Only a Liberal…

I recently read an article that typifies the Liberal vs Conservative media fight. While Liberals would have you believe that Fox News succeeds because there are a lot of Americans who yearn for wall-to-wall lying, the fact of the matter is in most debates, Conservatives have the facts on their side, and Liberals are simply scratching for approval (I said most debates, not all).

The article is “Dick Cheney’s lies about President Obama” by Eugene Robinson. After starting the article by comparing Cheney’s wisdom to that you would hear from homeless people sitting in bus shelters, Cheney’s big lie is “exposed” by Eugene. After the Christmas day underwear terrorist failed in his attempt, Obama’s behavior in the wake prompted Cheney to say the following:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war.

And Eugene’s immediate response in his article:

Flat-out untrue.

Ok, Eugene, I’m listening.

The fact is that Obama has said many times that we are at war against terrorists.

Obama has said many things, Eugene. That doesn’t mean he believes them. Eugene’s analysis is laughable if put in perspective. Picture his article being about the following fictitious quote from Cheney:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are broadcasting all legislation on CSPAN.

And Eugene responds with:

Flat-out untrue. The fact is that Obama has said many times that we are going to broadcast all legislation on CSPAN. See the video.

Now for those that don’t know, healthcare deliberations are NOT being broadcast on CSPAN, despite Obama promising it on at least 8 different occasions during the campaign. So we have established that Obama’s word is worthless.

The big picture

Before I continue analyzing, I want to highlight the overall issue. This is the best Liberals can do when accusing their opponents of lying. They always cite some lame, hard to pinpoint, crime that under scrutiny pales in comparison to Liberal lies. I’m not saying that Conservatives tell the truth… that’s preposterous. I’m saying Liberals are TERRIBLE at exposing it.

So is there a CSPAN-promise-like lie on the Conservative side? The CSPAN lie by Obama is a slam-dunk, so surely there is a slam dunk on the other side of the aisle. I decided to check by looking up the top-rated “lies” that Dick Cheney and Glenn Beck have reportedly told.

Dick Cheney

The Huffington post has an article about Cheney’s top 10 lies. You would figure #1 would be devastating.

Cheney’s Comments on unauthorized wire-tapping: “This was always a policy… to capture those international communications… It is legal. It was legal from the very beginning. It is constitutional, and to claim that it isn’t I think is just wrong.

Huffington Post rebuttal: “the approval for the warrantless surveillance of communications to and from the United States that followed on September 25 was neither “legal” nor “constitutional.”

There are numerous opinions on this, but in January 2009, a special-intelligence court ruled that the “government does not need a search warrant when it taps the phones or checks the e-mails of suspected terrorists who are outside the U.S., even if Americans may be overheard on the calls.” The LA Times wrote,

Although the Constitution protects the privacy rights of Americans against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” this principle does not bar U.S. spy agencies from conducting surveillance aimed at foreign targets abroad.

So the #1 lie by Dick Cheney according to the Huffington Post isn’t a lie at all. Dick Cheney has been working in the public eye for decades, and this is the number 1 lie according to his biggest critics. While I am sure Dick Cheney has lied at some point in his life, I am simply highlighting the pathetic lack of ability of Liberals to identify them.

Glenn Beck

I also searched for lies by Glenn Beck, and this page came up. The analysis is long, so I will summarize:

1. Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.
2. PolitiFact talks about how the book was written by Holdren “more than three decades ago” when he was “then a young man.”
3. PolitiFact: “Holdren and the other authors discuss various “coercive” means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.”
4. Excerpt from Holdren’s book: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems.”
5. Another excerpt: “Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies.”
6. PolitiFact: “The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law “if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” Again, that’s a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position.”

A FAR CRY?! Holdren and his coauthors say that sterilizing water “seems to horrify” people. Well, of course it does. Then they say population control measures are “unacceptable to most societies.” PolitiFact actually ends their analysis with the following:

The authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions.

You have got to be kidding me. Yes, Holdren’s book says you can’t sterilize the water, not for moral reasons, but because there is no current sterilant that is “uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals.” Holdren is disappointed that sterilization cannot currently be achieved.

This is the “big lie” by Glenn Beck. PolitiFact has applied what I call courtroom logic. Since Beck cannot prove in a court of law that Holdren advocated sterilization, then Holdren does not advocate sterilization. While this certainly means Holdren shouldn’t be prosecuted for his beliefs in a court of law, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe them. The excerpts from his book clearly show he wishes these tactics were acceptable and safe.

Conservative ascendancy

So all these sources, including Eugene Robinson, act as though they have really nailed their targets without a shadow of a doubt. In less than 1000 words, I have shown their attempts to be lame at best and inaccurate at worst. In comparison, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh point out the lies of their political opponents with video and audio of outright, easily provable lies, and juxtapose direct contradictions by individuals themselves. THAT is why they are winning their media battles.

Liberals need to get better at identifying big, and important, lies by Conservatives. I have no desire for one side to win or lose. I want the right ideas to win, regardless of which party is pushing them. Conservatives are dead wrong on the government’s role in drugs and prostitution, and Liberals are dead wrong on the government’s role in redistributing wealth and “promoting the general welfare.”

So Mr. Eugene Robinson, an op-ed columnist at the Washington Post, gets paid to write articles easily refuted by little-old-me. His partisanship is an embarrassment.

Picture a reservoir inside of a dam. There are multiple rivers flowing into the reservoir, but a leak has sprung in the dam, and the amount of water coming out the leak greatly exceeds the amount coming in from the rivers. Over the years the surface level of the reservoir gets lower and lower til there’s almost nothing left.

To fix the problem, local officials decide they’re going to take a huge amount of water from another reservoir and refill this one. The level of the reservoir is raised and the local environmentalists cheer.

You cannot fix American car companies by giving them money because it doesn’t FIX THE LEAK. Handing them some money to survive for a few months is no different than taking $17 billion and throwing it in a fireplace. That money will go right out the leak and you’ll be right where you started, problem unsolved.

You idiots who think we HAVE to save American car companies so that the Japanese don’t win… my Nissan Altima was made in Tennessee and my father-in-law’s Dodge Ram was made in Mexico. So who is more supportive of American auto workers?

For the record, bankruptcy does not mean the end of American car companies. It means the end of astronomically high compensation for American car company workers. A bunch of people will be fired and they need to be. If you want the company to survive, they must drastically restructure everything, especially their union contracts. Giving the car companies a lump sum of money does nothing but delay the bankruptcy I and others are calling for now. They will go bankrupt when the $17 billion runs out anyway, so get it over with.
Hotair.com article on the auto bailout

**Click HERE to signup and get your free special report on why you can’t vote for Obama.

Obama said something today that should piss off everyone. He was talking about the high profits of Exxon Mobil this quarter, over $14 billion. Obama actually said, “That’s your money.” Senator Obama, NO IT ISN’T. Exxon Mobil offered a product, gasoline, at a price and millions of Americans chose to buy it. The money belongs to Exxon. Obama believes or wants you to believe Exxon’s money belongs to everyone. That is Marxism. Unadulterated Marxism.

Comments like this are typical of Obama, and he made similar, idiotic comments of demagoguery in his Wednesday infomercial before the final game of the World Series.

• he’ll create “5 million clean enery jobs that can never be outsourced”

Unless he’s gonna create 5 million new government jobs, the President has ZERO authority to regulate the actions of a private entity. So either he wants to expand his own powers, or he thinks government isn’t big enough. Not to mention the statistical fact that domestic jobs have also been increasing despite outsourcing. Outsourcing does not reduce American jobs, as counterintuitive as that is.

• “I will tap our natural gas reserves”

Yet another example of his assumption at your ignorance of the powers of the President. If he wants to help others tap our natural gas reserves, perhaps he could try to get some legislation passed that got the environmentlists out of the way of private companies that have the ability to tap the reserves.

• Claims he will use veto line-items in the budget that he considers earmarks or wasteful

He’s just flat-out lying. The President does not have line-item veto power. He will either let these items through as every president before him has done, or he will be overridden by Congress, who won’t let him veto every single budget.

• He’ll “remember soldiers are sons and daughters” as President

The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world. Obama’s job would be to protect 300 million sons and daughters. Decisions must be made quickly and unemotionally, and any president who hesitates to send a son or daughter to die to protect ten other sons and daughters, 100 sons and daughters, 1000 sons and daughters, does not have the temperance or maturity to lead this country.

• “In six days, we can choose hope over fear and unity over division…”

Obama is currently at 49.9% in the polls, 1% less than George W. Bush got in 2004. I guess Bush had more unity.

• “John McCain and Sarah Palin they call [spreading the wealth around] socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.” (from a speech 2 days after the 10/29 infomercial)

They appear to have made selfishness a virtue around the same time you made socialism popular. I hate to use a presently overused cliche, but Obama is trying to put lipstick on socialism and call it something else. Socialism and Marxism have definitions; they have concrete meanings, as does capitalism. Obama does not get to modify their definitions simply because a large portion of the country are easily pleased by demagoguery and class warfare.

Folks, he’s not even hiding it anymore. I know you want out of Iraq now, but at what price?

Congressmen screamed bloody murder when Exxon reported their income rose 14% in the 4^th quarter of 2007. As a result of this “crime,” Congress even brought in the top executives of the five largest U.S. oil companies to reprimand and lecture them.

“Where is the corporate conscience? Is there anybody here that has any concerns about what you’re doing to this country with the prices that you’re charging and the profits that you’re taking?” Sen. Dick Durbin

So what are the profits? Exxon earned $11.6 billion, which is a record for U.S. companies. In 2004, they had profits that freaked out the masses as well. Their gross margin that quarter was 9.8 cents per dollar of revenue. But financial institutions such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon. 9.8 cents is laughable in comparison to Citigroup’s 15.7 cents per dollar in 2004. The makers of Marlboro made 22 cents for every dollar. Merck made 25 cents.

If your company grosses 6 billion, and your expenses are only 1 billion, you just made 5 billion. If you gross 150 billion, and your expenses are 140 billion, you made 10 billion. Ask yourself which company is more “evil”: the one whose income was twice as much, or the one who’s ROI was 600%? Profit margin is the more relevant statistic.

Looking at Moneycentral.msn.com, Exxon’s gross margin is 21.6%. Check out the gross margin of these other companies that haven’t been scolded by congress:

• MoSys: 81.1%
• Microsoft: 79.3%
• Google: 59.8%
• Yahoo: 59.5%
• Apple: 34.4%
• Safeway: 28.6%
• Walmart: 23.5%
• Amazon: 22.5%
• Exxon: 21.6%
• Disney: 20.3%

Walmart is also attacked with its gross margin of 23.5%. Walmart and Exxon aren’t being attacked because of their profits. That’s just the excuse. If profits were the real crime, Bill Gates and Larry Page might as well live in Washington to make their daily scoldings more convenient. Why don’t we stop bothering Exxon and start demanding Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo decrease their obscene profits? Google didn’t exist 10 years ago, and we were doing just fine.

* I don’t really believe we should go after Google’s profits. They earned it fair and square, just like the oil companies. There is no difference. Just be aware of the hypocrisy.

What goes into the price of a gallon of gas? There’s a nice explanation here. At the pump, only about 4% of the price represents oil company profits. So if you wiped out all oil company profits, the price of a $4 gallon of gas would become $3.84. That doesn’t explain the dollars of increase in recent years. Did you know that while Exxon gets 16 cents from that gallon, 60 cents goes to taxes? “A thief is more moral than a congressman; when a thief steals your money, he doesn’t demand you thank him.” Walter Williams

You can’t tax a corporation

“You can’t tax a corporation. It’s a lie. There’s no such taxpayer. Tax the corporation and you tax the people that work there, or buy its products, or own its stock. If you can’t have dinner with it, you can’t tax it.” - Kelly J. Maguire

Senators like Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer would solve this “problem” of high oil company profits by instituting a windfall profits tax. Maxine Waters actually admitted what Washington really wants to do. When Exxon makes a boatload of money, that boatload will be taxed more than their usual profit. But what does a company do when its expenses increase? It increases the price.

A windfall profits tax actually taxes gas users. This is just basic economics. If you add a tax to a corporation for high profits, their bottom line will decrease, which decreases their stock price and dividends. This is completely unacceptable to shareholders, so to prevent that, the corporation must increase its prices or decrease its expenses by the exact amount of the tax. BASIC ECONOMICS. So either prices will go up or some people will get fired.

This article at lossofsanity.com puts it best:

An increase in corporate taxes increases the cost of producing goods and services and leads to a higher price for the consumer.

Politicians know the secret and fear that the public will learn it too one day. Thus politicians continually demonize business with words like greedy, anti-consumer, socially irresponsible in order to keep people’s anger focused on business instead of the true practitioners of greed… politicians.

BIG Farm

I mentioned earlier that people were hopping mad about Exxon’s 14% increase in profits. What if I told you there was another company whose profits rose by 86%? Would you be 6 times as mad? Cargill Inc.’s profits went from $553 million to $1.03 billion. How did an agriculture business increase profits by that much?

They didn’t. Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in 2005 which required use of ethanol in U.S. gasoline. As a result the price of corn nearly doubled, which increased their profits. The increased profits gave incentive to stop growing other crops to make room for corn, which lowered the supply of those other crops and therefore raised the prices. The price increase in crops like corn has caused “Tortilla riots” in Mexico, and violent protests have occurred in 33 countries. Artificially messing with energy has literally made people hungrier. Perhaps everyone should stop worrying about Big Oil, and start worrying about Big Farm and Big Government.

It used to be someone could bring on a scientist to tell us how things are. We could rely on the scientist to tell us the truth so that we wouldn’t have to research it ourselves to be sure.

Those days are over, thanks to government incentives for catastrophic forecasts of man-made global warming. No matter where you stand on the issue, you can’t deny that there are a substantial number of scientists lying or omitting facts on this issue simply because there are so many on both sides contradicting each other. Someone is lying. Whether they’re bare-face lying, or lying about their specific expertise, the opinion of a scientist has become near worthless if politics are at all involved.

As a result, regular Joes and Joannes are going to demand everything be explained in layman’s terms. It has already begun, but it will have to become commonplace eventually.  People that previously wouldn’t have cared are now questioning that humans have a substantial effect on the climate. Ya, it was hot last week, but last winter was really cold. Explain that to me. Ignorance in that field is decreasing rapidly, which is a good thing for society: bad for those with a stake in the theory of catastrophic human climate destruction.

The gradual realization that changing our ways will cost more than a couple of Iraq wars has caused normal people to start asking questions. Will spending all this money do anything to stave off this so-called impending doom? Is there any impending doom? Might this all just be a few sun burps?

When I visited Europe, it made me proud to be American. There was nothing there I liked better than here (the sites are beautiful of course) EXCEPT the Coca-Cola. A couple months later, my brother handed me a Mexican coke, and it too tasted better than American coke.

Why does the greatest country in the world have lower-quality Coca-Cola than Mexico?

Answer: Greedy politicians in collusion with an American sugar company.

Meet the Fanjuls

The Fanjul family owns Flo-Sun Inc. In the ‘95/’96 campaign cycle, their family and their companies contributed $774,500. In the 2000 election cycle, they spent nearly $1 million. As a result, Congress has put tariffs in place against foreign-produced sugar that raises the price of sugar in America substantially. World-wide the average price of sugar is 7 cents per pound; in America, it is 21 cents. This puts Coca-Cola, and other companies in a pickle. Do they pay the additional 14 cents for real sugar, or find a substitute, like corn syrup, which is similar, but not as delicious? They chose corn syrup.

So for less than $1 million per year, the Fanjuls enjoy an estimated $65 million annually due to a manufactured price for sugar. Keeping a 14 cent difference between the two costs consumers about $2 billion annually. It is in their best interests to grease our politicians in order to keep their scam going. You can actually buy them in America, but they cost twice as much.

ENOUGH

Coke with sugar tastes better than coke with corn syrup in my opinion. I have yet to encounter a testimonial where that is not the case. The American people need to know that congressmen have no interest in helping or representing the people, and routinely put tariffs in place if it helps them politically. Restricting free trade to increase prices is the semi-legal way for congressmen and lobbyists to steal money. It should piss you off.
Some references…

America’s Sugar Daddies
Wikipedia
Sugar subsidies destroying Florida everglades

Liberals, or progressives, will acknowledge that socialism and fascism have failed compared to capitalism, but capitalism is evil too (so they believe), so there has to be another way. One of the goals of the Communist Party USA is the “creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society.” Nothing wrong with wanting that, but what does it mean to be rationally planned?

‘Just need the right people’

The backbone of the socialist argument is that if you have the right people in charge, they can design society to be ideal. I totally agree, but who decides who the right people are? How do we ensure the people that are in charge enact policy based on what is, rather than what should be? Once we choose those people, how do we police them if they do get out of line? The assumption is they would decide all that, basically making them infallible BY DEFINITION.

The fact is that any society that relies on a handful of people to ensure the success of a nation can never work, because it is impossible to ensure that the candidates in question will behave properly. This is common sense; why not have a dictatorship? If you ask people what is a dictatorship good at, the knee-jerk reaction for most people would be “nothing, its oppressive.” Well the fact is, dictators get things done infinitely faster than a democracy. That is a fact. The problem is what if that dictator gets bad things done faster? Like, oh… I don’t know, engage in genocide?

Equality destroys nations

How do you ensure equality? Let’s say we wanted everyone to be equally proficient at rocket science. How would we do that? We could educate everyone at a PhD level to ensure everyone is good at it. Would this work? Of course not. Many people don’t like rocket science; some do not have the intelligence to grasp all of its concepts. So an equal PhD level is unattainable. How about if no one gets to know it? That would make everyone equal.

The path of logic I just followed is undeniable, but if applied to wealth, home ownership, etc., people go on tilt. They don’t comprehend that equality is so bad, it will actually destroy a nation. A society can only demand equality of opportunity. Being poor should not prevent you from getting a decent education, but it does not entitle you to an extravagant education. Same goes for health care.

Equality = spread misery equally

If I have less money than someone else, and I want more, that might drive me to work harder, make certain choices in order to better myself. The way to make most people equal at golf is not to teach everyone how to play at Tiger’s level, it is to make them all equally mediocre by preventing practice, or expensive equipment. If no one makes more than I do or performs better than I do, what will drive me? The greater good? What if the guy next to me doesn’t give a crap about the greater good?

Inequality is wonderful

Inequality is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to ensure the continuing advancement of a society. When people compete, some will lose. But that doesn’t mean everyone should lose to ensure equality.

UK

Smokers banned from un-smoking related operations until they stopped; obese required to lose weight.
Britons 4 TIMES as likely to die in major surgery than Americans.
70,000 Health tourists leaving Britain to obtain health services (fears of hospital infections and frustration of often waiting months for operations).
5,000 elderly die each year because it’s too expensive to keep them in intensive care after surgery.

CANADA

Pet scan not covered in Ontario.
Ontario physician turns away patient for being over 55.
Doctor shortages.
30 week wait for MRI.

CUBA

Hospitals Michael Moore didn’t show. Another video.
Plenty more stories at angelfire.com

The media is out of control. The gap between a reporter and shock jock is narrowing FAST, and in some cases is non-existent. The latest knee-jerk reaction to statements by Will Smith is the perfect example.

In an interview in conjunction with his new movie, I am Legend, the interview steered towards his easy-going nature. Prior to the comment concerning Hitler, Will explained why he was so easy-going:

“Well, if I understand the problem then I don’t get annoyed. People driving past in the car and giving me the finger annoys my wife but it’s because they think you did something to them. They think you’re driving too slow and keeping them from getting to their daughter’s birthday party, or you cut them off and didn’t see.”

Then he used a politically incorrect example of an extremely evil man to prove his point. Smith DID NOT say what Hitler did was good; he said that Hitler most likely THOUGHT he was doing good. The fact that this is what Will Smith meant seems unimportant to the JDL (Jewish Defense League) or shock jock reporters across the world. What Will Smith meant was irrelevant to the reporters who ran with the misrepresentation. “If it bleeds, it leads” is the saying, and the fact that reporters chose to let Smith bleed without regard for reality is sickening to me.

Here’s the quote from the article by Siobhan Synnot of the Daily Record:

“Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.

“Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, ‘let me do the most evil thing I can do today’,” said Will. “I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good’. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.”

This is a very logical statement, despite it being about an evil genocidal murderer who deserves no sympathy. This produced response articles with atrocious, reckless headlines:

“Will Smith sees the good in Hitler - US actor Will Smith has stunned fans by reportedly declaring that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was essentially a “good” person.” - The Australian

I’m gonna make some TRUE statements that will cause a knee-jerk reaction in most of you. Fight the urge and read EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING:

• Adolf Hitler was a tremendously effective public speaker.
• According to all evidence, Adolf Hitler’s goal was to make the world a better place (be patient, keep reading).

The evil part was his criteria for doing so. Again, Hitler’s goal was to make the world more productive by getting rid of unproductive, evil people. His intentions were NOT evil; his criteria WERE. I feel compelled to be redundant for the sake of clarity: just because his intentions were good does not justify the evil he perpetrated. His crimes were viciously evil and the pinnacle of blind, racist ignorance. He was a psycho whom ignored the fact that some of his favorite musicians and composers were Jewish and decided they all should be exterminated. He was responsible for the death/torture camps like Auschwitz, which killed 75% of its prisoners upon arrival, and used the remaining 25% for free slave labor.

I have nothing but incensed despise for Adolf Hitler, but I will not attack or sit by while someone else is attacked simply because they said one seemingly nice thing about an evil man. Smith was illustrating that there is hope for goodness to spread, even when people like Hitler have existed. The Holocaust happened due to the tremendous ignorance, and speaking ability of Adolf Hitler.

It is completely possible Will Smith hates Jews, but these recent statements aren’t proof of that. The Jewish Defense League should be going after the head of Siobhan Synnot for her deliberate character-arson, and the editor of any newspaper that ran with this without due diligence.

P.S. I understand Will Smith is friends with Tom Cruise, who appears to be a certifiable fruit cake. That worries me a little, but some cursory research seemed to show that Smith seems to be and likes people to know how open-minded he is. He is being overly nice to Scientologists in this pursuit.

I have been absolutely enamored with the blind hatred of President George W Bush… it really is quite amazing, especially since it comes from people who are so quick to condemn judgment of anyone. My attitude is he is a politician who panders, jukes, and says things he doesnt mean to be powerful and liked by as many people as possible. I asked myself, “Is this guy really the anomaly the liberal left claims he is? Why do they hate this man so much?” And I found the website whywehatebush.com. Ok, great I’ll get my answers…

The first statement on their homepage at the very top says “Bush stands against everything that America stands for.” Really? Everything? You’d think by luck he might stand for SOMETHING that America stands for. I think one of the things you can say about Bush is he is VERY pro-American, and some people might have some good arguments why that might be bad if overdone. Then my eyes dart over to some numbers… ok, they have some actual stats that show President Bush really is evil…

FACT: BUSH OIL
1999 - $19 BARREL
2006 - $70 BARREL

Now, hold on a minute… if I recall, he didnt take office until early 2001… what do oil prices in 1999 have to do with him? I looked up the numbers, in 2000 the price was $28, 2001 it was $23… we’ll call it $25. Evidently, $19 sounded better to them. So does a $55 increase in a barrel of oil prove he’s evil? I suppose if he’s responsible for it and there are no other factors that contribute. I’d stipulate the President of the United States doesn’t have the slightest effect on oil prices other than with policies he approves, like if he allowed drilling in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, prices would go down. So if Bush is credited with astronomical gas prices, is he also credited with all the electronics price decreases during his office? One might argue he has no effect on that stuff. I AGREE.
Below that there is a list of 11 things that explain why they hate Bush. #1 is vague, but #2 says,
“Bush and his cabal of henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obfuscate the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.”

Aside from the He-Man-esque “henchmen” comment, this is just silly. I have heard this echoed for years as the quintissential crime committed by Bush, that he LIED about WMD. If he lied about it, EVERYONE ON EARTH lied about it. And I quote,

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
So it is clear and unarguable that hating Bush for the WMD issue is IRRATIONAL if it is only pointed at Bush. There is an ENDLESS list of quotes like this at freerepublic.com and elsewhere.

Now I realize that this website is not the best criticism to analyze, but it is representative of the layman. I will get to the slightly more intellectual comments soon… one more bullet from this site:

“The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.”

Are you kidding me? Do people really believe the media SUPPORTS President Bush due to his control? It’s so patently absurd as to be laughable. And if there was a SHRED of truth to this statement, Bush would have been EASILY impeached and removed from office.

That brings up another point… Bush is the worst liar in history according to the liberal left. He does nothing but lie, lie, lie. Let’s look at this rationally… we all agree that there are a substantial number of Americans who hate George W Bush, and want him out of office, including a majority of congressmen. If they have all this evidence that he lied, why have they been unable to get rid of him?