Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

And re not standing up to the liberal Democratic party:

Posted By: Liberal on 2006-08-29
In Reply to: Thanks for responding. - Liberal

Stand up to whom and why?  The Congress is run by Republicans.  Bush does whatever he wants, when he wants, regardless of what Congress or the courts deem to be legal or constitutional. 


He has already stood up to them by spreading propaganda that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either on the terrorist's side or a fascist.  If he gets really mad, he swiftboats them. 


This is the reason people want him to get warrants before spying on Americans.  A President with such a history of personal revenge can't be trusted to just go after the terrorists.  He can't be trusted not to spy on innocent Americans who don't agree with his policies.  He can't be trusted to have a good reason to spy.  He just can't be trusted, period.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party
That's for starters. Here's my short list:

1) Not a strong enough military operation in Iraq and Afhghanistan.
2) Too soft on immigration.
3) Witholding the known valid/verified intelligence that proves there were WMDs in Iraq. (I'll never for my life figure that out).
4) Not hiring Tony Snow sooner to show what absolute idiots are in the White House press corps.
5) Letting the U.N. change his stance on the Lebanon/Israel conflict.

I could go on, but I'm at work and I already know you will absolutely not agree with my perceived Bush mistakes, so I won't waste anymore of my time or breath.



Can the Democratic Party Survive
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/shore/2005/shore022805.htm
All this is all well and good and right down the Democratic party line...
the fact is...a few months ago Joe Biden said: "I would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain." Last night he attacked him. So...take your pick. He was lying then or he is lying now. He lied. Perhaps you are impressed by throwing friends under the bus, lying or whatever it takes to toe the party line. I am not. I think it shows marked lack of character. To each his own.

Questioning his experience is not a personal attack, spineless or otherwise. You could leave the spineless personal attacks on people who disagree with you to the side, it might make someone more willing to listen to your viewpoint. What I have heard him say in interviews, what he has said himself, plus the marked lack of foreign policy exposure and experience in his resume do cause me pause. Yes, I admit it. The fact that I fear he will fold like a house of cards if someone gets in his face is a concern. It really does not matter to me if you are sold on him...I am not. And that should not be the basis of an attack on me from you. THis is exactly what I am talking about. Obama supporters attack anyone who does not agree with them. Thank you for making my point.

By all means though...STAY LOYAL TO THE CAUSE OF THE PARTY. Friends under the bus, lie, whatever it takes. I get it.
Who supports Obama? Everybody in the democratic party
it appears. I was a Clinton fan as I know she takes care of business and knows how to get things done in the Senate and Congress.

McCain and Palin will lead us to a supreme court nominee which will be a republican and we cannot afford that.
It's official. Rahm Emanuel star of democratic party
accepts position of the O's chief of staff. 
compassion is standing up

for the wronged and the weak.  Your constant assaults on the truth deserve no compassion.  We are standing up for the truth which will lead us out of the current darkness that has descended upon our country.  As soon as the scoundrels are ejected, hopefully the veil will be lifted.  Until then, we will yank out the roots of deception before it can take root and grow and spread.


 


 


STANDING OVATION!!!!

.


Thank you Kaydie for standing with me.
These obots need a wake up call!
Standing ovation!!!
Take a bow - best post I've read in a while!
Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.

My reasons for not standing behind Obama.......... sm
In no particular order of importance.

1. Lack of qualification, even by his own admission as recently as 2004 when he accepted his Senate seat and stated that he felt he would not be qualified for POTUS.

2. Past associations.

3. Current associations and financial backers.

4. His stance on abortion.

5. His stance on gay marriage.

6. His lack of knowledge of foreign policy. He thinks he can just "sit down and negotiate" with the biggest terrorist nations on earth.

7. Lack of proof of citizenship.

8. Questionable background in terms of religion, which lies deeper than just whether he is Protestant or Catholic or nondenomianational.

9. Issues with many of his campaign "promises" not limited to the Civil Defense Service.

None of my issues with Obama center on anything other than the above. Simply put, I don't trust him.
For me, being patriotic means standing up for your
nm
Cowards never understand standing up for anything....
@
Perfect definition! I'm standing up & cheering...
In applause. Excellent.
I hope you are right, that someone is standing up for the middle class (sm)
But I think what is more likely to happen is that we will ALL be taxed more and we will ALL have less money and it will be spread throughout the world. What you see as wealth and middle class will no longer be the same. Wealth will be being able to afford to feed your family. The jobs will go overseas alright, even more so than they are now. I wish I believed that you are right. That would be great! Unfortunately, I think it is a dream, far from the reality of the nightmare that is coming.
Eligibility case finds standing...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84966


 


I'm standing outside with my basket. Will it fall soon, I hope? sm
...and please, if you wish to be understood by the widest viewership, confine yourself to smaller words. I believe "irony" has three of them syllerbubble thingies, which is two over the limit.
The so called liberal media is not so liberal anymore...sm
Case and point Fox News is the #1 media outlet via ratings and hardhitting conservative anchors, pundits, and journalists. Other than Hardball, I don't know of another mainstream show that puts the liberal point of view out there and checks this administration and their policies.
liberal hit piece by a liberal deep thinker....
x
Russo's film gets standing ovation in Cannes.sm

Cannes Premiere Gets Standing Ovation

Aaron Russo’s AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM

To Open Across America July 28

CANNES, FRANCE – Aaron Russo’s incendiary political documentary which exposes many of the governmental organizations and entities that have abridged the freedoms of U.S. citizens had its international premiere at Cannes and won a standing ovation. The event, which was held on the beach and filled to capacity, was open to the public and drew a crowd of people who stood along the boardwalk to watch the film.

Through interviews with U.S. Congressmen, as well the former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo proves conclusively that there is no law requiring citizens to pay a direct tax on their labor. His film connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, voter fraud, the national identity card (which becomes law in May 2008) and the implementation of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology to track citizens. Neither left nor right-wing in perspective, the film concludes that the U.S. government is taking on the characteristics of a police state. Doc will open on multiple screens in cities across the U.S. beginning July 28.

The international audience at Cannes as well as the European media has been fascinated by Russo’s fiery diatribe against the direction America is heading. The discussion that followed the preview lasted for thirty minutes. Actor Nick Nolte, in Cannes for the premiere of “Over The Hedge,” joined Russo during the event. “The information in this film is something everybody has to know”, said Nolte, who was the lead actor in “Teachers,” a film produced by Russo.

Russo, who is best known as the producer of feature films including “The Rose” with Bette Midler and “Trading Places” with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, wrote, produced, and directed the doc. “I am disgusted by the direction America was heading,” says Russo. “I made this movie because I want to live in a free country and I want my kids and grandkids to live in a free country. The American people must abandon the myth that America is still the land of liberty that it once was.”

Russo’s doc already has a tremendous grass root groundswell behind it. The film has previewed in over twenty-five cities with sold out theatres and standing ovations. The website, www.freedomtofascism.com has been had over five hundred thousand (500,000) streams of the video trailer. Additionally, through the website and from grassroots screenings, over $100,000 in non-deductible donations has been collected to help with the theatrical release.

EDITORS AND PRODUCERS:

For Press Inquiries contact press@cinemalibrestudio.com

****************************************************************
Primary Objectives

* Stop the polarization of America

* Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system

* Shut down the Federal Reserve system

* Return America's gold to Fort Knox and have it audited

* Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.

* Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states

* Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions

* Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card

* Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings

* Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case

* Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge

* Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government

* Protect our borders

* Restore the environment

* Put an end to the Patriot Act

* Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives


There is a difference between courts agreeing and denying based on standing...


I am an independent....neither party is "my" party.
THis election cycle I believe the best man is a Republican. Do your research. John McCain warned about this in 2005, named Fannie and freddie by name, co-sponsored legislation to control them. Blocked by Democrats, led by Chris Dodd..same guy now trying to fix what he and the Dems broke. Chris Dodd, #1 on contributions list from fannie/freddie, followed closely by #2, your shining knight Mr. Obama. The chickens have come home to roost all right...or should I say the donkeys. :)
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm



Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.




After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.

Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.

Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.

January 5, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.

President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.

As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.

The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.

This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.

Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.

Sincerely,

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican

(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)

Who is your top democratic candidate?
Barack Obama is who I am rooting for, but I'd like to know what democrats are thinking about the other candidates.
Who do you think will get the Democratic nomination

And, what do you think the Super Delegates will do?


voting democratic



CI'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe everything the main stream media tells me about the Presidential candidates.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because English has no place being the official language in America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq , I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar icecaps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

I'm thinking abou t voting Democratic because oil companies 5% profit on a gallon of gas are obscene, but government taxes of 18% (federal and state) on the same gallon of gas are just fine.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe three or four elitist liberals should rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe element that could never get their agenda past voters.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because illegal aliens are not criminals, are not sucking up resources through government aid, hospital services, education, or social services, but are just people trying to make a better life by coming to America illegally. We can't blame them for that, can we?

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because now I can now marry whatever I want, so I've decided to marry my horse.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because they know best how to run a mortgage company like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They will guarantee I get a low interest loan even if I don't have a job and can't pay it back.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I agree that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac executives should get 10's of million dollars in bonuses, then leave and join a Democratic presidential candidate's campaign as his advisors.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would ever vote Republican, doesn't it?




You cant thank the democratic congress too.
nm
way to go democratic congress
nm
But you don't do that. You only discuss the democratic past.

In order to smear it.


No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush.


Democratic talking points 101. nm

Republicans and democratic are worlds apart
One party represents BUSINESS. the other PEOPLE. That is the bottom line.

You americans need to get your two parties together without the politicians around and figure out how to come to terms with your disagreements cuz you folks are on the same ship and it is sinking and only the rich have a paddle.

Want us Canadians to provide a neutral ground? We are very concerned about the runaway train that has become America. It is like a bad movie.
Exactly, that is the common thread in Democratic...
party these days. And the only way to end that stalemate in Waashington is for that, for lack of a better word...crap to stop. McCain and Palin are reaching across the aisle, saying they are willing to work with democrats to stop the stalemate...country first. McCain says he wants Democrats and Independents in his cabinet. Country first. This election is a no-brainer for this Independent. McCain/Palin.
'scuse me...have you read the democratic...
posts on this board?? lol.
My Lord, what do you expect from the Democratic rag, the
Washington Post? Give me a break and the rest of us here. Why don't you read some real new for a change?

Did you know that just a tiny bit of arsenic can make you deathly ill?
Impeached by a democratic majority?
What YOU smokin?? lol.
Tell that to the democratic congress - they are responsible
And while people are getting laid off left and write the democratic congress who gave the bail outs are not giving back any of the money. And the people who ran FM/FM are not giving back any of the money. And the money that was given for the bail outs but instead the people used it to take lavish vacations and put more money in their pockets are not giving it back, and the DEMOCRATIC congress is not enforcing that they should give it back.
58 +/- 2 democratic leaning indies =
jangled nerves over this one undecided seat. Cornyn is hedging no bets and preparing for the worst case scenario, rather than simply letting the state satisfy itself that it is sending the duly elected representative to Washington based on the most accurate vote count possible. Why is that such as scarey proposition? How much traction do you really think the obstructionists are going to have in the Senate anyway. Not all the pubs are onboard with administration sabotage. Some of them actually remember that their constituents expect them to get something accomplished and to wait until at 16 to 18 months before starting to campaign for their next race.
Democratic Hawk Now Sees War as a Mistake

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM


Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645096.jpg


Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645169.jpg

JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003


U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.





Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake


By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau


WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.


Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.


The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.


Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.


During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.


There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.


Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.


And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.


Voted to back Bush


In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.


Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.


After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.


Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.


While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.


The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.


Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.


Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.


The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.


But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.


A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.


He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.


Norm ... has agonized


All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.


Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.


In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.


Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.


By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.


We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.


By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.


That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.


Growing doubts


On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.


Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.


That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.


Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.


Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.


The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.


Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.


The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.


Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.


The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.


Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.


But he added, We can't take forever.


Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.


I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.


Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com



None of the top tier of Democratic candidates will commit...
to having the troops out of Iraq during their 4 years.  I know some of you have posted that you would not vote for Hillary for that reason.  What if she is the candidate?  Second question...if none of them are going to end the war immediately and that seems to be a major issue for most of you...I assume you are going to vote for one of them anyway...whichever one gets the nomination?
Case in point...what a democratic view....NOT.
YOu have been exposed for what you are, and in typical spin, turn it on to someone else and make them the villain. You guys are like the Wizard of Oz...one head and lots of little bodies running around. :)
Tracks for both sides. Obama is more of the democratic same...
and John McCain has never been a toe the line Republican. Republicans will tell you that.

I post links most of the time. How is that twisting and manipulating words? How is that making something come out the way I want it to? Good grief. lol. If you see something that I post is twisted or manipulated, refute it. No one is stopping you. The best you seem to have is to attack me. Why is that the first line of democratic defense? Oh yes...the Alinsky method. If you can't refute....attack. lol.
Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm


http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/

Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.




Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.

After 8 years of Bush...As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion.
I'm voting democratic to relegate ignorance like this
su
Bush didn't do anything before it was not a democratic congress.
.
Plus the democratic congress. Get your facts correct.

Democratic presidents 'suck' in the eyes
of Reps, and Republican presidents 'suck' in the eyes of Dems.....and round and round it goes...
they can't hold a candle to the Democratic Underground or Moveon.org.
Those two are evil incarnate.
Transcript: Democratic response to Pres. Bush's

Good morning. This is Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Majority Leader.


Over the past several months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have negotiated a bipartisan extension of the highly successful childrens health insurance program known as CHIP - a program enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, with strong Democratic support, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.


CHIP provides health insurance coverage for over six and one-half million American children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.


However, millions of other children who are currently eligible for this health insurance are not enrolled due to the programs limited resources.


To address this, our bipartisan legislation provides funding for approximately four million more children - ensuring that at least 10 million low-income children in our nation receive the health care coverage they need and deserve. Thats good for them and for our country.


This legislation does not change current eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIPs financing, covers more low-income children, and improves the quality of care they receive.


Sadly, on Wednesday, President Bush - in the face of bipartisan majorities in Congress, and contrary to the will of the American people - vetoed our bipartisan bill.

The President claims - wrongly - that this bill is fiscally irresponsible.


The truth is, this legislation is fully paid for. It does not add one nickel to the deficit or to the debt.


Furthermore, under the Presidents proposal more than 800,000 children who now receive coverage under CHIP would lose that coverage.


The President claims that this legislation would lead to a government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong.


The truth is, Americas largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill - as do Americas doctors, nurses, childrens advocates, 43 governors, and, most importantly, 72 percent of Americans.


The claims made against this bill are simply wrong.


As Senator Pat Roberts, a senior Republican from Kansas, recently said: I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the Administrations concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, Senator Roberts added: Bluntly put, they are not.


Most puzzling of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Presidents veto violates his own campaign promise.


In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the President promised (and I quote): In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.


But he has done just that.


But the Congress has done exactly what the President said he was going to do, if re-elected.


Yet today, the only thing standing between millions of American children and the health insurance they need and deserve is one person. The President is saying no to these children he promised to help.


This is a defining moment for this Congress.


In the words of Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, weve got to do what we can to try to override the Presidents veto.


In the days ahead, we will work to persuade many of our Republican colleagues, who insist on standing with the President, to instead join the bipartisan majorities in Congress - and Americas children - in overriding this veto.


I urge all of you: Contact your Member of Congress.


Ask them to support our children.


Ask them to do what the President promised to do when he sought re-election.


Ask them to vote to override the Presidents veto and ensure health care for our kids and for their future.


Thank you for listening. This is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.


Okay....right alongside them should be the Democratic local authorities who also have culpability.
fair is fair. This is particularly nasty little ol' post.
The current Democratic Congress has also floated the notion of.....sm
outlawing the current 401K's that most of us have with our retirement funds in them.

Why?

Probably because they know how to invest our money better than we do, and want to make us put all our extra money into government backed retirements funds.


Sounds to me like a repeat of Social Security, where they'll use our money, put an IOU in a drawer someplace, and then say oops.....sorry, your money's all gone....