Bydio

From ynetnews.com (the source is Palestinian, so I question its veracity, but if true…):

The Palestinian news agency Maan, quoting a senior member of the Palestinian government, reported Wednesday that “ministers of the Hamas-led government recently held talks with European countries and with a delegation of the American Democratic Party.

The Palestinian official said that Hamas representatives held meeting in European countries and even succeeded in convincing the Europeans to accept the movement’s stance (click for their stance).

The Palestinian official expressed his hope that the recent talks would lead to positive developments, especially in light of “Hamas’ flexibility in its diplomatic stances.”

He refused to elaborate on the meeting and where it took place, claiming that Hamas is not interested in harming the Democrats’ chances to win the 2008 elections.

If this is true (and it’s not verified yet), then if you vote Democrat, you get “leaders” who work with Hamas.  Never.

C’mon, when you say something like this:

Increased spending inevitably means increased taxes. Thus, despite
President Bush’s much vaunted tax cuts, Americans actually pay more in
taxes today than they did during Bill Clinton’s last year in office.

you’re just asking for a smackdown.

Of course taxes increase when spending increases.  Everything you buy is taxed, retaxed and taxed again.  From manufacture to sale, raw materials, labor, import/export, transportation, everything that goes into a product has been taxed out the ass.

So saying that increased spending equals increased taxes is like saying water makes you wet.  At merely the 5% sales tax, if I spend $10, I’m taxed 50 cents, but if I spend $20, I’m taxed $1… fuck, I’m being taxed double because I spent double!

However, focusing on the tax cut to make your point is a dickhead move.  “Don’t give a tax cut because you’re just going to spend more in taxes anyway”… what kind of retarded argument is that?

From Lee Green at Honest Reporting, showing that Jimmy has Alzheimer’s… or he’s a history revisionist.  Pick whichever makes you feel better.  I’ve picked my side:

Bill (at) billnelson.senate.gov
date  Nov 29, 2006 3:55 PM  
subject  RE: Your response from Senator Bill Nelson

Dear Mr. Solomon:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Bush’s recent appointment of John Bolton for a second term as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

The ongoing Global War on Terrorism requires that we cooperate with other nations. Now, more than ever, we must foster our relationships in the global community. Our membership in the UN serves an important strategic purpose in advancing U.S. policies and interests through multilateral diplomacy. The U.S. played a major role in the creation of the UN and continues to maintain a strong leadership role throughout the organization.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was an active participant in John Bolton’s first Senate confirmation process. I did not support John Bolton’s nomination based on failures in his past job as Arms Control Negotiator. Both Iran and North Korea increased their nuclear know-how and their arsenal of weapons during his tenure in office. For these reasons, I voted against his nomination in committee. As you know, President Bush appointed him Ambassador to the UN without proper Senate confirmation, and I am assessing his recent work at the United Nations. I will look carefully at all aspects of his performance and character to determine his suitability for continued office.

I appreciate your taking the time to be informed on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

From Cox & Forkum: