|
|
They wanted Bush to do that and he said no because it would lower the value of our dollar. What do you mean? I thought that was what Bush wanted to do. nm It was BUSH and MCCAIN who wanted to not the dems, check your facts If Bush wanted to lead s/m I think a nice black tie BBQ would have satisfied protocol. Beer goes real well with BBQ and it doesn't cost $300 a bottle. Maybe Bush is still clinging to "the economy is fundamentally sound." Maybe he'd like to tell that to my single parent neighbor who was laid off from her manufacturing job yesterday after 15 years because they're moving the plant to MEXICO. 
Actually, Bush SAID he wanted to close Gitmo...(sm) but he rejected every proposal for closing it and DID nothing about it, claiming it would be too difficult. A president saying that something is too difficult isn't exactly reassuring BTW. Meanwhile, he made use of it, which completely contradicted his supposed intentions of closing it. You also really can't complain about other countries not wanting to take prisoners into their countries when we weren't willing to take them either, and they are OUR prisoners. I think actions speak louder than words. 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
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved (Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?) Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology. Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies. Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently. The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget. Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short. They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said. Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future. I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength. Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely. The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer. The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year. The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives. Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said. Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said. Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them. Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl. For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights. A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001. A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions. Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed. It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it. Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved. There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said. Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes. It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said. The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings. Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said. Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money. ___ Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story. 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. Bush didn't do anything before it was not a democratic congress. . More scared of congress and senate than Bush. x 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. Right! Bush leadership and republican congress tanked us nm 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? Anger at Bush is well justified - he and his Republican Congress put us in this mess...nm r U.S. Troops Secured Baghdad Rally for Hezbollah...sm So our troops are in Iraq securing an anti-American rally. Can someone shed some logic on this whole thing? ------------------------------------------------ U.S. Troops Secured Baghdad Rally for Hezbollah U.S. troops provided some of the security for the rally in Baghdad today where thousands of Iraqi Shiites demonstrated for Hezbollah: Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr summoned his followers around the country to attend a mass rally today in the city's Sadr City district in support of the Shiite militants of Hezbollah battling Israeli troops in southern Lebanon. Iraqi government television said the Defense Ministry had approved the demonstration, a sign of the public anger over Israel's offensive in Lebanon and of al-Sadr's stature as a major player in Iraqi politics. Crowds of young men began arriving in eastern Baghdad's Sadr City late Thursday and were housed in mosques and Shiite community centers. U.S. Army vehicles guarded approaches to the slum to prevent clashes between Shiite and Sunni extremists. Dressed in white shrouds to indicate their willingness to die for the cause, demonstrators waved Hezbollah flags and chanted death to Israel and death to America: I consider my participation in this rally a religious duty. I am proud to join this crowd and I am ready to die for the sake of Lebanon, said Khazim al-Ibadi, 40, a government employee from Hillah. Al-Sadr followers painted U.S. and Israeli flags on the main road leading to the rally site, and demonstrators stepped on them with relish. Alongside the painted flags was written: These are the terrorists. So the U.S. is simultaneously supplying bombs to Israel for use against Hezbollah; encouraging a ceasefire to stop the bombing; working with Sunni Arab states who fear a Shiite alliance across Iran, Iraq and Lebanon; propping up a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government; and protecting Iraqis eager to join Hezbollah and wipe Israel off the map. No matter which side you've taken in the Middle East, America is on your side. Protecting borders? We went to Iraq to protect our borders? That is a new one! Why did we go to Iraq? WMD? There werent any. Getting Saddam (heaven knows why..there are terrible leaders in other countries that are much more threatening..i.e., N. Korea, Iran). Well, we got him. So, why are we still there? We are there because our goal has always been to control the Middle East and it's oil. Of course, the American people would not have sacrificed their children in war for those reasons, so Bush had to scare the American people into war. We walked right into the terrorists web by invading Iraq. Gave them a reason to fight us. We are in a country where we dont belong. We need to leave. Set a time table, train the Iraqis to take care of their own country and leave. Protect our borders? How about protecting the border from USA to Mexico. Or USA to Canada. Those are borders that will affect us right here on our soil. The Iraq invasion was a major mistake. This murderous administration knows it but, of course, Bush never backs down on anything, even when he is dead wrong and forget about ever admitting he made a mistake about anything or apologize for something. This war is wrong and history will show this and Bushs legacy will not be kind. You don't need military at our borders..... that's against our constitution. That's what our National Guard is for, to protect OUR borders. Combat military is not supposed to be involved in this country. I do not want our troops on the borders of my country; I want our national guard sent down to do what they are supposed to do, protect our country against foreign invasion. I am sick to death of paying for illegals and their anchor babies by the thousands and thousands.... Good question.....why is our country allowing this and then punishing our agents to shoot one of them. Maybe more shooting would stop a lot of their illegal trespassing into our country if they knew they would be shot. Your animosity borders on psychosis. I want secure borders to keep out terrorists and illegals... Having lived in a border state and, now, even further north, it is evident that illegal immigrants are taking over our country. We are in a financial crisis and yet, much of a social service money goes to those who do not even pay taxes on the money they earn. They sure as heck spend our taxes, though. I am not against immigrants, just those who do not do it legally. There are certain hoops that need to be jumped through and, I bleieve, are well worth it to live in this great country. 'over there', everything is interwovn, intermingled, intertwined, no borders!..nm nm I never said I wanted the government to take care of everything and everybody. I want the government to be responsible to its citizens. They work for us. Expecting elderly retirees to get a job or go to college is ridiculous. These people deserve better. I am not complaining about my life. I am reiterating to you what I see here in the Sunshine State. It is all about money all the time. Many people I know will be able to regroup and hold their lives together but I don't understand why the collapse of the middle class is just all right with you. That is my point. No need to go into the pull yourself up by your bootstraps argument. We will never see eye to eye on that. This is about our country being in debt out the wazoo, borrowing money from China to fight a war no one wants in Iraq and middle class people being downsized into poverty. It is not about being lazy or having choices. It is about the sad sorry state of our union. Yep, just like the DNC wanted you to... to move the cLintons on their way out. The DNC did not want Hillary from the get-go, and the media helped them accomplish it. And here you are rewarding them by electing the perps. LOL. sigh. Poor Hillary...pilloried by her own. Thank you - that was all I wanted to know (sm) sad how many people don't know the answer and just want to dismiss it without even knowing though. Just wanted to add I in no way mean to indicate that everyone receiving any type of public aid spends the whole day watching soaps and eating bon bons. Just that a large portion of them (at least in my area) do just that and have lived off it for years as opposed to using it as a temporary crutch while they try to get back on their feet. Yep, I know....just wanted to be sure all... of the information was out there and that what Bush did is vastly different than what Obama is proposing. And apparently it is working because they are lining up for the ice cream and defending him right down the line...lol. Just wanted to say.................. sm Merry Christmas! That's not what I wanted to see. DH has been talking about moving there for a couple years. He loves Canada. I hate the cold. Think I'm going to show this to him? Nah. I just wanted to say thanks. This is the first time that a discussion on same sex marriage has been a good discussion without personal attacks, etc. Thanks for sharing your point of view with me. I wanted to, but DH said no. We have 50 tomato plants in containers, 25 pepper plants (green, hot, hotter, and hotter then he!!), 10 potato plant containers (x6 cuttings in each), and 10 containers of cukes. The only thing we planted in the ground was beans, onions, and radishes. All doing fantastic. Already have a hot pepper and some tomatoes and this weather sucks this year, only 60 damp, dreary, rainy all week...again. Surprised the plants are doing so well. We also have about 5 tomato plants coming up in the ground from last year. I was wondering how your garden was doing. Thanks for letting me know. Well, call me what you want, but I wanted to know. I say use God's name when you're speaking the truth. If it's truth point it out to me. What I wanted to know to start with... is how can I know that Democrats/liberals/the left, WHOEVER, will keep this country safe, when half of them deny there is a threat and the other half have no idea how to deal with it? What I said it was not political, I meant it. Both sides should be trying to protect this country, but frankly I only see one who seems to understand the threat. As I have said numerous times, I am not a registered Repbulican. I am not thrilled with any party in this country right now, but I have to register as SOMETHING to vote, so I am registered independent. Yes, I am conservative, I have conservative moral values and I believe if we had stuck closer to moral values we would have a lot fewer issues these days, but I digress. My concern is, Dem, that I don't think your party and many of its members grasp what a real threat radical Muslims are, and if you don't perceive the threat you don't take steps to fight it, and that is the reason I referred to Clinton, because in all honesty I do not think he perceived the threat. I do not want to think that he did and ignored it. And my point is, I don't think your party to this day perceives the enormity of the threat, and yes, that scares me. This is not rhetoric. This is the way I, me, personally, feel and has nothing to do with left or right Dems or Republicans, other than the Republicans do seem to have a better grasp on the threat than the Dems do. What I would like to see is America united against the threat, with politics out of it. That is what I would REALLY like to see. Yes I did, and I never said I wanted free... healthcare for myself. I want free or more affordable cost healthcare for American children. My children are already covered. My husband has worked for the same company for over 12 years, and he has decent insurance. You are impossible to argue with because you refuse to admit that we can afford $333 MILLION PER DAY FOR A WAR IN IRAQ, AND WE CAN AFFORD $19 MILLION PER DAY FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE. How are your taxes going to be raised to 70% of your income for the health care? Have they been raised that high for the war? NO, so your argument is not valid. Just wanted to say I agree with you. sm Thanks for saying it. I think it bears repeating: We are animals too (sorry, can't say I care what it does or doesn't say about that in the Bible), the human race is highly overrated LOL, and yeah, what about population control?! Humans are already using up 30% more of the Earth's resources each year than the Earth can replace (according to a report by Anderson Cooper I saw some months back), and that's at the current worldwide population, which is only expected to increase. What ARE we going to do when we run out of space, and food, water, trees...? If we're not animals and we're "above" them, we should be smarter about the Earth and all the creatures on it than we have been, and I just don't see the evidence for that. someone wanted to see SP interview? well sunday night on fox, greta vansusteren will interview her. greta is a v. good interviewer too, (with good questions, listens to the answers, etc, if you are not familiar with her). THe way he was smirking....I would not have wanted to... look at him either. Not very Presidential. lol. When did I say I wanted to live in a Socialist society. I don't. Neither do I want an unstable person with a fiery temper with his hand on the nuke button. I think he meant he wanted it available to everyone - he never said he would require you to buy what the government offered - that was more Hillary's plan. He just says he wants it available if you don't have insurance. If China wanted to do that...(sm) they would have already done it when the economic crisis hit. We already owe them tons of money. I think they would make out better collecting interest off us than spending their resources trying to "control" us, which would eventually lead to yet another war. What I think should be in the bill is help for those who need it immediately (the ones who have already lost jobs and extending state funds to make budgets) and infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure, green job advancement. This can't be outsourced, it generates revenue, it provides jobs, and its needed. The more people we put back to work or keep at work, the better chance we have of paying these bills off through taxable income. I know it looks like an enormous amount of money to be going into debt for (and it is), but at this point I don't think we have any choice. If you want to talk national security, a depression would leave us much more vulnerable than being in debt. Being vulnerable is not an option at this point. Whoever wanted what.., the fact.. is that from 1995 to 2001, the Republicans were in control of Congress with a Democratic president, and from 2001 to only 2 or 3 years ago, there was both a Republican president and a Republican congress. So, I think it's pretty obvious what party to point a finger at for the economic mess we are in now, not to mention the other problems. Also, the majority of the bad loans that turned sour were not made to simple homeowners, but speculators and 2nd home buyers. How many people do you know that are losing their actual home? And how many do you know that are losing a 2nd home or investment properties? Compare the figures and you will see. Personally, I don't know of anyone personally losing their actual home. But I know of a dozen or so personally who are losing their investment properties. Maybe she wanted an Ipod? LOL...sm http://mediamatters.org/items/200904020002 Can you possibly be more trivial? It is about what the PEOPLE want - and they wanted this Finally the legislators vote what the people want!!! I wanted actually to know your thoughts. Not an article. nm ? In one paragraph you have not only told me more than I ever wanted to know. You have outlined and described in perfect detail the problem with why your arguments can never be recognized as anything but dividing. Gt, believe me, this is not all about you, which it always seems to end up being about in your posts. The fact that you refuse, not fail, but refuse to accept anything, any explanation, any single example of the image you project as well as your close-minedness, is illustrated in every post that you make. Yeah, you're right...but if he really wanted ... publicity he could have had Britney Spears' guy design him a set and he could have announced it from there. For people who wanted me banned .... you certainly want to continue to engage me. There is media bias. They want Obama elected. They did it to Hillary too, just not to this degree. How is this coming out swinging? How is this different from posting pro Obama items? Are you really this intolerant? McNasty wanted to suspend the RNC, too., sm because of the hurricane. Guess he's going to be The Suspender! There's more to this than meets the eye. He's running scared, poor old man. Poster below is correct: He needs to learn how to multitask--that's what the presidency is all about. Personally, I'm looking forward to the Biden/Palin debate. Since she compares herself to a pitbull, hunts helpless animals from a helicopter, stuck "her" 3-day-old infant under her desk so she could work, I hope he rips her a new one! She ain't no lady and certainly does not have my respect. Have you ever thought maybe she wanted a baby My cousin at 16 wanted a baby. Her parents tried talking her out of it. Explained what her life would be like. Told her about safe sex, birth control, etc. She still got pregnant and had a beautiful baby and she's a good mother. My other cousin (her sister) wanted a baby. Again my aunt and uncle talked to her. At 17 she had her baby and she is a wonderful mother. So think people....it is possible her daughter wants a baby. Especially if all of her friends are having babies. If you really wanted to you would have put Clinton on the ticket. nm Good grief is right. I just wanted to read any cases he cited myself because this is a very gray area and I would like a better understanding of the law. Excuse me for asking for cases. |
|||||||
 |
 |
||||||
marks the location of current message within thread
