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 Has the country decided not to hold any more elections
Was 2008 the very last election? I thought every four years there is an election. I also thought, according to past elections, that people should not just assume someone will win. They assumed Gore would win and he didn't, they assumed Kerry would win and he did not. Hence I would not assume Obama will win a second term. If he turns out to be a good president and we still have elections in 4 years, and nothing happens between now and then, then and only then will he most likely be re-elected. But since the guy has not even been sworn in yet and made any major decisions I would not be so bold as to just go on like he's going to be in for eight years. There is that slight possibility that he could very well be a crappy president like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (especially with all the people he is picking for his cabinet). I know the country is ready for a change and GW hasn't been the best, but until a man serves in the office we don't know what kind of a president he will be.
Unless of course you have heard something that none of us have heard and there will never be any more elections in the future. I have heard and read that Obama is a socialist, and maybe we are heading toward the same thing Cuba faces. The leader just appoints himself to the office every time. So maybe that is what you are referring to.
they can't hold a candle to the Democratic Underground or Moveon.org.
Those two are evil incarnate.
Who were the 'original' inhabitants of Palestine
and who took the land away from whom?'
If I follow HISTORY, it was the Jews who took the land away from the Palestilnians in 1948 and made a further attack on Arab land in 1967.
What you call 'stirring up this conflict' is the constant attempt of the Palestinians wanting their land back.
Historical documentation:
Gaza, a tiny landstrip along the Mediterranean sea, was 'given' to the Palestinians.
Last year Israel attacked Gaza, making it a massacre, killing and injuring thousands and thousands of Palestinians.
This all History, not Propaganda.
Until you acknowledge the occupation
the specifics of your arguments have no standing or credibility and merit no comment. Doomed is what they are and by their own hand, not Hamas, not the Palestinians, but by themselves.
I don't think your occupation is a prerequisite
Whether she used government money or not that's her business. Many people use government money for things they should not. Just because this gal decided to in vitro to have her children does not make her a criminal. I still don't get what makes her any different? She is no better or worse than anyone else who abuses the welfare/workers' comp/unemployment system. I know people that are getting unemployment and could care less about looking for a job; they sicken me!!! Let's get real here!
My hand's up. I've lived in Palestine.
Not Israel, Palestine. I first arrived in the region September 29, 1982 in Madaya, a village near the border of Syria and Lebanon. You may recall that was 16 days after the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. My husband was involved in the humanitarian aid efforts there.
In case you do not recall, let me remind you. In accordance with an internationally brokered peace deal, Palestinians had surrendered their weapons and were deported from Beirut, leaving their families under the protection of a peace keeping force. The Israeli army invaded Beirut, violating the peace treaty, and some 3000 defenseless Palestinian women and children were rounded up in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila and were systematically murdered in cold blood. Israel killed more than 30,000 civilians in Beirut in the 1982 invasion and a half million people were driven from their homes.
Tens of thousands of them landed in Madaya. I was there with my husband for 19 months and watched as they administered the programs to relocate those refugees. During that time, we traveled to Nablus, Ramallah and Rafah and spent about 3 months in each place.
of the United Kingdom in the early 20th century who made conflicting promises to both sides of the dispute and then turned the whole mess over to the U.N. in 1947. Then the U.N. then put their stamp of approval on a two-state resolution to the conflict which the palestinians rejected and then attacked the Israelis. They lost. It is as simple as that. They lost and then when other Arab nations decided to invade Israel (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon) they lost too.
I want the truth. I don't care if a plumber or non-plumbar, plant or no plant was there. He didn't do anything wrong except expose the O for what he is. Out of O's own mouth - were going to take the money you earn by working and spread it around to the people who are not working because it's not fair that they aren't making what you are.
Occupation is the ultimate terrorist act.
Let's get something straight here. Israel is the occupier and Palestine is the occupied. Steal their land, blockade their supplies, invade them, kill and maim them, impose a police state, sabotage their economy and THEN call them the terrorists...self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever heard one. You have not one leg to stand on here. Terrorism breeds terrorism. Israel has not only cornered the marked on chaos in Palestine, but throughout the region as well. Bloodshed is their middle name. They wrote the book on savagery.
No dear. Perhaps massacres turn you on, but they certainly do not make me giddy. Nobody twisted my arm when I formulated my opinions on this issue, since it is based on my own life experiences, just like yours are. Wanna talk monsters? From where I sit, those would be the Israeli population who sits idly by in their complicity and turn a blind eye to the moral outrage on which they base their nationalism. That's the only thing that burns me.
Israel kicks the holy heck out of itself every time it goes on another one of its bloody rampages. The whole rest of the world, with the exception of the US (whose motives are none too clean either) abhors this behavior and no amount of self-righteous indignation is going to change that fact. My other post already addressed the sheer folly of your suicide bomber reference.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the objective of Hamas missile fire is to bring attention of the world back to Palestine, the long forgotten and ignored, but as long as they are occupied, it is not that difficult to understand why they would like to blow Israel off the face of the earth. Since you are not in charge of Hamas militia, you hardly can pretend to be able to predict their future operations, except to parrot the endless propaganda you hear on US mainstream media.
As far as the Stone Age is concerned, Israel would like to think of itself as being all modern and civilized, but they can never join those ranks as long as they remain the occupying war criminals they have been since day one. Wanders the desert for 40 years before occupation of the land
now known as Israel. The palestinians which were sent into exile are in the millions. Even my Jewish friends agree that Israel is being ruthless (they have the right to protect themselves, they say. This is what they should have done before the Holocaust. Jewish guilt stems from their failure to do so, resulting in their loved ones miserable deaths).
And, the world waited for a long time during the Holocaust before acting. Where was America and England, they must have thought. Years went by and they suffered tremendously. And the strongest survived - and the Jews do remember they were ignored at their time of need by the entire world - that in itself would justify in their minds a lack of loyalty to any other country other than Israel.
They call it worst security glitch to date in state's voting machines and a 'big deal'
By Stephanie Desmon Sun reporter
May 12, 2006
Computer security experts say they have found the worst security flaw yet in the oft-criticized touch-screen machines that Maryland voters will use in this year's elections, leaving one computer scientist to warn that the state should have stacks of paper ballots on hand in case of a complete Election Day breakdown.
The machines, made by Diebold Elections Systems, are much, much easier to attack than anything we've previously said, said Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer science professor who first cast doubt on the reliability of the technology in a 2003 report.
On a scale of one to 10, if the problems we found before were a six, this is a 10. It's a totally different ballgame, he said.
The new problem is being described as an intentional hole left in the system to allow elections workers to update voting software easily. Instead of using pass codes or other security protocols, anyone with access to a voting machine could install new software that could easily disable a precinct full of machines, Rubin said.
Diebold officials say they are aware of the situation and, although they say any problem can be avoided by keeping a close watch on voting machines, they are developing a permanent fix.
Still, said company spokesman David K. Bear, it's one more what-if scenario. ... It's becoming somewhat ridiculous.
Maryland elections officials said they have known about the latest concerns for two weeks and will have an independent security consultant look into them next week to ensure that the state's Diebold machines are safe.
We are taking steps, said state elections administrator Linda H. Lamone. She said she is confident that the problem will have little effect in Maryland because of strict rules about who is permitted to handle voting machines in the state. Everyone that has access to them has to undergo a criminal background check, she said.
Before the Diebold machines were distributed statewide about two years ago, questions arose about whether hackers might be able to get into the automated-teller-like computers and alter their software, allowing multiple votes, vote-switching and other problems.
Computer experts, including Rubin, said security measures were insufficient and poorly designed. Activists pushed to add a paper ballot component to the machines in case a recount was needed.
Still, the state moved forward and nearly every voter in Maryland used a touch-screen machine in the 2004 presidential election. There were few complaints or problems.
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. called on the state this year to abandon its touch-screen machines, saying he had no confidence in the technology, in part because lawmakers adopted other voting changes such as early voting.
He put money into his budget to pay for optical scan machines, which were used in the state for years before 2004. The General Assembly did not approve a voting machine switch during this year's session, which ended last month.
Rubin said he fears that the latest security problem could be serious enough to cause an Election Day meltdown that could put precincts of machines out of action. He recommends that counties have a pen-and-paper alternative on hand as insurance.
Joseph M. Getty, the governor's legislative and policy director, called the newly disclosed security flaw not really a new problem.
It's the same problem of vulnerability to outsiders, he said.
Getty said the latest Diebold problem bolsters the administration's case against early voting, which was approved by the legislature last year. He said any security risk can be minimized in one day of voting but is multiplied when machines are in public use for six days.
Michael Shamos, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University and a Pennsylvania voting machine examiner, pushed his state, which will have a primary election next week, to lay out strict new rules for installing software and sealing machines for safety.
It's a big deal. It's a very big deal, Shamos said. The good part is it's very easy to fix. You have to repair it. You can't just do nothing. ... It's not just like leaving the key to your door under the mat. It's like leaving the key dangling from a string from the door.
The temporary fix, Shamos said, involves reinstalling the proper software just before the election, preferably in a public setting, then locking the machines to keep them from being tampered with before voting begins.
In 2004, Shamos testified on behalf of the state of Maryland in a suit filed by a citizens group asking a court to compel the state to address possible security problems and give voters the option of using paper ballots instead of the new machines. The state won.
If I had known about this problem then, I wouldn't have had good things to say, he said.
The latest security hole was discovered by Finnish computer scientist Harri Hursti, who was doing work in Utah for Black Box Voting Inc., a nonprofit group that has focused on computerized voting.
Most computer scientists don't want to disclose too many details about the problem because they fear that would provide hackers with the tools needed to cause havoc during an election. They waited many weeks before making their findings public.
We were worried the threat was so serious that if the details were to get out, someone could actually do it, Rubin said.
The financial crisis is happening NOW and has to be handled NOW. Our country is collapsing. If we do not do some sort of bail out, we all will still suffer from this. The value of the dollar will go down. It will be much much harder and pretty much impossible for some to get loans from banks. This means people won't be buying anything big like vehicles, homes, etc. That will ruin sales even more than it is now. Car companies will have to cut back on production because people can't get loans to buy. The car dealers will start closing down because you can't make money if you can't sell vehicles. Think of the jobs lost right there and that is just with vehicles.
I don't feel that we should have to foot the bill. I'm totally disgusted that our government has allowed it to get this far out of wack but we have to do something to get money back into the market. If we do nothing, the consequence will be horrific. We have to do something and we have to do something fast and that is more important than a debate especially since we have until November for elections.
why, I don't know. It could be that the post office changed our street address 4 times yet lived here since ྈ. I wasn't on the list even though I've been registered since 1988 and voted every election. All of a sudden, I had to fill out a special form to vote. Last local primary, they wouldn't let me vote and I had to re-register. Stupid!
This year I called to make sure I was registered and they said yes. Got a new registration card with the old address on it, but no trouble this year. I was #235 at 7:30 a.m.
The McCain/Palin GOP is already in the process of stealing the Ohio vote, as was done in 2004. Among those at the center of the GOP strategy is Bush Family computer operative Michael Connell, who programmed the key vote counting mechanisms that were used to give George W. Bush his second term.
Those 2 elections didn't leave a
shred of honesty in our election process. As I recall in 2000 GWB declared himself to be president before he was declared the winner wrongly. And people talk about Obama's b/c and want to know the "truth" about that. I'd like to know the truth about the 2000 and 2004 elections and then I might be willing to talk about the "truth" of O's b/c.
you mean the same way Hillary stole the elections in certain states
with those machines manufactured by people who supported her. I know New York was one of the states and I would have to research the other states.
This is why there should be no machines involved. How about paper votes. How about a piece of paper with two name and a picture of each of them next to their name. This way if you cant read english you will recognize the person. Then you have a box next to it, put an X, a check, or even fill in the box and let people handcount the votes (no chads). I'd rather wait a day or two to find out who won and know it is a legitimate vote.
2 elections stolen? baloney. Meaningless war? Go
nm
Hallelujah! Leftists in EU elections across Europe are
Don't think this will go unnoticed on this side of the pond as well. Obama's numbers shriveling, the Democratic-dominated Congress even worse numbers...and the Republican gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey, of all places, is leading the Democrat incumbent by double digits in the polls. Those who crowed prematurely about the demise of conservatism are going to find that the toe tag has been switched - and they're the ones who will end up wearing it. Why? Because they got above themselves and WENT TOO FAR. It's so true, isn't it - "pride goeth before a fall".
Conservatives Racing Ahead in EU Parliamentary Elections:
'Iran does not allow international election monitors. During the 2005 election, when Ahmadinejad won the presidency, there were some allegations of vote rigging from losers, but the claims were never investigated.'
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Lee Green did not monitor the elections, Jimmy Carter did.
Lee Green is the director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting) which is a Pro-Israeli American Media Monitor. I prefer to read a book and make up my own mind and certainly am not surprised that Zionist critics would hate Carter and the truths he exposed in his book. They can protest to their heart's content, but they can't turn lies into truth.
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?
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 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.
Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. :)
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.
marks the location of current message within thread
