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

Anger at Bush is well justified - he and his Republican Congress put us in this mess...nm

Posted By: sm on 2009-02-25
In Reply to: Funny it's okay to post inflammatory reports about Bush (nm) - Hard to take your own medicine

r


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

Bush had a republican congress for 6 years and,.sm
for the last 2 years we had a republican president, who was always threatening to veto, and a democratic congress by a very small margin. You can't blame everything on the democrats for the last 2 years.
Right! Bush leadership and republican congress tanked us
nm
Republican Congress came up with NAFTA
AND at the time Clinton supported it - with the belief it would keep the Mexicans in Mexico. Truth be told, they started outsourcing our jobs in the 80s - GM closed 11 plants in Michigan and opened 9 in Mexico - paying the Mexicans 7 cents per hour. I guess they did not abolish slavery in Mexico.
It was republican congress for 6 of the past 8 dopey nm

The congress which raided the SS fund was republican at the time
and at the rate the republicans are carrying the country, in ten years, it will resemble Argentina (who also ended up in the same place, as a debtor nation).

Israel has the republican party as it stands in his back pocket as does corportate america. The republican party isn't conservative anymore. It is a giant siphon of American assets into the pockets of the rich, at the expense of the taxpayer. Anyone can see this but the sheople who voted these clowns into office and didn't benefit from the tax cuts ::rolls eyes::.
The Republican Congress did a good job with fiscal responsibility, didn't they?
bout sums it up
what a mess bush has created
 Iraq's Fig Leaf Constitution
    By Robert Scheer
    The Los Angeles Times

    Tuesday 30 August 2005


    Who lost Iraq? Someday, as a fragmented Iraq spirals further into religious madness, terrorism and civil war, there will be a bipartisan inquiry into this blundering intrusion into another people's history.


    The crucial question will be why a preemptive American invasion - which has led to the deaths of nearly 2,000 Americans, roughly 10 times as many Iraqis, the expenditure of about $200 billion and incalculable damage to the United States' global reputation - has had exactly the opposite effect predicted by its neoconservative sponsors. No amount of crowing over a fig leaf Iraqi constitution by President Bush can hide the fact that the hand of the region's autocrats, theocrats and terrorists is stronger than ever.


    The U.S. now has to recognize that [it] overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state, said regional expert Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and an advisor to the Iraqi Kurds. And, he could have added, a pro-Iranian state that will be repressive and unstable.


    Think this is an exaggeration? Consider that arguably the most powerful Shiite political party and militia in today's Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its affiliated paramilitary force, the Badr Brigade, was not only based in Iran but was set up by Washington's old arch-foe, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It also fought on the side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and was recognized by Tehran as the government in exile of Iraq.


    Or that former exile Ahmad Chalabi is now one of Iraq's deputy prime ministers. The consummate political operator managed to maintain ties to Iran while gaining the devoted support of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, charming and manipulating Beltway policymakers and leading U.S. journalists into believing that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction.


    Chalabi is thrilled with the draft constitution, which, if passed, will probably exponentially increase tension and violence between Sunnis and Shiites. It is an excellent document, said Chalabi, who has been accused by U.S. intelligence of being a spy for Iran, where he keeps a vacation home.


    What an absurd outcome for a war designed to create a compliant, unified and stable client state that would be pro-American, laissez-faire capitalist and unallied with the hated Iran. Of course, Bush tells us again, this is progress and an inspiration. Yet his relentless spinning of manure into silk has worn thin on the American public and sent his approval ratings tumbling.


    Even supporters of the war are starting to realize that rather than strengthening the United States' position in the world, the invasion and occupation have led to abject humiliation: from the Abu Ghraib scandal, to the guerrilla insurgency exposing the limits of military power, to an election in which our guy - Iyad Allawi - was defeated by radicals and religious extremists.


    In a new low, the U.S. president felt obliged to call and plead with the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, Abdelaziz Hakim, to make concessions to gain Sunni support. Even worse, he was summarily rebuffed. Nevertheless, Bush had no choice but to eat crow and like it.


    This is a document of which the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can be proud, he said Sunday, through what must have been gritted teeth. After all, this document includes such democratic gems as Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation, and No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam, as well as socialist-style pronouncements that work and a decent standard of living are a right guaranteed by the state. But the fact is, it could establish Khomeini's ghost as the patron saint of Iraq and Bush would have little choice but to endorse it.


    Even many in his own party are rebelling. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur, said Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel last week, one of a growing number of Republicans who get that we should start figuring out how we get out of there.


    Not that our what-me-worry? president is the least bit troubled by all this adverse blowback from the huge, unnecessary gamble he took in invading the heart of the Arab and Muslim worlds. What is important is that the Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion, not at the barrel of a gun, Bush said.


    Wrong again, George. It was the barrel of your gun that midwifed the new Iraq, which threatens to combine the instability of Lebanon with the religious fanaticism of Iran.


The present mess has nothing to do with George Bush...
and everything to do with Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank and the other Democrats who consistently blocked reforming of Fannie and Freddie. They deserve most of the credit for this fiasco.
Your precious Bush who got us in this mess will not suffer financially ever in his sm
lifetime, not will Cheney's family or many generations to come... you don't get it.. it was all about money and power for them and now it's for US for the country AND the world. We have a responsibility and we have done a terrible job under Bush's lack of leadership. Keep all your toilet paper; you will need it to wipe the filthy lies from your mouth.

Yeah and Bush's policies got us in a fine mess didn't they?

Bush does what he wants regardless of the Congress, BUT..

...this is the SECOND time he snookered Congress:  First with his Chicken Little rush to hurry up and go to war with Iraq (which most of us were stupid enough to buy hook, line and sinker, myself included).


Now the economic "crisis" that required us to hurry up and give more money to reward the Wall Street crooks who have already stolen from us WITH THE EXPRESS CONDITION that there be no oversight, that we simply hand the money over to former Wall Street guru Paulson (wink wink) and let him and Bush figure out (wink wink) with no questions asked regarding the identity of the recipients.  (Apparently, they are changing the rules as they go along, as we saw today regarding where the money is going.)


If you REALLY want to get your blood boiling, read the following two articles.  Seems everyone who is a decision-maker in the administration regarding this whole fiasco is a former employee of one of the failed companies.


Bush has always held America and Americans in contempt.  I now hold Congress in contempt and place the blame squarely on them for being stupid enough to believe Bush again.


Fed loans to AIG make Paulson's previous employer rich


http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=335924


---


And just last week, the Federal Reserve hired a BEAR STEARNS reject.



Federal Reserve Hires Bear Stearns Fox to Fix the Hen House

November 6, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com
Another sign the economic system cannot be fixed.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5646.3994.0.0

 

At least Congress is looking at something. The Bush

administration has blocked any kind of transparency and refuses to be acountable to the American citizens who are funding the Wall Street giant giveaway.


The General Accounting Office says the Wall Street bailout isn't being policed properly: 


WASHINGTON — Lawmakers want the Treasury to do a better job of insisting that banking institutions sharing in the $700 billion bailout comply with limits Congress imposed on executive salaries and use the money for its intended purposes.


In the first comprehensive review of the rescue package, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday that the Treasury Department has no mechanisms to ensure that banking institutions limit their top executives' pay and comply with other restrictions.


"The GAO's discouraging report makes clear that the Treasury Department's implementation of the (rescue plan) is insufficiently transparent and is not accountable to American taxpayers," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.


The auditors acknowledged that the program, created Oct. 3 to help stabilize a rapidly faltering banking system, was less than 60 days old and has been adjusting to an evolving mission.


But auditors recommended that Treasury work with government bank regulators to determine whether the activities of financial institutions that receive the money are meeting their purpose.


In a response to the GAO, Neel Kashkari, who heads the department's Office of Financial Stability, said the agency was developing its own compliance program and indicated that it disagreed with the need to work with regulators.


Continued at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/the-bailout-isnt-being-po_n_147982.html


P.S.  Neel Kashkari, formerly of Goldman Sachs (a/k/a the fox guarding the hen house), just recently got his job.  His bio:


http://www.ustreas.gov/organization/bios/kashkari-e.html


 


Yes, Bush and Bush alone did this whole mess all my himself
Your speaking as though nobody else had a hand in this, just Bush nobody else. Last I knew we had a democratic congress and they are the ones who got us into this mess. Time to put fault where it belongs - congress. Bush is only a talking head.
Bush didn't do anything before it was not a democratic congress.
.
More scared of congress and senate than Bush.
x
Bush wanted borders secured, congress did not.

I know Gov. Napolitano wanted to secure Arizona borders years ago.  She was Attorney General back then and US attorney.  She went to congress and fought for border control several times, but was ignored by Clinton.  Finally Bush came into office and he signed (article below) Border Fence Act. 


As for Obama, well he picked Gov. Napolitano to be in his office. 


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6388548


Bush was told by congress about mass destruction.
Bush just did not do this all alone, he had had help from congress and senate.  I blame them, just like the mess congress and treasury department and mortgage companies for our economy.  It is not just Bush' fault.  Remember, Bush saved us from having war on our own soil. 
Bush Ignores Laws He Signs, Vexing Congress

President Has Issued 750 Statements That He May Revise or Disregard Measures.


WASHINGTON (June 27) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not, said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.


Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.


There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview, Specter, R-Pa., said.


It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, he added. I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.


A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements.


Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events, said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11..


Congress has been more active, the president has been more active, she added. The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.


Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.


But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.


There's less here than meets the eye, Cornyn said. The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is.


But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.


The president is not required to (veto), Boardman said.


Of course he's not if he signs the bill, Specter snapped back.


Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.


It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed, said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?


Bush is not really a republican - he's in his own circle
To bash or criticize the republican party because of Bush? There are factions in these parties. Bush is not part of the republican party that cares about the people. He's in a whole different group. Not fair to lump all republicans in the same group as Bush. That would be like me judging all the democrats because of Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank or Chris Dodd or Hillary Clinton. Totally unfair. Bush doesn't care about the American people. There are a lot of decent republican senators and congress people that do care about America and the people and are trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately now we have a dictatorship in there so doubt anything good will happen for the American citizens. At least before this last election we had checks and balances. Now it's all one side. WAY not good!!! Would you like it if everyone was a republican and no democrats had any input into anything? I don't think so. We need an equal balance. We do not have it here and it's getting worse and worse with each day.
I am not a Republican. Yes, I voted for Bush the first time....
and voted for him the second time because I did not think John Kerry was the right man for the job. If another Democrat had won the nomination I might well have voted Democrat the last round.

The democrats have had control of Congress for the past 2 years. Their involvement in the fannie/freddie thing and their total unwillingness to accept any of the responsibility has me voting a straight Republican ticket this year and I have NEVER done that before. Because the idea of Barack Obama AND a democratic majority makes NE nauseous. The country deserves better.


That's okay...not offended, just justified
xx
Good and justified? Like..
"Take this back to church where it belongs." That is insulting and totally unnecessary and leveled at someone because they mentioned the abortion word. Abortion is an issue for some people. But since you people are against it, you will not tolerate any discussion of it.

It does not happen very often? These people are a snarling pack of dogs and I was attacked from day one.

Please show me where I abused anyone. I never called anyone a jerk or an a-hole. I never told people to get off the board. But you want to ignore all that. Well, if it makes you feel better to watch people attack me like a pack of wolves, if that is what it takes to float your boat and you feel that is okay...more power to you. You are part of the back, albeit at the back cheering on the attackers. Make you feel big and smug and powerful? Good for you. I have broad shoulders. Go right ahead.
Justified Rage! . . . . .Held in!! . . .How,
please, how can you justify the rage you display here? Actually, I see more hate than rage displayed. Also, who has been holding it in for the past 8 years???? Certainly no one on this board has been guilty of holding it in.

I hope GWB is the closest you ever come to having a dictator as your president, but just in case, please keep an open mind.
A Republican response to all that oppose Bush and admin....Dems are a bunch of Nuts...

but read Lurker and Imagine! Just IMAGINE!


You have much anger.
I will pray for you.
You have some serious anger issues

you need anger management
in the worst way
Likewise, why don't you take your anger,

hatred, rage, intolerance, factual manipulation and hissy fits back to the Conservative board where they belong?


I understand your frustration that the Conservative board is relatively quiet and peaceful these days and realize that must be a tremendous source of discomfort for you, but please take your hatred and rage somewhere else. 


And for the record, I couldn't care less what you think, either, about ANYTHING, although I am embarrassed for you that you're so full of hate, you couldn't even write a small sentence like that without resorting to profanity.


Adding you to my ever-growing list of the troll soldiers sent by the right to insult, berate, badger and harass the people who would rather discuss issues intelligently, and I've decided not to respond to posters who can't behave like adults.  So this will be my last post to you.


Have a nice evening, and I truly hope you can someday find some inner peace and serenity. 


How about anger management? sm
This is old stuff that my voice could not change now if I wanted to, but this current war in Iraq is what we're dealing with.
With all the anger, bitterness, and
childishness that comes through on all of your posts, I doubt seriously that you have respect for any one and vice-versa. You don't even sound American you are consumed with your own meaness. I really do not believe you care about our country, you just want to keep the anger going. I am sorry your life has turned out so rotten and I hope that things will improve for you, no matter who is elected.
Did someone mention anger control....

Why do pubs hold such anger toward
Your dark, dismal, gloomy world holds less than zero appeal. Times are changing...with or without you.
You really should not harbor such anger and animosity sm
It's over now, he is our new President.  It takes so much more anger to carry around versus embracing history and what has happened.  Why would you even call him such a name as a *****.  So many people are still amazingly ignorant.  He is not a muslim, if he was he would not be attending a baptist church because the Bible and Curan do not mix.  OMG, how people make me crack my side laughing with some of the ridiculous things they say.
Obama choked up with anger about it

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29722440#29722440


Anger? No. I can't stop laughing at your posts.

Thanks for the laughs.  I really needed them today.  Laughter truly is the best medicine. 


I hope you have a wonderful holiday weekend.  :-)


The Anti-Republican Republican Who is Really a Republican
The whole anti-Republican Republican ruse might have succeeded, were it not for the fact that McCain's rhetoric was at odds not merely with his own voting record - 90 percent with Bush - and his own Bush-on-steroids agenda.

    Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.


    He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.


    He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.


    He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.


    And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:


    "We will drill..."


    "We'll drill..."


    "More drilling..."


    McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.


    But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.


http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican


I agree Maher has anger management issues.
:)
You have about as much insight into the conservative party as you have into your severe anger issues
and not a clue how to do anything about either one.  Sad.
Try anger management. It worked for Adam Sandler. HEHE-joke!

SHE'S anger? Take a look at your posts. Hateful, nasty, full of sick glee for other humans beings

x


This is a really BIG mess....

instead of talk radio or Gore's electrice bill. I am referring to Libby's trial,


Well....he was convicted of perjury and if he in fact did lie under oath to the grand jury, he should go to jail.  That being said...why not pardon him?  Clinton was cited for exactly the same things...lying under oath (perjury) before a grand jury and obstruction of justice.  He is free as a bird, finished his term as President, making money hand over fist....yes, for that reason alone I think Libby should be pardoned to level the playing field again.  If liberals were happy that Clinton walked, they should not scream bloody murder if Bush does pardon Libby.  Because it is the very same thing and would expose the hypocrisy BIG time.  But, that has never stopped them before, has it? 


the firing of 8 judges,


I am having a hard time finding much usable information about this.  What I can find are various blogs that lean hard right or hard left and not much fact.  I saw where it was stated that they were fired for cause, citing one refused to file death penalty cases, one refused to file immigration cases, yada yada.  But I did not really find anything compelling and not in a blog that compelled me to fall either way on this.  I don't see any reason to think they were not fired for cause...don't see anything in writing to convince me either.


Pete Domineci,


If you are talking about the firing of David Iglesias, I am not much buying it that the administration fired him because of something he did or did not do back during the presidential election.  I can't find any evidence to prove that.  It is of concern to me that Iglesias held that information all this time, and now that he has been fired brings it forward.  He said himself, or at least was quoted as saying, he had no proof that his firing was related to that.  It sounds like sour grapes for being fired to me.  Typical, human reaction to being fired.  But because it is a political position, the sour grapes are made public.


the unnecessary and ever rising numbers of dead - everywhere, 40 towns in Vermont calling for impeachment (of course this won't go anywhere but the gesture is telling),


Nothing much to say about this.  Wars kill people.  Most of the Iraqi deaths are at the hands of other Arabs.  You can blame that on America if you wish.  I choose not to.  More Iraqis are coming forward and fingering the bad guys, and that is what it is going to take.  We have had a lot of successes.  Of course, you have to watch Fox to see them.  CNN studiously ignores such things as it does not fit their agenda.  As do the networks.  I hope you are not going to suggest that Fox has a soundstage where they fake the reports.


a pardon for Libby (and does he have to admit guilt to be pardoned which he has not done), the fact that Libby was the attorney to the much maligned Marc Rich who was pardoned by Clinton, which was also much maligned. Was Scooter as evil as Clinton for having defended him in his dealings with Iran and his tax evasion as Clinton was for pardoning him ??  If all this was just about infighting between the FBI and the administration and George Tenet, then why did Libby lie at all; wouldn't be important enough to lie about, IMHO. Throwing it out there.


This whole thing smacks of getting back, to me.  More interesting to me than Scooter and Marc, is Fitzgerald and Comey.  Fitzgerald and Comey were both prosecutors working on the Marc Rich case.  Obviously they were not happy when they were on the eve of an indictment when Rich ran (wonder who leaked to him that the indictment was imminent) and were even more UNhappy when Clinton pardoned him.  And who should be now prosecuting Scooter?  And who did most of the investigation?  Why, that would be Fitzgerald and Mr. Comey.  Which is why I think they went for Scooter's throat and did not indict the man who REALLY leaked the information, Richard Armitage.  Payback in politics is hael, my friend!!


No he isn't. He's trying to mess up
my debate party!
Yep...that's a mess....(sm)

I will have to admit though that I don't know that much about that aspect of it.  I do know there is some controversy surrounding the whole Hezbullah vs Hamas and Lebanon vs Gaza.  I obviously have some catching up to do on that one...LOL.


I do think, however, that Hamas kind of got a bad rap because they couldn't keep up with the demands for food, housing, etc, and particularly the distribution of aid....?  However, I also think that it's kind of hard to keep that flow of aid going when Israel is attacking incoming ships that carry that aid.  With that and the constant bombardment from Isreal in a military sense on the ground, I think it kind of put them on shaky ground to begin with.


I think in the end the success of whoever wins will be very dependent upon us being able to control Israel.


The only guy that made a mess is
So the ends justify the means when it come to rebpulicans, abuse of power and the ethically challenged ethics maid? Said it once, will say it again. Divorce/custody issues are typically played out in family courts without interference and manipulation of the Governor's office. Marginalized? Is that the best spin you can think of for cold, hard fact? No backs up against the wall here. You see, JM has made life a whole lot easier by his latest senior moment. This decision smacks of "he just doesn't get it." Alienated women with his token showcase and moved the party straight back to the far right. If there were any doubt that he would be 4 more years of the same before, now it is plain as the nose on his face. We knew he would self destruct sooner or later, but noone expected it would come in the form of his VP pick. Nothing petty and vindictive about it, but if you feel the need to insult, bash and vent a little, by all means, knock yourself out. You, like your candidates, are underestimating the Clintons, their supporters and their party. She may have the same genitalia, but she is about as far from Hillary as it gets.
why do you care what I think so much? (No/mess)
@
More on the Acorn mess....
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-democratic-acorn-bailout/
What a mess! More bad news about ....sm

the economy.  Cooporations starting to lay off and anticipate many more lay offs next year, affecting local and state governments, police, fire and rescue operations due to a fall in tax revenues, precipitating more foreclosures.  Wow, all frowning faces and gloom and doom.  I really think we are on a runaway train into the second great depression, something we have no idea about other than stories from our parents and grandparents.  Very scary.  I think that we MTs are pretty secure in our jobs but so many people's jobs are at risk. 


To top it all off, the treasury department has decided to not use our tax bailout money they way they promised, rather are taking a different tactic without telling any of us or congress.  I sure hope they know what they are doing because I sure don't understand it. 


 


Where are you hearing this mess? It's
absolutely not true. What, 1 or 2 whackjob republican electorates are nervous about it? LOL.

The BC is a NON-ISSUE, he won by a large margin, and he will be inaugurated. This has all gotten so SILLY.
Yeh, your' re right, he's gone and look at the mess he left!
But yet you people begrudge O taking his wife out for for dinner and theater (which he paid for), promoting and supporting the arts.  How dare he?  Ticket sales tripled the nights following their appearance there.  I'm quite sure the theater industry didn't hate the boost they got from that appearance.  Get over it.  Focus on something that is actually important.
You're a mess. nm
nm
Let's see if we can make a little sense out of this mess....
You said:
The subject is not the name of the proceedings, the intent of the inquiry, whether or not you think he should or should not be impeached or any of the other distractions you have thrown up in this thread.

Answer: I know what Dennis Kucinich says. It is not new. I have heard it. I have heard it from any number of Democrats. All I am saying is if they think they have the evidence to impeach him, why the heck don't they do it?? That is not a distraction, it is a valid question. I don't care what they call it...all I said was, what they are doing now, even the chairman said was not an impeachment hearing. HE said it, I didn't, so why don't you accuse HIM of throwing up distractions and circling around, yada yada. Perhaps because when Democrat throws up distractions and circles around that is fine in your books??

You said: You circled around the subject when you thought you could gain some traction/advantage when trying to refute the accusations against Bush regarding lying about WMDs/yellowcake uranium intelligence, trying to make it appear that total exoneration would be a piece of cake..as if that were the only thing the democrats have on the table.

Answer: Geez, stop putting words in my mouth and assigning agendas to me I don't have. In going and doing some of the research you shouted at me to do, I found excerpts from the impeachment-trolling-factfinding-whatEVER the heck makes you happy to call it committee, I found where one of the lone Republicans on the committee made mention of a document recently declassified by the CIA that supposedly corroroborates (and I said supposedly because I don't know, because I haven't seen it, because it is part of the blacked out stuff) Bush's story about Niger and yellowcake and exposes Joe Wilson's story about the same. I did not say it myself, and I did not make it up. One of the committee members said it. Yes, I would be interested in it. I would be interested in any evidence Kucinich has other than speechifying about it. That is why I would be interested in a real impeachment trial, if that is what they want, so we can hear from ALL witnesses, see ALL the documents, and make our OWN decisions. I want more that Kucinich's word and Vincent Bugliosi's book. I want the CIA declassified document and the whole ball of wax. I want people under oath when they testify. Although, after Bill Clinton, even that is not always helpful since he chose to lie anyway, but still...not everyone is willing to perjure himself/herself. If that means I have my head in the sand, so be it. LOL.

YOU SAID: The subject is the CONTENT of the hearings, otherwise known as the ISSUES. It makes no difference where you get them from. DK is the best when it comes to explaining the positions concisely. The prosecuting parties are all amazingly consistent in their identification of what their contentions are and how they back them up.

ANSWER: Well excuse me, but didn't I read the hearings were closed and blacked out? So how do you know what the content is??? As I said, I have heard what Kucinich says. It is not new with him. I just need more than his word for it.

YOU SAID: What you are refusing to do is examine the other side of the story (that is to say, the specifics as laid out by the democrats)...that side of the story that takes you out of that safe place where you always stay...

ANSWER: Look that that finger in the mirror, points right back at you. You are completely unwilling to entertain any thought that you, and these Democrats, might just be wrong. If I was terrified, as you state, or did not want to hear anything about Bush maybe being guilty, I would not be hawking for his impeachment. What you are doing is make me the enemy, classic attack mode. Turn that mode off and try to hear me this time: I DON'T KNOW if Bush lied. NOBODY does. I don't know if he did or he didn't, but I DO KNOW that I need more than Dennis Kucinich's word or interpretation of whatever evidence he has to believe that Bush lied. You are so consumed with hatred for the man and the so-called right wing that you are ready to move right to "you're guilty." You believe he is guilty and you have not heard any of the defense. You do not WANT to hear any of the defense. How, pray tell, is your attitude any different from the one you accuse me of? If this was a Democrat president instead of a republican president, would you be on here righteously indignant presupposing his guilt based on a Republican-dominated committee and a lawyer's book who was not even close to the events that took place? Of course you wouldn't! You would be here saying it was a railroad hatchet job. Don't bother denying it. It would ring pretty hollow.

YOU SAID: that support your arguments, making nice with those who agree with your ideas, the condescending "let me enlighten you" instructions (i.e., "read up on Marxism, but let me interpret it for you if you don't see it my way" passages) and the inevitable name-calling, innuendoes, half-truths, misprepresentations, statements taken out of context, jumping to far-fetched conclusions when making degrading statements about democrats, and the vitriol that issues forth in your endless Obama bashing.

ANSWER: Talk about throwing up a distraction. As to condescending, when that tone is used with me I respond in kind. If you don't like it, don't condescend to me.

As far as that other litany, it would apply to Dennis Kucinich and Vincent Bugliosi as well. If they have documentation and not opinion to back up what they are saying, then why (and please stop dodging this fundamentally important question as you have so artfully what, three times now?): If they have the evidence, all these "prosecutors," why don't they go to trial?? That is a simple question. Answer it, please. As I said, I would WELCOME a trial, where BOTH sides are heard, under oath, all the documents in evidence, and no opinion, just fact. I mean that. And if it was proven that Bush lied, that he cooked intelligence, abused executive privilege or whatever and they convict him he should be thrown out of office (which would be largely symbolic, doncha think, since he has what, about 3-4 months left? Sheesh). I have no problem with that. My question is why don't they do it?? And if they are unwilling to, why are you so incensed at me? It is not MY fault they won't impeach him.

You can sure see the splinter in my eye, but the timber in your own seems to escape you.

As to Obama bashing, I gave opinion on what are known facts. His association with Reverend Wright...his church's association with Louis Farrakhan...his church's black liberation theology...his radical way left pro abortion stance...all facts. There is plenty of McCain bashing going on too. I don't hear any righteous indignation on your part concerning McCain bashing. So it is okay to bash Republicans? I see.

YOU SAID: Obstruction is something the right-wingers have down to an art. You have mastered well.

Answer: Ahem. Seems like the Democrats are the obstructive ones. Last time I looked, Pelosi was a Democrat, and she is obstructing an impeachment. Take your rant to her where it might do some good. I would tell them if you think you have the goods, bring it on. Ms. Pelosi is obstructing that.

You said: At the same time, it is an extremely transparent and ineffective way to address issues that are vital to our country.

Answer: Issues vital to our country? Impeaching a president who only has 3 more months in office is vital to our country? For everyone to just assume dennis Kucinich and these prosecutors are telling the truth and the accused has no opportunity for defense? That sounds more like Russia than America.

You said: Clearly, you are unwilling to attempt to look at, let alone participate in any kind of real debate that excludes the tactics you use in these posts.

Answer: Debate involves both sides being willing to hear both sides. You are not willing to entertain the thought of Bush not being guilty. In fact, absolutely will not entertain it. I, on the other hand, said let's have the impeachment trial and get it all out in the open once and for all, both sides. That sounds like I am very willing to hear both sides. Unlike you.

YOU SAID: That would involve actually knowing what you are talking about...and the only way to get that is to peek inside the hearings and focus on the ISSUES under discussion. Somehow this seems to terrify you. No problem. There are plenty of places beyond this forum where really informed discourse is available.

Answer: Peeking inside hearings where only one side is presented is NOT debate, and it is NOT the way to find the truth. Anyone with a reasoning OPEN mind sees that. Impeachment would be televised. We would hear testimony first hand. We could see documents first hand. None of this behind the door whispering stuff. Get it ALL out in the open. THAT seems to terrify you, not me. Seems to terrify Democrats, otherwise Nancy Pelosi would not be blocking it. That is common sense.

As to knowing what I am talking about...you only know what Dennis Kucinich is talking about and what little leaks out of those closed hearings. One-sided without anything from the other side. That is decided UNdemocratic for someone who calls himself/herself a Democrat. I am just amazed that you cannot see that everything you accuse me of, you are in spades. LOL. Amazing.

You said: Go head. Stick your head in the sand, and keep it there, if that's what makes you happy. That's what a comfort zone is...a world where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know.

Answer: Sheesh. Dial it back a notch will ya. You just described yourself to a tee. "Your comfort zone where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know." You have basically been lecturing to me paragraph after paragraph that you know all there is to know, YOU know the truth, and I just refuse to see it. You say honest debate, yet you have no intention of entertaining any such thing. If you did, you would want to hear both sides in an open forum. You don't. You want a select committee comprised of majority partisan Democrats calling witnesses they know are going to support their aim without asking anyone who might refute any of it...come ON. Talk about transparent. Lynch mob mentality, hang him and ask questions later. All this drama over a man who is leaving office in 3 months. All this anger....

I will try to say this again, and maybe you can dial back your disdain and condescencion just long enough to hear it...I have stated emphatically and will state it again: I DON'T know all there is to know. I have heard stuff from both sides, both sides equally convinced of innocent and guilt, but neither able to prove it definitively. Which is why I said...impeach the man. If you feel like they have the goods, then you should be lobbying the Democratic leadership not to block impeachment, little obstructionists that they are. Let's get it ALL out in the open. Both sides. ALL of it. And if they are not willing to do it...then in my opinion, they should fold their tent and HUSH. And that is the difference between you and me...if this was a Democratic President I would be saying the same thing to a Republican committee...if you aren't going to do anything other than a political exercise, fold up your tents and HUSH.