mood perfectly

Why The Flag Burning Ban Initiative Is A BAD Idea

2005-06-24T13:19:00.000-06:00
Far be it for me to take sides on an issue such as this, but the idea, as outlined in many of these articles would, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.

That is the subject of todays' Real Deal.

While on the surface and personally can't argue with the idea, there are those who will want to do it as a means of Free Speech.

Personally, I think flag burning is disgusting if not downright unamerican. But then too, I think pretty much the same way about those who smoke in public places, yet we a society have accepted the fact there are rights to do both (at least so far anyway).

Admittedly while comparing The Right To Free Speech to the rights of smokers is like comparing an apple to a jalapeno pepper, they are in many ways paralell to each other. I suppose The Right To Bear Arms would be a better analogy, but I digress. *sigh*

But why anyone would want to put a ban on something like burning the flag is almost beyond me. I mean, I thought we lived in a democracy here.

Or do we now live in a "democracy" only when it suits the fuckin' morons in Washington??

In other words, why not just simply ignore who choose to engage in this kind of activity. If it ain't your cup of tea, then don't even watch. It's that simple. If people wanna burn the flag as a means of Free Speech, I say let 'em burn it. Our founding forefathers and those who died serving this country fought to preserve one's right to do so. And those who are serving this country in the Middle East as I type this continue that fight.

In a world where there are countries that will actually kill people who engage in this kind of behavior, the last thing we need to have is to have The United States of America say to its citizens that they cannot burn the flag either.

It is because of this and the fact that this proposed U.S. Constitutional Ammendment does not exclude the right to Free Speech, that I hope it fails.

While I won't be terribly upset if this thing actually goes before the people, unlike many other "LINOs" (that's Liberals In Name Only for the clueless idiots out there) out there in cyberspace and the blogosphere, who will no doubt aggressively fight this tooth and nail, I on the other hand, being the somewhat usual moderate that I am, don't believe it will.

However, we must ensure that it doesn't by continuing to pur pressure on the idiots in Washington who (tragically) consist of the very government that's supposed to represent us and the interests of the people who elected them by sending letters and emails and by blogging on the issue. No doubt it will be a controversial issue. But it is one which I, the surviving son of a U.S. Veteran believe must be preserved no matter how disgusting it may look.

And that is today's Real Deal

Six Weeks Stuck In Comcast Limbo - BECAUSE OF THEIR NAMES????

2005-06-21T03:15:00.000-06:00
Here's yet another fine example of how Americans are treating people whose names are bound to land on Terror Watch lists even though they've done nothing wrong. So batten down the hatches Right Wingists because it's time for Today's Real Deal. Corporate yes and ears are welcome (In fact, we hope you take copious notes). But namecalling is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT

I think they should have EACH AND EVERY person whom this man had to deal with FIRED!!!! THAT kind of *cough* *cough* "service" is TOTALLY REPREHENSIBLE!!!!

Moreover, to be even more blunt, THEY COST HIM & HIS WIFE $$$$. It wouldn't surprise me if they hired a lawyer to go after Comcast in an effort to recoup their losses.

This man and his wife may have names which might land them on Terror Watch lists, but if they're running legit businesses and earning legit HARD EARNED $$$, they ought to be treated as THE REPS. THEMSELVES would expect to be treated IMO.

One would think that someone who is a Business Consultanting firm and a Home-Based Interior Decorating would qualify as "legit", but I guess in this sick Pro-Right-Wing extremist world, apparently they don't. And that is sad.

It's also Today's Real Deal

Cheers for now everyone :-)

Pat's Real Deal Blog is Copyright 2005 Pat Cook & Jeeper One Media. All Rights Reserved.

Wacko Jacko WALKS

2005-06-18T00:21:00.000-06:00
All the ghastly details here

NOTE: This is a podcast, which means you will need Podcatching Software or an RSS Reader capable of handling podcasts.

At LONG Last - A Light At The End Of A Very Dark Tunnel

2005-05-24T01:30:00.000-06:00
What I saw on the news is, quite literally, nothing short of amazing. I am referring to the Senate Resolution which basically puts an end to the Democrats' threat to filibuster each and every nominee presented by President Bush for whatever position needs to be filled. It also ends the threat by the Republicans to end over 200 years of tradition by killing the debate process.

It's also the subject of today's Real Deal. So sit back and read on. But whatever you do, there will be NO arguing like little children and ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO partisan political lobbying allowed.

The deal, drafted by 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats (including Colorado's very own Ken Salazar), calls for members of both parties to reach a middle ground by actually working for the people who elected them in the first place. This means the following will NOT be allowed

NO abuse of the filibuster process by either party
NO threats to end over 200 years of political tradition in Washington by either party
The filibustering of a certain number of Presidential nominees by the Democrats
The filibuster process can only be used in the case of "extreme circumstances"

But folks, let's not mince words here. While many in Washington as well as here in the blogosphere laud the deal, there are many many on both sides of the politkical fence who either remain unimpressed or unconvinced. And there still others again on BOTH sides of the political fence who consider this to be noting short of utter betrayal.

While I can't do or say very much about those in the blososphere, I believe it's reasonably safe to say to those who are in Washington who insist on engaging in partisan politics again on BOTH sides of the political fence that YOU ARE ON NOTICE.

NO MORE will we the people of the United States of America put up with your partisan political agenda. NO MORE will we the people of the United States of America put up with politicians whose sole goal is to appease and pander to Special Interest groups. NO MORE will will we the people of the United States of America put up with dictatorship-style government on the homefront while we IGNORANTLY PROP UP the concept of "Democracy" to other countries around the world.

Yes partisan politicians - YOU ARE ON NOTICE.

And THE DEADLINE for you to change your attitude is January 2006. If this deadline is not met, YOU WILL BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE BY NOVEMBER BY THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED YOU.

Yes indeed, a New World Order has come to American Politics. And its name is BI-PARTISANSHIP. Those who are used to partisan politics had better get used to it because it is here TO STAY.

This said though, let there be no mistake, there are still a few obstacles. Namely, the definition of an "extreme circumstance". I watched Chris Bury (sp? on last name) on Nightline tonight trying to get an answer to this question. NO ONE in the group could seem to answer it to his satisfaction. It was as if each member of the group who appeared on the show were all fumbling for answers. One of the Republican Senators even went so far as to say that she doesn't even believe that such an issue would ever arise.

Obviously she hasn't met people like Gary Condit.

They stress that this is only a "temporary" arrangement to get them through the difficult road that lies ahead and that the group's loyalty to each other will no doubt be tested. I say that we Americans need to UNITE and make this thing a PERMANENT fixture in Washington politics that stretches FAR beyond the United States Senate.

If this New world Order isn't made to stick, then we will be a divided nation that WILL fall.

And that is today's Real Deal.

I'll have more on this during my weekly podcast, which I will record on Wednesday. Be sure to bookmark my podcast page by clicking the link to the right.

Till then.....Cheers for now everyone :-)

Pat's Real Deal Blog is Copyright 2005 Pat Cook & Jeeper One Media. All Rights Reserved.

REAL DEAL #1 Democrats - NO CLASS = Tom DeLay - LIAR

2005-05-14T15:40:00.000-06:00
In
this article by the Fort Worth Star Telegram, Congressman Tom DeLay and the Republican Party showed once again just how OUT OF TOUCH they are with Reality as they gave us yet another episode in the ever-changing saga of As The Republican Fantasy World Turns last Thursday night by reminding their constituency (once again!) just how "evil" we Democrats are. So sit back America & fasten your seat belt because we're in for a bumpy ride tonight as it's time for the Real Deal. No getting up to go to the bathroom and ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY No eating allowed.

Only this time, the chosen word of the night was "classless".

To that I say Mr. DeLay....If we're so "classless" (as you put it), then why say that in front a room full of your closest friends? Why don't you have the guts to say it to our face??

I think the answer to both questions is You're a FUCKING COWARD

You can't tell the truth on your taxes or your campaign contributors or anything else for that matter. So, instead of admitting it like a man, you take the cowardly way out by calling us "classless".

That is not only classless on your part, it also just goes to show how UNAMERICAN you are.

What's worse is he has people like this
Right Wing blogger from Men's News Daily who actually believes him. That is the Right Wing Spin Machine hard at work for you. They spin things which actually sound at least plausibly true and feed that to you till you're either A). Blue in the face and jump ship or B). They have a NEW lie to give you. All of this is to cover what they're really doing, which is covering their asses.

And the clincher of Mr. DeLay's night was they had a (supposedly) Liberally-biased C-SPAN covering the whole thing.

Boy if there was ever a political side show, Thursday Night on C-SPAN must've been it. As for the "bias" C-SPAN supposedly has, you really don't want me to go there. We all know just how biased the media towards the Right Wing. Only thing is, the Republicans must think we're too dumb and stupid to believe that such a bias exists.

And it doesn't help when people like Alan Colmes, who's supposedly on our side, has become a wuss now that Sean Hannity's friends are in power and now have an even stronger stranglehold on Washington politics.

Ohh....How I long for '06 and the Gubernatorial Elections.....Ohhh.......

And that is Today's Real Deal #1

Introducing The Biggest Waffle Of 'Em All - PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

2004-09-22T22:22:00.000-06:00
The following is excerpted from an email sent by Ken
Ahonen to the USDemocrat
Yahoo! Group a couple of weeks ago. I would've
posted this sooner, but I got this on the same night the power supply in
PC blew a gasket or something (basically it KICKED THE BUCKET).

Anyhow....Feel free to chew on this for awhile as it's
tonight's REAL DEAL. CONSERVATIVES WELCOME. FLIP FLOP AS YOU
WILL. BUT FLAMES NOT ALLLOWED. :-)

George W. Bush is right
about one thing, the credibility of the president is

a very important issue.

On 10/11/00, then-Gov.
Bush said: "I think credibility is important. It is

going to be important
for the president to be credible with Congress,

important for the president
to be credible with foreign nations."

Let's examine how credible
Bush is on the issues....

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH
SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.

"We're going to keep the
promise of Social Security and keep the government

from raiding the Social
Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

.less than one year later.

BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY
SURPLUS.

The NY Times reported
that "the president's new budget uses Social Security

surpluses to pay for
other programs every year through 2013, ultimately

diverting more than $1.4
trillion in Social Security funds to other

purposes." [The New York
Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to
Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS'
RIGHT TO SUE.

"Despite his campaign
rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush

fought such a bill tooth
and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill

coauthored by Republican
state Rep. John Smithee in 1995." [Salon, 2/7/01]

.about 5 years later.

CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES
TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE.

"We're one of the first
states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you

proper coverage... It's
time for our nation to come together and do what's

right for the people.
And I think this is right for the people. You know, I

support a national patients'
bill of rights, Mr. Vice President." [Candidate

Bush, during a debate
with Vice President Gore 10/17/00]

.less than 4 years later.

PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION
ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE.

"To let two Texas consumers,
Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their

managed-care companies
for wrongful denials of medical benefits 'would be to

completely undermine'
federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant

Solicitor General James
A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover,

the administration's
brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law,

which is similar to statutes
on the books in nine other states." [Washington

Post, 4/5/04]

3. Medical Records

Bush says medical records
must remain private.

"I believe that we must
protect.the right of every American to have

confidence that his or
her personal medical records will remain private."

[President Bush, 4/12/01]

.3 years later..

Bush Administration says
patients' histories are not confidential.

The Justice Department
asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable

expectation that their
histories will remain completely confidential."

[BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

4. Department of Homeland
Security

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY.

"So, creating a Cabinet
office doesn't solve the problem. You still will

have agencies within
the federal government that have to be coordinated. So

the answer is that creating
a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White

House spokesman Ari Fleischer,
3/19/02]

.less than 3 months later.

BUSH SUPPORTS CREATING
A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

"So tonight, I ask the
Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent

department with an overriding
and urgent mission: securing the homeland of

America and protecting
the American people." [President Bush, Address to the

Nation, 6/6/02]

5. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH DECLARES WE FOUND
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

"We found the weapons
of mass destruction. We found biological

laboratories...for those
who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing

devices or banned weapons,
they're wrong, WE FOUND THEM." [President Bush,

Interview in Poland,
5/29/03]

.8 months later.

BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

"David Kay has found the
capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay

goes in and says we haven't
found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to

where the weapons went.
They could have been destroyed during the war.

Saddam and his henchmen
could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq.

They could be hidden.
They could have been transported to another country,

and we'll find out."
[President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

6. Saddam / al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH
BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM.

"You can't distinguish
between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the

war on terror." [President
Bush, 9/25/02]

.one year later.

BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO
ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT.

"We've had no evidence
that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11."

[President Bush, 9/17/03]

7. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD
OR ALIVE.

"I want justice. And
there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says,

'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"
[President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

.6 months later.

BUSH SAYS HE IS NOT CONCERNED
ABOUT OSAMA.

"I don't know where he
is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on

him. I truly am not that
concerned about him."[President Bush, Press

Conference, 3/13/02]

8. Timelines For Dictators

Bush sets timeline for
Saddam.

"If Iraq does not accept
the terms within a week of passage or fails to

disclose required information
within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all

necessary means' to force
compliance--in other words, a military attack."

[LA Times, 10/3/02]

.less than 2 years later.

Bush says he's against
timelines.

"I don't think you give
timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]

9. WMD Commission and
the Intelligence Failure of the CIA

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE
INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE.

"The White House immediately
turned aside the calls from Kay and many

Democrats for an immediate
outside investigation, seeking to head off any

new wide-ranging election-year
inquiry that might go beyond reports already

being assembled by congressional
committees and the Central Intelligence

Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

.8 days later.

BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE
INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE.

"Today, by executive order,
I am creating an independent commission, chaired

by Governor and former
Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look

at American intelligence
capabilities, especially our intelligence about

weapons of mass destruction."
[President Bush, 2/6/04]

10. Creation of the 9/11
Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION
OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION.

"President Bush took a
few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to

voice his opposition
to establishing a special commission to probe how the

government dealt with
terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

.4 months later.

BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION
OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION.

"President Bush said today
he now supports establishing an independent

commission to investigate
the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News,

09/20/02]

11. Time Extension for
9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION
FOR 9/11 COMMISSION.

"President Bush and House
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to

oppose granting more
time to an independent commission investigating the

Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
[Washington Post, 1/19/04]

.2 weeks later.

BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION
FOR 9/11 COMMISSION.

"The White House announced
Wednesday its support for a request from the

commission investigating
the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to

complete its work." [CNN,
2/4/04]

12. Bush's 9/11 Commission
Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY
IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR.

"President Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on

the private interviews
they will grant to the federal commission

investigating the Sept.
11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the

panel's top two officials
and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single

hour of questioning,
commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

.2 weeks later.

BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT
FOR TESTIMONY.

"The president's going
to answer all of the questions they want to raise.

Nobody's watching the
clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan,

3/10/04]

13. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE
WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'.

"Again, this is not her
personal preference; this goes back to a matter of

principle. There is a
separation of powers issue involved here.

Historically, White House
staffers do not testify before legislative bodies.

So it's a matter of principle,
not a matter of preference." [White House

Press Secretary Scott
McClellan, 3/9/04]

.just 3 weeks later.

BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY.

"Today I have informed
the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the

United States that my
National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will

provide public testimony."
[President Bush, 3/30/04]

14. Nation Building

CANDIDATE BUSH OPPOSES
NATION BUILDING.

"If we don't stop extending
our troops all around the world in nation

building missions, then
we're going to have a serious problem coming down

the road." [Gov. George
W. Bush, 10/3/00]

.3 years later as president.

BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING.

"We will be changing the
regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people."

[President Bush, 3/6/03]

15. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004.

"We do not anticipate
requesting supplemental funding for 04" [White House

Budget Director Joshua
Bolton, 2/2/04]

.3 months later.

BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL
FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004.

"I am requesting that
Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve

fund for the coming fiscal
year to meet all commitments to our troops."

[President Bush's Statement,
5/5/04]

16. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A U.N.
VOTE NO MATTER WHAT.

"No matter what the whip
count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to

see people stand up and
say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and

the utility of the United
Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's

time for people to show
their cards, to let the world know where they stand

when it comes to Saddam."
[President Bush 3/6/03]

.only 12 days later.

BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST
FOR U.N. VOTE.

"At a National Security
Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55

a.m., Bush finalized
the decision to withdraw the resolution from

consideration and prepared
to deliver an address to the nation." [Washington

Post, 3/18/03]

17. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NORTH
KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM.

"We developed a bold approach
under which, if the North addressed our

long-standing concerns,
the United States was prepared to take important

steps that would have
significantly improved the lives of the North Korean

people. Now that North
Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to

light, we are unable
to pursue this approach." [President's Statement,

11/15/02]

.a year and a half later.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS
NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM.

"Well, we will work to
take steps to ease their political and economic

isolation. So there would
be -- what you would see would be some provisional

or temporary proposals
that would only lead to lasting benefit after North

Korea dismantles its
nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or

temporary efforts of
that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott

McClellan, 6/23/04]

18. OPEC

CANDIDATE BUSH WANTS TO
FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES.

"What I think the president
ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought

to get on the phone with
the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your

spigots...and the President
of the United States must jawbone OPEC members

to lower the price."
[Governor Bush, 1/26/00]

.4 years later as president.

PRESIDENT BUSH REFUSES
TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS.

With gas prices soaring
in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the

Miami Herald reported
the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel

leaders to change their
minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

19. Involvement in the
Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS.

"Well, we've tried summits
in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all

that long ago where a
summit was called and nothing happened, and as a

result we had significant
intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

.about a year later.

BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS.

"If a meeting advances
progress toward two states living side by side in

peace, I will strongly
consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working

toward peace in the Middle
East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

20. Gay Marriage

CANDIDATE BUSH SAYS GAY
MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE.

"The state can do what
they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's

issue like you're trying
to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay

Marriage, Larry King
Live, 2/15/00]

.4 years later as president.

BUSH SUPPORTS A FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE.

"Today I call upon the
Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states

for ratification, an
amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting

marriage as a union of
man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush,

2/24/04]

21. Science

CANDIDATE BUSH ADVOCATES
FOR STANDARDS BASED ON SCIENCE.

"I think we ought to have
high standards set by agencies that rely upon

science, not by what
may feel good or what sounds good." [Governor George W.

Bush, 1/15/00]

.4 years later as president.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS
IGNORE SCIENCE.

"60 leading scientists-including
Nobel laureates, leading medical experts,

former federal agency
directors and university chairs and presidents-issued

a statement calling for
regulatory and legislative action to restore

scientific integrity
to federal policy making. According to the scientists,

the Bush administration
has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted

scientific analysis from
federal agencies, and taken actions that have

undermined the quality
of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned

Scientists, 2/18/04]

22. The Environment

CANDIDATE BUSH SUPPORTS
REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE.

"[If elected], Governor
Bush will work to establish mandatory reduction

targets for emissions
of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen

oxide, mercury and carbon
dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

.2 ½ years later
as president.

BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY
CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE.

"I do not believe, however,
that the government should impose on power

plants mandatory emissions
reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a

'pollutant' under the
Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck

Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

23. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT
TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM.

"They've got the quota
system in place, the allotment system, and I don't

think that needs to be
changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

.one month later.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS
FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS.

"The administration is
open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie

Mamo, 6/18/04]

24. Abortion

CITIZEN BUSH SUPPORTS
A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

"Bush said he favors leaving
up to a woman and her doctor the abortion

question." [The Nation,
6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal,

5/78]

.more than 20 years later.

CANDIDATE BUSH OPPOSES
A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

"I am pro-life." [Governor
Bush, 10/3/00]

25. Campaign Finance

CANDIDATE BUSH OPPOSES
MCCAIN-FEINGOLD.

"George W. Bush opposes
McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free

expression." [Washington
Post, 3/28/2000]

.2 years later as president.

BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD
INTO LAW.

"[T]his bill improves
the current system of financing for Federal campaigns,

and therefore I have
signed it into law." [President Bush, at the

McCain-Feingold signing
ceremony, 03/27/02]

26. 527s

BUSH OPPOSES RESTRICTIONS
ON 527s.

"I also have reservations
about the constitutionality of the broad ban on

issue advertising, which
restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on

issues of public import."
[President Bush, 3/27/02]

.2 years later.

BUSH SAYS 527s ARE BAD
FOR THE SYSTEM.

"I don't think we ought
to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it.I think

they're bad for the system.
That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold."

[President Bush, 8/23/04]

27. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE.

"I believe strongly that
if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it

will help workers on
both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru,

3/23/02]

.a year and a half later.

BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS
ON TRADE.

"In a decision largely
driven by his political advisers, President Bush set

aside his free-trade
principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on

imported steel to help
out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West

Virginia, two states
crucial for his re-election." (sic) [Washington Post,

9/19/03]

28. The Great Lakes

Bush wants to divert great
lakes.

"Even though experts say
'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region

sets a bad precedent,'
Bush said he wants 'to talk to Canadian Prime

Minister Jean Chrétien
about piping water to parched states in the west and

southwest." [AP,
7/19/01]

.3 years later.

Bush says he'll never
divert Great Lakes.

"We've got to use our
resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping

the Great Lakes water
in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're

never going to allow
diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush,

8/16/04]

29. Winning The War On
Terror

Bush claims he can win
the war on terror.

"One of the interesting
things people ask me, now that we're asking

questions, is, can you
ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can."

[President Bush, 4/13/04]

.just 4 months later.

Bush says war on terror
is unwinnable.

"I don't think you can
win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

.the very next day.

Bush says he will win
the war on terror.

"Make no mistake about
it, we are winning and we will win [the war on

terror]." [President
Bush, 8/31/04]

Cheers for now :-)

Pat

A Call To Political Arms - Time To Do Some Pre-Convention House Cleaning

2004-07-04T17:32:00.000-06:00
Could SADDAM HUSSEIN return to power???¿ Sadly,
my fellow Liberal brethren, there are some in our ranks who seem to think
this is possible.¿ And just when we think the¿ New
York Times¿ couldn't stoop any lower, they SOMEHOW
managed to find a way.¿ So get set folks and start your engines because
we are going to do some housecleaning.¿ NO tablod reporters
and ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NO radical extremists allowed.

It seems as though some radical extremists
who merely call themselves "Liberal" seem to think that Saddam
Hussein can SOMEHOW be acquitted.¿ Not only that, but they also seem
to believe that he can SOMEHOW be "reincarnated" and returned to power.¿
My proof is this¿ Truthout.org
article by Marjorie Cohn which goes into SPECIFIC &
GRAPHICAL detail as to how this will be done.¿ It is written in such
a way, you would think this woman was either A).¿ Held captive by
Iraqi insurgents (there's no record of this that I'm aware of) or B). She
sat down to interview this deranged thug who has MURDERED THOUSANDS of
this fellow citizens.¿ It's also written in such a way that could
only expected in an Al Qaeda propaganda broadcast on¿ Al
Jazeera TV

Here is an excerpt from the article....

QUOTE: "I am Saddam Hussein, president of the Republic
of Iraq." So began the surreal public appearance of Saddam Hussein, his
first since being dragged out of a spider hole by the "coalition forces"
six months ago.

¿¿¿ The proud, defiant Saddam who
ruled Iraq with an iron hand for nearly 25 years was back with a vengeance.

¿¿¿ Describing himself as always
in the third person, he said Saddam "respected the will of the people that
decided to choose Saddam Hussein as the leader of the revolution. Therefore,
when I say president of the Republic of Iraq, it's not a formality or a
holding fast to a position, but rather to reiterate to the Iraqi people
that I respect its will."¿ - END QUOTE

Here's another excerpt....

QUOTE: "¿ Many Iraqis sympathize with Saddam.
"It's a humiliation, not just for Iraqis but for all Arab peoples," Aamer
Eliisa, a Shiite, told the Los Angeles Times. Eliisa said Saddam has become
"a symbol for all Iraqis." END QUOTE

SADDAM HUSSEIN - A SYMBOL FOR ALL IRAQIS??????????¿
This purported "professor" of law from the¿ Thomas
Jefferson School of Law MUST be either A). Half out of
her freakin' mind B). On freakin' CRACK or C). BOTH.

My fellow Democrats, IF WE EXPECT TO HAVE A CHANCE OF
GETTING BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE, we need to STOP this kind of extreme
radicalism NOW!!!¿ We need to ONCE AND FOR ALL tell these people
THEY ARE NOT Democrats.¿ They are NOT
Liberal.¿ They DO NOT think, speak, or even act like
a REAL Democrat does.¿ They are radical extremists and should
be treated as such.

That's not to say they don't have rights.¿ They do.¿
But if they think they can simply have their movement "ride piggyback"
with us and OUR movement as they spread their own brand of Anit-Bush hatred,
which has REPEATEDLY seen the front page of¿ The
New York Times , THEY ARE SADLY MISTAKEN.

The excerpts above are nothing but BULLSHIT.¿ And
we Liberals know it.

As you may or may not know, I mentioned on my new TV show
last week (June 26, 2004), Howard Dean was quoted in saying in his concession
speech in San Francisco earlier this year that there's NO ROOM for a third
party candidate in this year's election.¿ I disagree with that.¿
In fact, not only do I disagree with Howard's statement, but I think if
there was EVER an election which would put a third party candidate on the
political map, THIS WOULD BE IT.¿ Why do you think Ralph Nader is
still in the race?

The¿ Democratic
National Committee would have you believe otherwise if
you listened exclusively to them.

Add to this the fact that we're about to give the nomination
to a man who's ALREADY proven he's not electable in John Kerry, it would
be NO surprise to me if Ralph Nader DID get more votes in November than
Kerry.

Personally, I hope he DOES NOT get the nomination
at the¿ Democratic National
Convention later this month.¿ If he does, I'll vote
for him as the Democratic candidate, whoever it is (be it Kerry or someone else), is my choice come November.¿
But I won't hold my breath or act shocked if Bush beats Kerry in the election.¿
I won't like it, but that's the way the electoral cookie crumbles.

And if we DO lose the election, we'll have NO ONE but
the rank-in-file of¿ the
DNC ,¿ The New York Times
, and the thousands of radical extremists who are
FREELOADING on our left wing.

Now, I know some of you are probably asking just how¿
The New York Times somehow
fits into the equation.¿ I believe their current reputation speaks
for itself.¿ They take articles and other materials from sources such
as¿ Truthout.org AND
TREAT IS AS GOSPEL.

Now before you Conservative eggheads out there say "See?¿
We TOLD you there was a Liberal media bias", LET ME BE CLEAR ON THIS.¿
Simply because¿ The New York
Times has a Liberal bias DOES NOT mean
the bias is industry wide.¿ THERE IS STILL A **MASSIVE** CONSERVATIVE MEDIA
BIAS & YOU CONSERVATIVE EGGHEADS KNOW IT.

I'm not sure who the editor of¿ The
New York Times is, but one thing is for certain.¿
THAT EDITOR NEEDS TO BE FIRED!!!¿ Journalistic ethics clearly state
a newspaper, radio or TV station SHALL NOT have a bias on a particular
issue towards one side or another.¿ In other words, THE PRESS &
MEDIA ARE NEUTRAL to the issue.¿ That's the way it should be.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is today's REAL DEAL.¿
Be sure to check out THE PAT COOK SHOW on¿ Jeeper
One Television every Saturday Night at 8:00 PM ET and
on¿¿ Jeeper
One Radio every Wednesday Night at 8:00 PM ET (Radio
show not on the air yet.¿ Will post more info. later).

In the meantime...

Cheers for now¿ :-)

Pat

Remembering D-Day - 60 Years Later

2004-06-06T19:55:00.000-06:00

As we take time out of our busy lives to remember the heroes of D-Day, let us also take time to remember how American History COULD have been written had it not been for these VERY BRAVE souls (as well as the countless thousands of others who perished throughout World War II).

All done WITHOUT the Liberal spin and NO CONSERVATISM ALLOWED.

It has long been said by many that when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Japan could've just as easily made their way TO OUR OWN MAINLAND SHORES. What's even MORE FRIGHTENING is the thought that Japanese forces could've advanced as far east as Chicago before we knew what hit us.

The reason was that many in FDR's cabinet were over-confident in our own military capabilities and complacent to even CONSIDER addressing the issue of military preparedness in the event we were attacked.

In fact, if you saw the movie Pearl Harbor, this scene was played out with FDR complaining that we spent more time building refridgerators than we did war fighting machines.

Had we not responded the way we did, here's how I believe American History would've been recorded.

Japanese forces would've come ashore and occupied the whole nation by Christmas 1941

NONE of the now classic OTR (Old Time Radio) programs from that era would've seen the light of day as all three radio networks - NBC, CBS, and Mutual, would either be shut down or bombed.

THE ONLY present America would be asking Santa Claus in Christmas 1941 would be FREEDOM

Moving forward...

June 6, 1944 would just simply be another day under enemy occupation

Hiroshima would've NEVER been nuked

Japan & Germany would've eventually been at war with each other

The FABULOUS FIFTIES would've been ANYTHING BUT as we would be fighting both Japan and Germany for our freedom

We would NEVER have gone to Korea as we would be too busy struggling with OUR OWN Liberation to bother with anyone else's

World War II wouldn't end until 1960

JFK and Richard Nixon would've been campaigning to become our first President since our Liberation from Japan

Television would still an experiment and under development

Space exploration would only be a twinkling dream in our eye as we struggle to control disease and begin to remember life WITHOUT foreign occupation (or war)

We would still be reeling from our Liberation from Japan and Germany to go to Vietnam

The national goal of sending a man to the moon would be a goal to be accomplished during the 1970s or early 1980s at the earliest

The Space Shuttle program wouldn't get started until the early 1990s

I'm sure I've probably left a few things out, but I'm sure you get the idea. :)

Do WE AMERICANS have reason to be thankful? YOU BET WE DO.

If it weren't for the BRAVE souls who gave their lives on D-Day 1944 (as well as all the other World War II veterans out there), much (if not all) of the things I indicated above would be happening today.

While words can't even begin to express our appreciation for what they did and the sacrifices they made, all I'm sure that needs to be said is THANKS. :)

With that said....THANKS TO ALL THE WORLD WAR II VETERANS OUT THERE & THEIR FAMILIES.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Today's Real Deal.

Cheers for now :)

Pat

Ronald Reagan - A President For The People

2004-06-05T19:32:00.000-06:00

It is with deep sadness and regret that I report the passing of a legend both on AND off screen. On the big screen AND the small screen. In Hollywood AND in Washington D.C.

MANY actors in Hollywood have played the role of the President, but only ONE actor can lay claim to BEING the President.

That actor is NONE OTHER than Ronald Reagan

Photo Courtesy of The White House

Reagan came in at a time when America was struggling to make ends meet. In MANY parts, lines of cars (some MILES long) were forming - JUST TO GET A GALLON OF GAS. Gas prices were soaring out of control, the economy had a bleak future, the Space Shuttle program was just getting started, and over 400 people were being held hostage in a country hardly ANYONE knew existed.

I vividly recall the plane that carried the hostages touching down on American soil the day after he was initially sworn into office. I was only a budding teenager then, but it was a piece of history I'll NEVER forget. He didn't even say a word (much less make an agreement), but the Arabs saw something in him that we Americans (both Democrats and Republicans alike) was just discovering.

He was a man of peace.

Not only was he a man of peace, he was also a man of his word. When he said he would get something done, by golly HE MEANT IT. Not only did he mean it, he also DID IT.

In this respect, he was also a DOer.

Come Election time in 1984, we Liberals were hard pressed to find ANY weaknesses in ANYTHING he did. Try as we did, we just couldn't do it. Even *I* voted for him (and I was a registered Democrat), even though I knew almost NOTHING about the political arena as a whole (I was only 18 at the time and was voting in my first election).

Some would say that it's because of him that the "trickle down economics" policy became a Republican standard. To that I say it was the shot in the arm this country needed back in 1980. He almost single-handedly (and quite LITERALLY) turned the economy of this country around. It was, in part, because of HIS work that made the '80s as memorable as they were.

He also introduced the political concept of NOT using mudslinging or name-calling during his campaigns. This, I believe, is what made him identifiable with the average Joe (or in our case, the average Pat :)).

He even got the attention of (then-communist) Russia and Germany. He was the driving force in their capitulation to diplomacy and democracy. This especially rang true in his famous "Tear Down These Walls" speech in 1987 which could only be compared to JFK's "I Am A Berliner" speech back in the 1960s.

In popularity, he was equal to JFK. Some hardcore conservatives would say he was BETTER, but in terms of overall popularity, both among americans AND foreigners alike, he was equal.

If I had describe Ronald Reagan in only a single sentence, it would be this....

He was A PRESIDENT FOR THE PEOPLE.

Not just Democrats or Republicans (or even Americans for that matter!). He was a President who represented ALL people. You could say he was a "People's Choice".

Unfortunately, this is something which has sadly become lost in today's political world. Now, it's about who has the most $$$. And it's NOT just Republicans. It's Democrats too.

And if EITHER party expects to have a chance of SHUTTING OUT people like Ralph Nader, we need to CLEAN OUT THE RUBBISH.

If that means GETTING RID OF BUSH, then SO BE IT.

It is MY hope that the death of this legend will serve as a WAKE UP CALL to those in Washington (and those running for office in the upcoming Election).

If the politicians don't listen TODAY, people aren't gonna care WHO is running for office TOMORROW because WE ALL will be FED UP with all the BULLSHIT that's called "politics".

R.I.P Ronald Reagan. You will be SORELY missed. :(

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is today's Real Deal.

Cheers for now :)

Pat

CONGRATULATIONS WASHINGTON: We're Now OFFICIALLY In Debt Up To Our Eyeballs

2004-05-19T19:19:00.000-06:00
The Republicans got their way again by approving (as
well as browbeating us Liberals AGAIN ) King George's wish to have 2.4
TRILLION DOLLARS, most (if not all) of which will be used in the War in
Iraq, even though his majesty nor his henchmen will NEVER admit it.
Sure it still has to pass the Sanate, but let's face it, given how corrupt
our government is, this is only a formality and merely symbolic.
I fully expect the bill to be on his majesty's desk by the end of next
month.

GOD I CAN'T WAIT TILL NOVEMBER!!!!

Those Republicans Sure LOVE Their Name-Calling, Don't They?

2004-05-19T13:14:00.000-06:00
Hello everyone....

Welcome to my little corner of the world where there's
just two simple rules...

1) The American Flag flies high in the sky

2). Name-calling Republicans aren't allowed

That said, it's time for today's Real Deal.

Just saw this posted on a (predominately) Conservative
group I'm in ( my so-called beloved Fox
& Friends Yahoo! Fan Club ) that just burns me up. Get a
load of THIS CRAPOLA

Said on Monday that the American Flag does not belong to Republicans. Yes the man that killed little children and raped women (well he just saw it). Is claiming the higher moral ground.

His slut daughter might be higher on something else.

You Conservatives out there must either be 1). INCREDIBLY
desperate to hang on to whatever credibility you still have left or B).
Have NO credibility whatsoever (because you lost in in the way you're handling
the War in Iraq), so you're NOW trying to use Kerry's daughter to TRUMP
UP some credibility to save what little face and dignity you have left.

You guys will stop at NOTHING will you?

Just because John Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal
DOES NOT make his daughter any less of an angel. Also, what PROOF
(since you guys on the aforementioned Fox & Friends Yahoo! Group seem
to thrive on this) do you have that CLEARLY NDICATES that John Kerry was
partisan to the raping of women? Where and when did he rape them?
How 'bout the Alleged killing of little children (which tbhis moron also
claims)? All I keep hearing about from the Kerry camp is the war crimes
(and even that is because he admits to 'em even though he's probably flipped
a few times since the 1970s). If you really wanna see ME stoop
to the level of intelligence level of the MORON who posted the above crap
in a Yahoo! forum. Let me ask you THIS....

How many people has your beloved George W. Bush (who has
proven himself to be THE sorriest excuse of a President since Nixon) killed
during HIS military days?

I probably bet you don't even wanna go ANYWHERE NEAR THAT,
do you?

All you idiots seem to care about is that he served his
country. Maybe THAT is why you have a prison abuse scandal in Iraq
right now, isn't it?

You might be able to cast me off as reacting to this as
if I were old man Kennedy, but accusations like (especially those WITH
NO MERIT WHATSOEVER) can't go unnoticed. Do you Conservatives have
ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER to support your claims? If not, if you Conservatives
Republicans really want to keep what little dignity you have left,
you had best better SHUT THE FUCK UP!!

Hmmmm....Why do I get the feeling that Kerry and Bush
won't be the only ones going toe-to-toe?

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is today's Real Deal.

WARNING TO ALL CONSERVATIVES

2004-05-15T05:32:00.000-06:00
After spending some time offline replacing my Hard Drive
(the one which had Windows on it), I am back WITH A VENGEANCE NOW!!!
BEWARE CONSERVATIVES BEWARE!!!

THAT is Today's Real Deal.

Debut Of NEW "Real Deal" Fromat & Same Sex Marriages

2004-03-25T19:22:00.000-07:00
Okay....Now that my head has FINALLY stopped spinning
from all the political chaos caused by the Republicans (namely the Bush
Administration) and other things in the news that doesn't make much sense,
I can now blog about it.

But before I do that, let me preface it by announcing that from here
on out that, beginning with this entry, my blog has been reformatted
to be modeled much like Joe's "Real Deal" on Scarborough
Country As needed, I'll mix it in with the format from the old radio
show Bill Stern's Sports Newsreel as well by labeling each take
I have in a particular blog entry Real Deal 1, Real Deal 2, Real Deal
3 etc....etc Sometimes I may only have one "Real Deal"
in one post while at others I may have more than one, hence the incorporation
of the aforementioned old radio show as part of the new format.

In other words, think of it as the Liberal version of Bill O'Reilly's
"Talking Points Memo" which you see so many Conservative bloggers try to
clone. Sorry Bill, I've tried swallowing your style, but it's just
lost it's flavor. :-(

That.being said, GET READY my fellow Liberal siblings as we're about
to give our obviously CLUELESS Conservative counterparts a ride down the
Information SuperHighway they'll NEVER forget because we're about
to go into today's Real Deal. NO PASSING GO.
NO COLLECTING $200. AND ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY **NO**
BAILING OUT ALLOWED!!!! :-)

Today's Real Deal- Same Sex Marriages

It is of little secret by now that President Bush wants to "preserve
the sanctity of marriage" which is now legally recognized as being between
one man and one woman. Even as the rest of the world, includeing
celebrities such as Rosie O' Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres choose to seek out relationships with other partners of the same sex and as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other state and local governments and the courts remain divided over the issue, the church-going Republicans want to go so far as to BAN same-sex marriages. President Bush has even gone so far as to suggest that he would actually consider an ammendment to the U.S. Constitution which would enforce this ban.

This idea is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS. Moreover, I am SHOCKED that
the Democrats DO NOT see this as an issue WHICH THEY CAN WIN. In fact, Presidential candidate front-runner and Senator John Kerry would rather not even discuss it (even though he has openly said he doesn't think that same sex marriages aren't very proper).

I see an issue that has divided this country so much, you can practically
DRIVE A FLEET OF TRUCKS through it.

I happen to believe the so-called "Sanctity of marriage" shouldn't neccessarily
consist of just one man and one woman. But rather, it should consist
of TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE HAPPY. If that means one man and woman, then
SO BE IT. If it means two women the SO BE IT. If it means two
men then (again!) SO BE IT.

Some so-called "experts" have even brought up the notion that two men
or two women can't conceive children. OF COURSE NOT. If God
wanted men to become pregnant and give birth to children, he would have
given us organs to do so. If God wanted women to get pregnant and
give birth to children regardless of who their sex partner was, he would've
configured a woman's organs whereas she could just that. But I don't
think this is the real issue that Republicans, the clergy and many Americans
have.

It is THE IDEA of two men or two women adopting children and raising
them. Some of THE SAME so-called "experts" have even suggested that
a same sex marriage would somehow INCREASE the number of children placed
in the adoption system should there be a seperation or divorce. My
question is HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE IF TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX CANNOT _CONCEIVE_
A CHILD IN THE FIRST PLACE????

Ohh....But the mighty Republican have an answer to that one. THEY
DO NOT increase the number of children in the system. They just return
an old one. They FORGET that the one "sanctity of marriage" which
IS capable of children (the one they are so quick to cherish) and IS recognized
everywhere is the culprit as to why our social serices system is so bogged
down.

Conservatives....Need some some clues? Stop by your neareast
Human Services, Social Services or Adoption Agency today.

Need MORE clues, then tune into an episode or two of COPS or visit your Local Police Station today and take notice of the number of DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE
calls they get. Heck, why even bother going down to the Police station?
There are a bunch of Online Police Scanners filled with all kinds of police chatter you can listen
to.

Ohh but WAIT my fellow Liberal brethren as our CLUELESS Republican counterparts
have a way of countering THAT. Some of them have probably no doubt
said that if we don't reproduce offspring, this nation won't need a war
or a nuclear weapon to kill us. We'll all be dead soon anyway and
with NO ONE around to defend America, the rest of the world can do anything
they want to us because THERE WILL BE NO AMERICA TO DEFEND. To that
I say WAK UP AND SMELL THE FUCKIN' COFFEE!!!!

WE ARE ALREADY DYING OFF. One look at the streets of Los
Angeles or New York is proof of that.

Long and short of it simple. The recognition of same sex marriages
INCREASES a child's chances of being adopted by LOVING parents by AT LEAST
DOUBLE. The aforementioned Social Services and other related agencies
have case load after case load that the so-called "convential" sanctity
IS NOT always THE BEST environment for children. and the sooner the
Republicans get that through their THICK SKULLS, the better off we'll all
be.

And that, ladies and gentlemern, is the first edition of Pat's Real
Deal.

Finally, let me wrap up by disclosing that I am NOT either gay or lesbian.
I have met some gay people (and have no doubt crossed paths with a few
lesbians in my time as well). I will admit it felt kinda awkward
at first just talking to them. But once I got to know them,
I quickly found that, other than their sexual preference, they are JUST
AS NORMAL as any reasonably minded and rationale thinking "straight" person
like myself.

Somehow this is a misgnomer some people just don't understand, so instead
of trying to understand and comphrehend it, they ASSUME the worst and will
do ANYTHING to make the rest of the world just as paranoid as they are.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a sad and tragic fact.

Just something to think about.

Cheers for now :-)

Pat

Why Wait For A Manned Trip To Mars?

2004-01-29T00:37:00.000-07:00
I keep hearing how badly so many of my fellow Liberals
want to send President Bush to Mars when it becomes to do so.

Well....I just couldn't resist the temptation to post this (and a manned flight to Mars is such a *LONG* time to wait), so I have a better idea. *devilish grin*

We all know that the Bush clan started this whole mess with Iraq in the first place, right?
Of course we do. What if we were to MAKE IT CLEAR to the GOP that
a trip to Mars just isn't gonna happen soon enough. So instead, we'd
like to send THE ENTIRE BUSH CLAN on a ONE WAY trip - TO
IRAQ.

I mean think about the possibilities here.

* The whole clan can build and amintain a ranch somewhere on the outskirts
or Baghdad IN THE OPEN DESERT..

* George Sr. and Jr. can use their GPS receivers or other similar souvenier
gizmos they got for being President and seek out and destroy all the WEAPONS
OF MASS DESTRUCTION which are said to be in Iraq that used to belong
to Saddam Hussein, but has yet to be proven to exist. While they're
doing that, they can also TAP INTO THE IRAQI OIL RESERVES WHICH WILL
HELP REIMBURSE _OUR_ GOVERNMENT who almost had to fight this war
almost single-handedly (not to mention who could've just as single-handedly
toppled Saddam's regime in the first place!).

* Laura & Barbara Bush can have a schoolhouse built so they can
both teach all the Iraqi children their ABCs and 123s. And while
they're at it, they can also teach Iraq's adult population to "Just
Say NO" to Al Qaeda recruiters who are ALSO believed to be still in
the region.

* Jeb Bush (Remember HIM?) can be head of the hired help at the ranch.

Why do I mention Jeb Bush? Simple. At least we wouldn't
have to worry about HIM running for President in 2008 against Hilary and/or
Al (Gore not Sharpton)

DOES THIS MAKE $ENSE OR WHAT???

Comments anyone?

Cheers for now :-)

Pat

State Of The Union Address Reaction

2004-01-21T00:26:00.000-07:00
Gee....What can I say about tonight State
Of The Union Address? I was more or less expecting something like
a TWO TRILLION $$$ in proposed appropriations to cover the costs of a manned
space flight to Mars. But instead, I was left fumbling for words
and looking for weaknesses in his speech. Only to find therre weren't
very many.

But fellow Liberal Kevin
from Calpundit.com found some. He also had some advice
for the so-called Democrats in Washington

However, as good as Kevin's advice is, I do have some issues with some
of the things he said about the SOTU itself. They are as follows......

6:44 — A standing O for increased support for community colleges?

Why not Kevin? A Community College is just as good as any other
college. Though I do agree with you (I assume you meant this point
even though you didn't say it in your blog) that support should be increased
across the board for all colleges and not just the "chosen
few" that "play by the rules of the GOP".

6:57 — Get rid of steroids in professional sports? What the heck
is that doing in the SOTU?

Uhh....Could it be that it's just as much of a drug problem for our
youth as it is for pro sports atheletes Kevin? Gee....I wonder.....

Okay, so I just found just those two issues (like I said, they were
minor). Now here are some things I'd like to emphasize myself......

6:48 — We can cut the deficit in half in five years, apparently by
limiting the growth in discretionary spending to 4%. This simply defies
all reason. That won't even come close to cutting the deficit in half

Add to this that President Bush wants to spend (or should I say $pend?)
THREE HUNDRED MILLION of YOUR taxpaying $$$ - FOR A PRISIONER TRANSITION
SYSTEM AS WELL AS the (reportedly) TWO TRILLION $$$ he wants for a
single
manned mission to Mars, President Bush will have become the
first
President to send America plummeting into BANKRUPTCY.

This is ON TOP OF the ONE HUNDRED TWENTY BILLION $$$ DEFICIT
we face NOW.

6:51 — Any attempt to take away Medicare prescription benefits will
"meet...my...veto." Huh? Who's proposing that? Especially given that Republicans
control both houses of Congress?

Not to mention the fact that it's been us Liberals who've been
fighting for Heath Care Reform for the last several years while
the Republicans were in a state of denial as they tried to convince (or
would the word INSULT be a better word?) Americans that Health Care didn't
need reforming. Isn't it funny how hypocritical Republicans
can be?

That being said though, I do agree with the President when he said that
"Government-Run Health Care" is the wrong prescription". Time to
get rid of the bean counter when it comes to Health Care IMO.

Overall impressions of the Democratic response — Jeez, that was just
horrible. I don't think they said a single memorable thing, their delivery
was stiff (though Daschle was better than Pelosi), they didn't really offer
any kind of competing vision, and I don't think they drew any blood at
all. What a missed opportunity.

I agree wholeheartedly Kevin. I mean WHAT WAS THAT?!?!?!?
There was NO taking the President to task. NO addrressing of the
manned mission to Marrs issue (as expected by MANY State Democratic Party
HQs INCLUDING the Colorado Democratic
Party which held an SOTU viewing party at the Denver
Press Club earlier tonight)

I was VERY disappointed in the so-called "leaderrs" of our party in
Washington. If there was a single word to describe it, that word
would be LAME LAME LAME.

NOW....MY PERSONAL MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT BUSH.....

Mr President.....With all due respect to the office you hold, I'm
afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave and do so IMMEDIATELY.

President Bush said in 2000 that he wanted to bring back honor and dignity
to the White House. But he never mentioned anything about deception.

The saga continues......

Video blog on this tomorrow (Hopefully with official video of the SOTU
and Democratic Response). It's getting late and I'm tired....*yawn*.

Cheers for now :-)

Pat

Judging President Bush Just Became A Whole Lot Easier

2004-01-08T19:00:00.001-07:00
I just sumbled across this NIFTY little way to create
a graphic to judge President Bush on a variety of issues. It's called
the WayPath machine and it can only be found at WayPath.com
Here's how I measured Bush on a variety of issues ranging
from WMD to (yes!) even KaZaA Why KaZaA you ask? Well, we STILL
have yet to hear the President'ss take on the issue of file sharing, but
you'd be surprised at how many people
Don't believe me? TAKE A LOOK FOR YOURSELF.

.

Notice how President Bus is all over the map here?
Hmmm....Gee.....I wonder why that is......
We want to thank our friends at M
Log for this information. You can create
YOUR OWN WayPath grraph simply by going here
Cheers for now :-)
Pat