Where are you hearing this mess? It's
Posted By: sm on 2008-11-29
In Reply to: December 15th............. sm - m
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.
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
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. 
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
hearing a lot
Reporters do hear a lot. What they don't do is think a lot. A corporation, lobbyist or politican speaks, and they faithfully write it down without ever questioning the truth or intent of the information they've been given (scrunching up your brow to look like you're "asking the tough questions" doesn't count). They're the best transcriptionists in the business!
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.
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.
And I bet you voted for George who got us in this mess.
Hiliary could have handled this. Obama is our only hope. Taxes is the issue people and you know what mccan't will do - give the rich their tax breaks along with corp america, cut funding to states, causing state taxes to go up. Oh yeah, McCann is not working for you, and your support of him is a slap in the face of middle america.
It didn't bother them to cause this mess....
won't bother them to perpetuate it. Amazing...and people just lap it up. Amazing, ain't it?
distraction. don't let it mess your mind.
nm
It was too lenient on the ones that caused this mess (sm)
That's why it didn't pass last week. It was too one-sided.
There is absolutely nothing in the entire mess this
Their greed, and the greed of those who so stalwartly support every move they make, is the root of most of the problems we face today.
It's not my party. Clean up your own mess....
oh...what am I thinking. You don't see any mess. Got it.
Don't have a range rover; 6 cylinder jeep. No leather. don't smoke, never have.
Class envy is really ugly.
The subprime mess sm and iraq too
Really started about 5 years ago when the mortgage brokers were given money incentives to sign on subprime even to people who qualified for conventional loans. They fraudulently did not offer the conventional loans to people who didn't even need subprime. It was all about the commissions. And your precious GW is the one who kicked off the loans with NO DOWN PAYMENT...!!! He saw this mess coming and he figured SS dollars going into wall st, which he TRIED TO DO in 2005 but got voted down... he figured our SS money would bail out Wall St.
Yes, so I do blame him. I also blame him for pretending this Iraq war was for our security when it was about oil and cheney getting richer and oil men getting richer. $350 million a day and thousands of young people's lives lost. For what? He pretended there were WMD which there were not. He pretended it was related to 911, which it was not. Bunch of dips following him, waving a flag, when he has dragged our beautiful country way down.
I found this interesting too. What a mess this will
nm
It will take a long time to get out of this mess.
That is for certain. I don't blame it on the unions though. My family (not my husbands) have been involved with unions for years and I see it as a positive thing.
I do have a problem with the higher-ups in these companies pulling in millions and using company jets, etc. for personal needs. Instead of laying off 50 factory workers they could do away with 5 high-paid workers. It's a well known statement that the higher up you get, the more you deligate and less work you do - in any company. The middle class is falling away and this needs to stop. Perfect example, the guy from GM (I think) making his way to ask for bailout money in the companies private jet. What kind of hotel you think these people have been staying in while fighting to stay out of bankruptcy - probably enough to pay a few factory workers wages for a month or two.
He was hired to SOLVE the mess.
nm
and you blame Obama for this mess?
Oh... God forbid... going on Leno resulted in thousands of dead and more thousands maimed Americans in an illegal war that put us where we are now. Americans forgotten. Earth forgotten. Money he does not have? GW spent money he did not have to murder. At least Obama's intentions are inherently not evil.
So much more I could say, but it would go on deaf ears.
One of the reasons you are not hearing as much sm
about the Republicans, especially the current administration, is that they have been very effective at almost completely shutting up any voices of dissent. When Clinton was in office we heard about him nonstop.
I'm hearing that a lot today
I've been all over the internet today and everywhere I go I'm seeing woman who feel like McCain is being condescending to women by throwing out this nobody who is ruby red as they come and expecting to get women voters just because of it, especially Hillary followers. These women are insulted and now finally have both feet firmly on the Obama train.
I read this too after hearing that he had...sm
orchestrated the negative ads this last week, now he is saying he disapproves? Maybe this is a tactic to deflect our attention? Very suspicous. Since when does he have a consious?
Well, instead of hearing why don't you read
xx
sick of hearing he was
only 8 years old when Ayers was making bombs. I was about 8 when Charles Manson and his goons killed Sharon Tate and others. I don't feel like sending old Charley a birthday card let alone sitting in his living room or jailcell in his case.As far as I am concerned Ayers should be in jail too!
Actually, what I remember hearing about was ....sm
that it would be like our own personal savings account. I would much rather have that, than have the govt have their hands in my SS pocket, using my SS as they have been doing, and putting the IOU away in a drawer somewhere.
Not sure what his current plan is or if it has changed, but if I get to control my own SS money, I'm all for it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/17/mccain-social-security/
There is no hearing today.
Your statement here is patently inaccurate. The SC is not taking the case. For the sake of not wasting too much time on this fairy tale, I am posting this article link that can explain that better than I can.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/supreme-court-not-considering-obamas-birth-certificate-case/
You will notice that the article clearly states that the merits of the claims will not be heard (essentially because there are no merits).
For an excellent explanation on the Supreme courts porn king/sexually harassing above-the-law judge's motivations for his "lone wolf" move to attempt to shove this nonsense down the throats of his fellow jurists, read this:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/83953
Here is an excellent article that discussed the underlying pathology of conspiracy theorists:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/
You are mistaken about the timing of this "knowledge." Unfortunately, the citizens of this country learned of this lunacy long before the Nausea or vomiting 4 election. In fact, Berg's lawsuit emerged the minute it became apparent that Hillary was not going to win in the primaries (08/22/2008). Andy Martin's failed action occurred 10/17/2008. Steven Marquis' impotent attempt occurred on 10/18/2008. David Neal's action fell flat on its face 10/24/2008. Your delusional statement about "many people" is a fabrication that I notice you have not backed up with any sort of credible source.
There is no truth to fight for, fool. The conspiracy theorists who are the driving force behind this abomination are scam bags who are picking your pockets to keep this stupidity alive....and you are marching lock-step alongside one another and coughing up.
The rest of the stuff you have included in your post is nothing more that regurgitation of garbage that has been answered at least a thousand times already. My advice to you is not to hold your breath waiting for the SC justices to show the same sort of self-serving interest in usurping clean and legitimate election results as Clarence the porn king Thomas has in these actions. Out of 842 cases in the last 8 years, they have dismissed 782 of them and heard only 60....and not all of those heard succeeded.
If that was true then there would be no hearing
"The Supreme Court does not want to touch this with a 10 foot pole"??????
Hellooooooo, are you keeping up on current events. They are taking this case on. They are listening to the people who have the lawsuits in action. They are demanding that Barry show his original vault BC (which he has sealed so nobody can see it) and he is defying the Supreme Court.
The citizens of this country did not find out about all this stuff until the election was over, and a lot are saying if we knew this back then, we would not have voted for the guy.
It's time to wake up, just because you don't want anything to happen and want your god in there there are others who don't. Others who are fighting to find out the truth.
All they keep saying is "If you are legal and were born in Hawaii SHOW US YOUR CERTIFICATE". He has not done so and he had it (along with school records and other stuff) legally sealed. That speaks volumes in telling the public there is something seriously wrong here.
I myself will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court. BTW, just in case you haven't heard the news, they are meeting about it and listening to the cases. And if a certain number of the justices believe there is validity to it then the electorates will not be allowed to vote until the issue is resolved.
I have been hearing that O plan
of sharing the wealth will put us in the GREAT DEPRESSION just like back when Hoover was in office, exept this time, it will be worse because many more people make more than 100,000 a year than they did years ago. So basically it will be spreading the wellfare around.
I"m hearing it and why shouldn't they
get money for a bailout? Wall Street and the banks did, but WS and the banks are HOLDING ONTO the money for BONUSES, not to bail themselves out. GM and Chryler need it to KEEP JOBS.
The bailout was wrong in the first place because everyone would want money, but that's the only thing they could come up with at the time. What's done is done but I don't think we ought to keep throwing money out there. NP and Barney Fife are too free with money that's not theirs and they should be thrown out of office.
I'm tired of hearing about this.
It was brought to a vote and that is that. We come from a place where it was once taboo to be gay. You had to hide your sexual orientation. Now you can go out with your partner and live your life for all to see. I don't agree with that kind of lifestyle, but they are free to choose what kind of lifestyle they wish to live and who am I to judge. However, I feel that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. To redefine marriage, I think, is wrong. If they want to be life partners and have a small ceremony joining them in some sort of civil union.....go ahead but marriage should be left alone as a man and a woman. I am sick and tired of redefining everything to make it politically correct so every minority group is happy. You can't make everyone happy. I personally feel that redefining marriage to include marrying anyone whether it be same or opposite sex could be confusing to children in general and I don't agree with it.
I don't have a problem with them protesting their viewpoint, but when I see them rip a cross out of an old woman's hands and stomp on the cross as she was protesting her opinion.....that is just wrong. First of all, you don't go after an old woman and secondly....she was sharing her opinion just like they were....so don't get mad at us for our opinion because we are entitled to it as well.
I'm tired of hearing about it too.
If gays want to marry, have at it. I personally don't care what they do. We had a vote in Arkansas whether to allow unmarried couples to adopt or foster children )meaning gays although it wasn't p.c. to word it exactly that way. I voted against it as did the majority. I guess it would solve the abortion issue over time. If George marries Carl and Sue marries Edith pretty soon there wouldn't be any unwanted pregnancies, in fact, no pregnancies at all. Kids imitate what they see, if they have a mother and father BOTH of whom are male or female, what do you think they are going to end up thinking is "normal." We sure don't need to redefine marriage IMHO.
They obviously are hearing voices.....
their take on the President's speech last night had some pretty funky twists......
Personally....I'm tried of hearing it from
both sides. I'm tired of the name calling from both sides. This debate is getting nowhere and yet some of you people just cannot let it go and just agree to disagree. There will never be a middle ground found on this discussion. So let's just drop it and stop all the vicious attacks.
Roosevelt is the reason we're in this mess
xx
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.
Don't forget the Milwaukee voucher mess
From 2005:
An investigation this June by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found problems in some voucher schools that—even to those numb to educational horror stories—break one's heart. No matter how severe one's criticisms of the Milwaukee Public Schools, nothing is as abysmal as the conditions at some voucher schools.
Some of them had high school graduates teaching students. Some were nothing more than refurbished, cramped storefronts. Some did not have any discernable curriculum and only a few books. Some did not teach evolution or anything else that might conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
At one school, teacher and students were on their way to McDonald's. At another, lights were turned off to save money. A third used the back alley as a playground.
One school is located in an old leather factory, another in a former tire store, a third is above a vacuum cleaner shop and hair salon.
As one of the reporters said, "I think we expected from the start to see some strong schools and some weak ones. But seeing firsthand the effect that troubled schools can have on children's futures and lives was disturbing."
Overall, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel estimated that about 10 percent of the schools visited demonstrate "alarming deficiencies" without "the ability, resources, knowledge or will to offer children even a mediocre education."
That's a cautious estimate. First of all, reporters made pre-arranged visits, giving schools time to put their best faces forward. Second, nine of the program's 115 schools —an additional 8 percent—refused to allow reporters in.
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/voucher_report/v_free201.shtml
Obama didn't create this mess
I am amazed at the criticism directed at Obama regarding the current economic crisis.
1. Did he run up our huge debt with China?
2. Who blew billions on Wall Street without any oversight - Bush/Paulson - ring a bell?
3. Who gave us the stimulus checks last year that the government couldn't really afford to give?
4. Who got us into a $10 billion a month Iraq war when our allies and the UN Security Council could see that the "evidence" was total b.s.? Wasn't it McCain who said we would keep at it 100 years? How much has that and would that fiasco cost us?
I speak as a former Republican/turned independent. Both parties have sold us down the river to appeal to the interests of big multinationals interested in "free trade". How could we possibly hope to keep our economy healthy by allowing trade with people making pennies an hour? Our own profession is a microcosm of the maladies caused by the "global economy". We make far less and work much harder - finding it difficult to pay bills. It had to crash sometime.
I agree with you that this stimulus package will probably not do the trick, but to blame Obama for it is ridiculous. It would be the equivalent of having been sent in a barrel over the side of Niagara Falls, and halfway down Obama tries to figure out a way to soften the landing. He didn't put us in the situation - and maybe he can't get us out.
One thing is certain - McCain could not have done better. He would have kept us bleeding billions in Iraq that we simply do not have.
We are likely going to see runaway inflation. The government is committing itself to compounding the effects of the disaster - starting with Bush allowing Paulson to throw billions to his Wall Street buddies and the continuing effort to stave off the inevitable crash of our economy. The only way they can afford these megabillion plans is to print more money - and the money will become worth a lot less. Get ready for a $100 loaf of bread.
"hired to solve this mess" ,..,,. that's pathetic
x
And we bail out Wall St. who created this mess.....
Didja watch House of Cards? That spelled it out pretty succinctly. People were sucked into mortgages they couldn't afford, they were told they could refinance in 1-5 years and keep the mortgage payments they could afford - THEY WERE LIED TO. The bankers and Wall St. had to keep that Ponzi scheme going.......pizza delivery drivers were selling mortgages!! The more they sold, the more money they made - upwards $20,000 per month - they sucked people into refinancing to put cash in their pockets because housing values were skyrocketing.......and it all crashed down. So who did we bail out first? The banks and Wall St.............not the people who got screwed by con men. And these people were not POOR - they just got sucked into buying more house than they could afford. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
HELLOOO...It took your guy a LOT longer to make the mess!
...don't you worry about it.
First I'm hearing of a divorce. What's your source? And, sm
if her protesting is ending her marriage, there wasn't much there to begin with.
Bush's hearing problem.sm
THE DIAGNOSIS
Maybe it’s the newly appointed speech writer. Maybe Peter Feaver has been locked away in some windowless sub basement of the White House, without access to the outer world. Maybe he can do little more than recycle earlier speeches about the war in Iraq. Maybe he and everyone else in this administration have become trapped in a bizarre and crippling time warp. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s that George Bush is hard of hearing.
That has to be the explanation. After listening to his delirious portrayal of progress today and of victory tomorrow in war-torn Iraq, there is only one conclusion: the President of the Untied States is nothing more than a deaf man, talking.
It’s not as if anyone in this administration has ever listened with a discerning ear. Standard operating practice at the White House has been to listen only to those who furthered their agenda, and to absolutely no one else.
But this time, the man at the helm of a sinking nation has gone a bit too far. This time he has gone stone, cold, deaf.
George W. Bush and his handlers have a lengthy history of hearing problems. For more than five years, they selectively closed their ears to those who knew things they chose to ignore. For more than five years, they dismissed the advice of the experienced, and the knowledgeable. They heard nothing that was critical or challenging. They heard nothing that questioned their ill fated policies or their inaccurate conclusions. They heard nothing but their own applause.
George Bush developed a severe hearing malady early in his presidency. From day one, he turned a deaf ear to warnings that his policies were dangerous and destructive. Fortunately for the administration, the corporate media under-reported or simply ignored the advice of experts with as much disdain as the White House.
Just think about how the President absolutely and intractably refused to listen when:
Scientists warned about teaching Intelligent Design
Educators warned about serious flaws in No Child Left Behind
Environmentalists warned about pollution and global warming
Health experts warned about the dangers mercury levels
Economists warned about an inquitable tax policy
Researchers warned about cutting stem cell projects
Ecologists warned about deforestation
Engineers warned about New Orleans levees
Civil libertarians warned about the Patriot Act
AIDS organizations warned about ignoring condom education
And yet, George Bush chose to hear the words of the most extreme voices on the religious right and the most self indulgent arguments of corporate America. His selective hearing set the standard for every one of his regressive and injurious domestic policies.
No matter. George Bush was president and he knew better even without his hearing. He had the answers before the questions were ever raised. He was right. Everyone else was wrong. He had no reason to listen.
It was an outrage for the President and his henchmen to totally ignore the advice and expertise of anyone who disagreed with their self-serving agenda. It was, in effect, an irresponsible surrender to special interests and supporters who would help keep George Bush in power. But, perhaps, it was politics as usual.
Perhaps it was. Domestic policies often deteriorate into partisan food fights, regardless of the toll on the people at large.
But in the wake of 9/11, George Bush’s hearing took a far more serious turn for the worse. His festering malady became a chronic affliction. In time, his condition became more and more noticeable and more and more debilitating.
Looking back, we now can see that 9/11 was the prelude to a long planned war against Iraq, When it came to the attacks or to the march to his war, George Bush found himself unable to hear a great many voices. Once again, the media were cooperative and complicit by selectively underreporting the warnings as well.
Consequently, among the voices that went unheeded by the President were:
Intelligence sources who warned about impending attacks on US soil, using hijacked airliners
CIA insiders who warned of the increased ‘chatter’ in the summer of 2001 that signaled that something was brewing among Al Qaeda operatives
Families of 9/11 victims who demanded an independent investigation into the attacks
Intelligence reports discounting any connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda
Weapons Inspectors in Iraq who insisted there were no WMD’s, but begged for more time to complete their mission
Experts who knew the Middle East and warned that a war against Iraq would foment civil war and instability in the entire region
The major nations of the world, with the exception of the UK and the bribed coalition of the billing, who warned about the consequences of an illegal preemptive or preventive war against a non belligerent nation.
Millions of people around the world who marched in protest to the impending invasion
A bipartisan group of US Military and Diplomatic experts who warned about the recklessness of a war against the people of Iraq
The Army War College experts who warned that GW Bus was “…on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States.
Experienced military men such as Generals Shinzeki and Zinni, who openly criticized the poorly laid plans for invasion and the horrific management of the occupation.
Any an all voices in opposition to the Bush/PNAC dream of global domination.
Instead, George Bush listened intently to the words of his PNAC partners who had waited so patiently for the chance to invade Iraq. And yet, he listened to Ahmed Chalabi, a felon convicted of embezzling millions in absentia, who said that an invasion of Iraq would be a cake walk. Instead, he listened to people who had no clue as to the realities of war, or the cultural and tribal entanglements of the Iraqi people.
Instead, he went to war. And the war became a quagmire. And the quagmire became a nightmare. And the nightmare began to show in the polls.
And so, something had to be done. That something was another series of speeches by the President to shore up support for his war. That is why George Bush came before the American people once again to introduce a redundant and meaningless National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.
When George Bush gave the first of his scheduled speeches, his otic infirmity could no longer be hidden. Sadly, his second address to the nation simply reinforced the obvious: the President of the United States is completely and totally deaf.
No matter how he tried, there was no way to conceal it. In his effort to regain public support for his invasion and occupation of Iraq, George Bush made it perfectly clear that he was incapable of hearing anything even remotely related to reality. In order to distort his failed war policy, he turned a deaf ear to the devastation and chaos that define his war of choice. He closed off any and all warnings that a military victory in Iraq is not possible.
But, in a really bad move, he also turned a deaf ear to the American people.
The American people are asking questions, and George Bush refuses to hear them. Instead, he offers public relations sound bites to a nation that is beginning to demand the truth.
So far he has refused to give the nation any explanations about what is really happening in Iraq. So far, George Bush has refused to address:
the failure to plan for our role as occupiers in Iraq
the chaos and bloodshed that intensify every day
the lack of water and electricity for the people
the failure of any significant reconstruction
the daily kidnappings and rampant crime
the mass exodus of doctors and other professionals
the use of torture by both Americans and the new Iraqi regime.
the widespread corruption and missing billions
the terrible effects of depleted uranium
the illegal and devastating use of white phosphorus
the fundamentalist government that is now in charge
the lack of body and vehicle armor for our troops
the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died at his hand
the claim by his own man, Ayad Allawi, that things are worse in Iraq now than under Saddam.
the five billion dollars a month being spent on the war
And George Bush refused, above all, to present a cohesive and specific strategy for ending the terrible war he began.
People all across this nation wanted to know what went wrong and why. And they wanted to know how their President planned to fix it. But George Bush has closed his ears to the growing concerns of a majority of Americans. He simply refuses to hear them.
He has chosen, instead, to revert to type. He has chosen, instead, to remain deaf to facts that had been revealed about his war. He has chosen, instead, to ignore the truth about the tragic and deadly catastrophe that was the war in Iraq. He has chosen, once again, to lie.
George Bush speaks only before courteous audiences. Assured of applause at appropriate intervals, he can comfortably hold both hands over his ears and refuse to acknowledge that he had led the nation into an endless morass.
He cannot tell the truth, we know that. So he did what he does best. He lied. But, the irony of it all is that more and more Americans are on to the lies by now. Just for starters, they know that:
There is no connection whatever between the invasion of Iraq and his trumped up war on terror. And yet, George Bush opted to use the word “terror” FIFTY TIMES his first strategy speech, and continued to the same harangue in the second.
The insurgency in Iraq is composed of dozens, possibly as many as 100 cells working independently. And yet, George Bush identified only three sources of insurgent activity – and placed much of the blame on “the brutal terrorist, Zarqawi – al Qaeda’s leading operative in Iraq.”
American marines, not Iraqi security forces, led the incursion into Tal Afar. And yet, to make them appear battle-ready, George Bush gave full credit to the Iraqi security forces for leading the attack.
Former supporters of the war, such as Vietnam veteran John Murtha, are convinced that a military victory in Iraq is not possible. And yet, George Bush repeated his old, weathered war cry, “There will be no withdrawal without victory.”
General William Odom has called the war in Iraq a failure. And yet, George Bush touts the “amazing progress” of the occupation.
More than 2130 Americans and 200 coalition troops have died for his illegal and immoral war of choice, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead as well. And yet, George Bush still insists that he has “taken the fight to the terrorists,” and that his bloody war will “lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.”
Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of buildings being rebuilt after being destroyed by US bombs. Instead, that is exactly what George Bush insists is so.
Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of cell phones being used. And yet, that is how George Bush measures it.
Oil revenues are not going to the Iraqi people, but to foreign oil companies. And yet, George Bush claims that increased oil production was a sign of progress.
There is no definable victory possible. And yet, George Bush insists there is.
But George Bush has no clue about what the public knows. The man is as deaf as a door post. But his impairment is one of choice, not affliction. He believes he can use his hearing loss as a cover for his ineptitude and his obstinacy. In his world apart from reality, George Bush continues to believe that he can fool all of the people all of the time.
But this time, the American people are not buying it.
THE REMEDY
We are approaching day 1,000 of this outrageous war, and the mood of the nation is changing. The winds of opposition are gaining strength across the vast expanse that is America. George Bush and his PNAC handlers are pretending not to hear the calls for an end to this terrible war. But they hear it. They really do.
The turning point, of course, was triggered by Congressman John Murtha, whose opinions can no longer be countered by the usual rhetoric from the White House. Murtha spoke with the tacit encouragement of his close friends in the Pentagon who cannot speak out personally, but who fully understand the hopelessness of ‘staying the course,’ His message clearly signaled the beginning of the end.
But it won’t be easy. There will be distractions in the form of token withdrawals, and the war will go on. More people will die. The mayhem will continue. But the voices of protest will get louder and louder.
And George Bush will continue to make speeches. He will recite the words of his new speech writer with gusto and sincerity. He will continue to sell his war as if it were a product on the open market. And he will remain deaf to those who oppose and those who criticize and those who demand that the war must end.
He can do this because the voices of protest are still muted. They will only be heard if they become loud enough to penetrate the ears of the deaf man who is in charge. George Bush is the Commander in Chief. He calls the shots. He sits in the safety of the Oval Office and sends people to their death.
The tragedy is that right this minute, as he still dreams of a glorious victory in Iraq, he doesn’t hear a thing.
Maybe one day soon, before thousands more die, if their outcry is loud enough, George Bush will hear the voices of the people he once swore to serve; then again, maybe not.
Me too...I thought I had lost my hearing or..
my mind, but a while back I started to find myself agreeing with Buchanan as well. I have put a link at the top of the page that I think is explanatory of this aberration of all kinds of un-like-minded people suddenly (not really, probably more slowly over time) becoming like minded. I even agreed with Newt Gingrich the other day on a couple of points and what was even more weird, he and Biden were on Meet The Press and saying pretty much the same thing. Myabe there is a silver lining in this fiasco after all; maybe this administration will alienate so many people that we find ourselves banding TOGETHER (what a concept!!!) to try to take our country back and bring it back to the status of a knowledgeable and compassionate super power who truly have the well being of all its citizens as its first priority and who respect and appreciate our friends and allies abroad. Anyway...check it out.
I am so sick and tired of hearing...
how republicans are at fault for everything. Yes, President Bush is republican but don't we have a democrat congress? What have then done to help better things?
I'm neither republican or democrat. I always try to pick the person I feel is best for the job. However, I learned a long time ago that a politician will say almost anything to get elected. Yes, Obama has many plans, but realistically how many of these plans will actually work, be put into works if he is elected, or just a bunch of smoke he is blowing up our rear ends to get elected.
I was watching a show on TV the other night that showed politicians during an election year and one of the things consistently brought up by many was the need to decrease our dependency on oil. This went all the way back to even before Carter was president. After these politicians were elected, not one of them did anything about decreasing our dependency on oil. Politicians will bring up any subject worth bringing up during an election year to get the backing of people, but once they win.....they don't have to do half of what they promised to do.
I am hearing on the radio that it was her husband, not she...
who was the member and it was several years ago. The jury is out on that one.
Obama went to the dailykos convention and spoke to them. Does that mean he approves of the smarm on that website?
Wright said God dam* America. Obama was in his pews for 20 years. Are we to attribute that comment to Obama?
You can't have it both ways.
JM may be planning but we're not hearing about it
Every day in the news is talk of Obama's $2M party.
I am sooo sick of hearing...
that Obama will do things "because he's black." What kind of reasoning is this? Did we forget that he's just as much white as he is black? What makes him more black than he is white? Did anyone notice that he was raised in a white environment, with little contact with his father? Is he not a product of his environment? Calling this man black OR white discredits his heritage and does nothing but show the racism that is so obviously alive and well in the US!
|
