Really getting tired of Bush...

[DeepIron]

I'm really getting sick of his "patriotic rhetoric" and "we need more money" schtick:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/22/war.spending/index.html

"Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not -- and that is that America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people," President Bush said in an appearance with members of veterans groups at the White House.

Yes, WAY to complicated for his limited intelligence, and I'm not talking about the CIA... And he ALWAYS makes it a call for "support of the troops". I support the troops, they are doing what they are commanded to do. It makes me puke to think I'm also supporting Bush's War and sacrificing my personal freedoms under the guise of the "war on terrorism" and Homeland Security... :down:

"Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need," he said.

What a crock... He wants more $$$ to fund a failing war but doesn't want to give a single penny for expanded healthcare for children. Sickening. Does this schlep even think about US domestic issues? How deep does he think the public coffers go anyway? :damn:

"It's no wonder the American people are frustrated," Reid said. "We've been fighting for America's priorities, while the president continues investing only in his failed war strategy. He wants us to come up with another $200 billion and just sign off on it -- that's what he said today."

Ok, more rhetoric. So let's see if Reid and the rest of Congress can "grow some bolts" and stop this stupidity... :nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

What a crock... He wants more $$$ to fund a failing war but doesn't want to give a single penny for expanded healthcare for children.

There is more to it than that. If you recall the big stink the Dems made over his possible veto and then he veto'd the bill. Yet, the Dems said they would vote to overthrow the veto. That failed. The Dems saw the light. The Dems were just attempting to make Bush look bad for their own gain in the polls and getting good old Hillary in the white house. Recall Hillary's announcment of healthcare for all if she was elected that came out the same time this was happening? That failed also. If Bush was so bad in his thinking on this then why did congress not get the override on the veto? Because they knew it would create problems far greater than what the plan does now. If this program was expanded like they wanted it would have given the golden key to the crapper for employers not to have to assist in health benefits for their employees. It all would have fallen on the government. It would have opened the door to those that can afford health insurance and they would come into the program thus muddling the program for those that really need it. One needs to look at the total overall picture and not what the news likes to create, such as Bush does not care for kids and smear campaigns during political jockeying for the white house.

[SUBMAN1]

What a crock... He wants more $$$ to fund a failing war but doesn't want to give a single penny for expanded healthcare for children.
There is more to it than that. If you recall the big stink the Dems made over his possible veto and then he veto'd the bill. Yet, the Dems said they would vote to overthrow the veto. That failed. The Dems saw the light. The Dems were just attempting to make Bush look bad for their own gain in the polls and getting good old Hillary in the white house. Recall Hillary's announcment of healthcare for all if she was elected that came out the same time this was happening? That failed also. If Bush was so bad in his thinking on this then why did congress not get the override on the veto? Because they knew it would create problems far greater than what the plan does now. If this program was expanded like they wanted it would have given the golden key to the crapper for employers not to have to assist in health benefits for their employees. It all would have fallen on the government. It would have opened the door to those that can afford health insurance and they would come into the program thus muddling the program for those that really need it. One needs to look at the total overall picture and not what the news likes to create, such as Bush does not care for kids and smear campaigns during political jockeying for the white house.

Totally have to concure. I am also against funding health care for illegal aliens. Tell them to go home to Mexico to get their friggen health care.

-S

[The WosMan]

Hmm, tell me where in the Constitution it says government shall make laws to guarantee heath care to people. I am pretty sure I can find though where it says things about war though. I don't find it sickening at all, the federal government's role is not to provide for you or anyone else other than roads and infrastructure and protection. The rest is up to you pal, don't like it? Get a job and pay like everyone else.

Let's leave our healthcare in the hands of private organizations and not Hillary Clinton. The last thing I need is an organization that functions as well as the BMV or the post office taking care of my health issues. "Ma'am, I think I am having a heart attack"
"Oh sorry we're busy"
"But there are three of you here"
"Oh those other two are on break, you'll have to take a number"
"This is crazy!"
"Are you getting mouthy with me sir, I will have to ask you to leave"
"AAAAAAACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK" ........ drops dead.

Do you know of any "poor little children" who are suffering right now, because I sure don't. If anything, the little kids have health problems because they need to get off the nintendos and video games and go outside and play like kids are supposed to.

[waste gate]

Many topics here. I will try to address each.

Health care: Vetoed because it allowed people with incomes upto USD$ 80,000/year to have government care for their children which was designed for the poor (SCHIP). Why aren't you upset over the 'rich' getting free healthcare?
If you make that much cash you can afford private health care. Even at $1,000/month.

The Democrat controlled congress has always said it supported the troops so this should be a no brainer for them, regardless of what GW says on the CNN. Unless of course they were not being honest.
What Harry Reid says, by his own admission, is of little value, unless of course if he hits the Moveon/ G. Soros talking points.

[SUBMAN1]

...If anything, the little kids have health problems because they need to get off the nintendos and video games and go outside and play like kids are supposed to.Woo hoo! Way to tell it like it is.

+2 points!

-S

[sunvalleyslim]

Hmm, tell me where in the Constitution it says government shall make laws to guarantee heath care to people. I am pretty sure I can find though where it says things about war though. I don't find it sickening at all, the federal government's role is not to provide for you or anyone else other than roads and infrastructure and protection. The rest is up to you pal, don't like it? Get a job and pay like everyone else.

Let's leave our healthcare in the hands of private organizations and not Hillary Clinton. The last thing I need is an organization that functions as well as the BMV or the post office taking care of my health issues. "Ma'am, I think I am having a heart attack"
"Oh sorry we're busy"
"But there are three of you here"
"Oh those other two are on break, you'll have to take a number"
"This is crazy!"
"Are you getting mouthy with me sir, I will have to ask you to leave"
"AAAAAAACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK" ........ drops dead.

Do you know of any "poor little children" who are suffering right now, because I sure don't. If anything, the little kids have health problems because they need to get off the nintendos and video games and go outside and play like kids are supposed to.

Tell it like it is brother..............:up::up::up:

[The WosMan]

Many topics here. I will try to address each.

Health care: Vetoed because it allowed people with incomes upto USD$ 80,000/year to have government care for their children which was designed for the poor (SCHIP). Why aren't you upset over the 'rich' getting free healthcare?
If you make that much cash you can afford private health care. Even at $1,000/month.

The Democrat controlled congress has always said it supported the troops so this should be a no brainer for them, regardless of what GW says on the CNN. Unless of course they were not being honest.
What Harry Reid says, by his own admission, is of little value, unless of course if he hits the Moveon/ G. Soros talking points.

Well apparently Reid and Limbaugh had a big french kiss and made up and Harry was endorsing Limbaugh's letter as a good cause. I wonder if Harry, with his millions, and his 3 sons with their crooked lobbyist jobs made any contributions to the troops like Limbaugh has? I know not only has Limbaugh been a chairperson for over 10 years on the Marine Corps charity that this EBay auction raised money for but he also matched the bid by giving over 2,000,000 of his own money to its foundation.

[Tchocky]

Hmm, tell me where in the Constitution it says government shall make laws to guarantee heath care to people. I am pretty sure I can find though where it says things about war though. I don't find it sickening at all, the federal government's role is not to provide for you or anyone else other than roads and infrastructure and protection. The rest is up to you pal, don't like it? Get a job and pay like everyone else.
Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etc

[The WosMan]

I think private companies probably could do a better job of cleaning that up as well. Where I work we have a company that comes out and recycles all of our old computer components and parts. You know those CRT monitors are just filled with lead and mercury. However, nothing wrong with a little nuclear waste though, how else are we going to ween ourselves off those horrible polluting fossil fuels so we can save the planet from the ravaging effects of global warming? Today I can say I have met a Constitutional scholar from Europe!

[DeepIron]

One needs to look at the total overall picture and not what the news likes to create, such as Bush does not care for kids and smear campaigns during political jockeying for the white house.
I don't formulate my opinions based solely on what a "news" media has to report... really, I'm a bit more informed than that! LOL... ;) The Dems are USELESS and IMPOTENT! They couldn't veto their way out of a wet paper sack. They have no effective leadership and it's doubtful they will in the foreseeable future... IMO.

So how can ANY program that promotes the health of our kids be ANY worse than what is happening now? I would much rather pay my taxes for healthcare for children as flawed a system as it may be, rather than continue to funnel them into the pit we call the Iraqi War... I don't care WHAT kind of political firestorm it may have caused. We have spent more $$$ for stupider and more useless things in this country than this.

Every political scenario lately seems to boil down to a morass of inter-party politicking and self-indugence. The Dems do this, the Republicans do that, and in the meantime, everyone else suffers...

What the hell has gone wrong with this country?? Now, we use our kids as "cannon fodder" for an ongoing political power struggle? I frankly could care less about whether or not any particular political party scores "points" against the other. American politics have degenerated to the point of utter futility...

I don't give a wet slap if the next president is Clinton, Obama or Mickey Mouse. The political system in this country is so far beyond repair it won't matter who wins, the tax-paying American Middeclass loses...

Do you know of any "poor little children" who are suffering right now?
Yeah, I do... thx for asking...

Why aren't you upset over the 'rich' getting free healthcare?
Simple, it's the rich who run this country. Why get upset over something that has been an ongoing fact of life for decades?

[The WosMan]

The children of this country are not suffering by any means. Funny though how the same group of politicians that seem to care so much about children have no problems with allowing people to kill them before they are born. Before that comment sets in, that is just my honest opinion, I am not looking to open another can of worms, I just find it hypocritical....that is all.

[AVGWarhawk]

Like Wastegate said...many topics here.

The war. Now, lets looks back at how gunho America was to get the 'party started' in Iraq after 9/11. The Dems backed them all the way. Go get'em Buck-a-roo Bush! Yee-ha! Now that we are losing and look like a bunch of chumps, time to pack up the football and head on home. Sounds fine and dandy but America is part of this mess in Iraq and the whole area right now is very volatile. Turkey is looking over the board to gun down the Kurds. The same thing Sadam was up to but he prefered gas. Putin is hanging in Iran. Yet, another volatile situation. America is setting up missiles in Poland pointed at our cold war buddies. Sooner or later it will come crashing down. The democratic congress is just as befuddled as the rest concerning pulling out or 'stay the course' as Buck-a-roo likes to say. No matter how we look at it, we are going to be there a very long time. Our presence in the region was there with the Clinton years. The torch is just past to the next. Again, see it for face value, election year coming up, dems want control of all. They attempt smear campaign after smear campaign and push Hillary like crack cocaine. The media is in a frenzy and it is very evident that the likes of CBS and CNN (Clinton News Network) constantly push the 'Bush is an idiot button'. Yet, look at Fox News and get a different picture painted. One really needs to look at all the news networks to get a complete picture. It is up to the individual to make the assessment of what is really happening. There is so much political postering one can not keep it straight.



"Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need," he said.



Darn straight! They should have their butts in there getting the situation under control but we find the likes of Senator Craig in the mens room looking for some loving. :roll: This stupid story spends more time on the headlines than the war. This is were Americas priorities lay. It is sickening. Oh, and lets talk about Britney Spears some more.

IMHO, we should stay the course. If not, we are only just going to be over there again after some boarding country decides they need more land and resources. After all, this is how wars are started. One country is running out of resources so they look to thy neighbor for them. Like I said, pull out and we will be right back sporting M16 for some other reason. Our presence needs to be there. Our troops do need our support. They need the 200 billion for body armor and such. This is part of 'supporting our troops'.

The terrorist network is very much active. This is evident as seen daily with bombings, etc.

Bush is not my best buddy but under the current circumstances, I believe that anyone in the oval office right now would be seen as a fool and an idiot.

[waste gate]

The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas.

[AVGWarhawk]

Per Deepiron


So how can ANY program that promotes the health of our kids be ANY worse than what is happening now?

This new program would hurt the kids more. There would be an influx of people who can afford healthcare without government support. Allowing these people to do this takes away liquid assets that would normally go to those that really need the support. It was a bad deal all around and after the veto, and the house failing to override the veto would state that.

[The WosMan]

The war. Now, lets looks back at how gunho America was to get the 'party started' in Iraq after 9/11. The Dems backed them all the way. Go get'em Buck-a-roo Bush! Yee-ha! Now that we are losing and look like a bunch of chumps, time to pack up the football and head on home. Sounds fine and dandy but America is part of this mess in Iraq and the whole area right now is very volatile. Turkey is looking over the board to gun down the Kurds.

Is that a nail I hear being hit square on the head? Let's not forget the Democrats most recent blatant anti-american, lets put the troops lives in jeopardy by declaring an event that happened 80 years ago a genocide so we can have the Turks go into Iraq and create a larger mess. 90% of our supplies in Iraq come through what country???? Anyone? Anyone? TURKEY of course!!!!!!!!!!

Even though it didn't happen, it may be too late already, the Turks were insulted by our Congress.....thanks Pelosi. Sometimes I think we need to bring back the Committee on Anti-American affairs.

[AVGWarhawk]

Per DeepIron

What the hell has gone wrong with this country?? Now, we use our kids as "cannon fodder" for an ongoing political power struggle? I frankly could care less about whether or not any particular political party scores "points" against the other. American politics have degenerated to the point of utter futility...


I agree 100%. America is tired of the Bush clan and the Clinton clan. Time for a new face with fresh ideas. The political jockeying during campaigning make ones stomach turn.

[waste gate]

Per Deepiron


So how can ANY program that promotes the health of our kids be ANY worse than what is happening now?

This new program would hurt the kids more. There would be an influx of people who can afford healthcare without government support. Allowing these people to do this takes away liquid assets that would normally go to those that really need the support. It was a bad deal all around and after the veto, and the house failing to override the veto would state that.

For some the issues are too deep AVGWarhawk. You have a handle on it.

[The WosMan]

Per DeepIron

What the hell has gone wrong with this country?? Now, we use our kids as "cannon fodder" for an ongoing political power struggle? I frankly could care less about whether or not any particular political party scores "points" against the other. American politics have degenerated to the point of utter futility...


I agree 100%. America is tired of the Bush clan and the Clinton clan. Time for a new face with fresh ideas. The political jockeying during campaigning make ones stomach turn.

I agree, now if we can only get that pesky cloning technology to work we could have another Reagan.........

[AVGWarhawk]

The war. Now, lets looks back at how gunho America was to get the 'party started' in Iraq after 9/11. The Dems backed them all the way. Go get'em Buck-a-roo Bush! Yee-ha! Now that we are losing and look like a bunch of chumps, time to pack up the football and head on home. Sounds fine and dandy but America is part of this mess in Iraq and the whole area right now is very volatile. Turkey is looking over the board to gun down the Kurds.

Is that a nail I hear being hit square on the head? Let's not forget the Democrats most recent blatant anti-american, lets put the troops lives in jeopardy by declaring an event that happened 80 years ago a genocide so we can have the Turks go into Iraq and create a larger mess. 90% of our supplies in Iraq come through what country???? Anyone? Anyone? TURKEY of course!!!!!!!!!!

Even though it didn't happen, it may be too late already, the Turks were insulted by our Congress.....thanks Pelosi. Sometimes I think we need to bring back the Committee on Anti-American affairs.


It is to late already. The cat is out of the bag. The progressive-secular march of dems has created nothing but headache after headache. If at all possible, it would be nice to clean house of all in Washington and get some new thinkers in there. Currently the thinkers we have are interested in their own retirement plan.

[DeepIron]

The children of this country are not suffering by any means. Funny though how the same group of politicians that seem to care so much about children have no problems with allowing people to kill them before they are born.
Don't confuse a religious/philosophical issue with a fiscal/political one...

I raised 7 kids and I'm raising 2 grandkids. I make good money and I can afford health care for them. I know people who have kids and can't... Not because they aren't hard workers, but because health care is out of reach for them. They make too much for assistance but not enough for health coverage. The health insurers and the HMOs have certainly created issues...

But it's a funny thing... They pay their taxes, just like you and I. Is it so much to ask that we make some provisions for health care for their children? Instead, we'll continue to throw their tax dollars and ours into the hole we call the Iraqi War... or continue to provide welfare to illegals...

BTW, yes, the Constitution does "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

Seems like we're spending an inordinate amount on "Defense" and less on the "general Welfare", IMO...

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree, now if we can only get that pesky cloning technology to work we could have another Reagan.........


Reagan:up: May man! Unfortune there is no one who could fill his shoes. Such a shame.

[AVGWarhawk]

Per DeepIron


Seems like we're spending an inordinate amount on "Defense" and less on the "general Welfare", IMO...

It does not seem like we are. We are spending to much on defense but in the sense of monies handed over to the developers of weapons. The contracts that are offered up to companies to develop weapons is just astounding. They are getting to be really fat cats.

Currently, I believe the money Bush is asking for is to support what we have going on now, not in more development of new weapons.

[The WosMan]

The children of this country are not suffering by any means. Funny though how the same group of politicians that seem to care so much about children have no problems with allowing people to kill them before they are born.
Don't confuse a religious/philosophical issue with a fiscal/political one...

I raised 7 kids and I'm raising 2 grandkids. I make good money and I can afford health care for them. I know people who have kids and can't... Not because they aren't hard workers, but because health care is out of reach for them. They make too much for assistance but not enough for health coverage. The health insurers and the HMOs have certainly created issues...

But it's a funny thing... They pay their taxes, just like you and I. Is it so much to ask that we make some provisions for health care for children? Instead, we'll continue to throw their tax dollars and ours into the hole we call the Iraqi War...

BTW, yes, the Constitution does "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

Seems like we're spending an inordinate amount on "Defense" and less on the "general Welfare", IMO...

You know, it really never seemed to be a problem before. I don't see what has changed, especially considering the average American makes more than in the history of this country. We just seem to want more and more. However, as others have pointed out several times now, the issue is much deeper, mainly due to stupid legislation. What they wanted will make things worse.

Reagan:up: May man! Unfortune there is no one who could fill his shoes. Such a shame.

Very true. The best.

[antikristuseke]

The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas.

But that has nothing at all to do with Iraq, absso****inglutely nothing.

Now for healthcare, that i belive to be one of those services provided by the govrernment to all CITIZENS and payed for by taxes, illegals can kindly go **** themselves. The main reason i think like this is that private helath insurance companies are only motivated by profit and profit margins, they will do what ever it takes NOT to pay anything back, while i do agree that greed is generaly a driving force behind progress, healthcare is not one of those cases.

Edit.

Is that a nail I hear being hit square on the head? Let's not forget the Democrats most recent blatant anti-american, lets put the troops lives in jeopardy by declaring an event that happened 80 years ago a genocide so we can have the Turks go into Iraq and create a larger mess. 90% of our supplies in Iraq come through what country???? Anyone? Anyone? TURKEY of course!!!!!!!!!!

Even though it didn't happen, it may be too late already, the Turks were insulted by our Congress.....thanks Pelosi. Sometimes I think we need to bring back the Committee on Anti-American affairs.

Well it was a genocide, though this is a horrible time to reckognize it as such openly, it doesnt change the fact

[DeepIron]

Currently, I believe the money Bush is asking for is to support what we have going on now, not in more development of new weapons.
According to the "media", repair and replenish is what it's for... However, I can't believe for a moment, that part of that would be diverted into new weapon research... Maybe it's just me being paranoid (or pragmatic, take your pick).

You know, it really never seemed to be a problem before. I don't see what has changed, especially considering the average American makes more than in the history of this country. We just seem to want more and more. However, as others have pointed out several times now, the issue is much deeper, mainly due to stupid legislation. What they wanted will make things worse.
Honestly, I can't see how it could get much worse... Yes, I know there are arguments on both sides of this issue and it's easy to see from the posts the political alignment of the posters. :smug:

I guess I'd feel better "taking it in the shorts" if I thought I could get better care for kids... Irrational, perhaps... but I'd do the health care thing in a New York second rather than fund the Iraqi War any further... :damn:

[Tchocky]

I think private companies probably could do a better job of cleaning that up as well. Where I work we have a company that comes out and recycles all of our old computer components and parts. You know those CRT monitors are just filled with lead and mercury. However, nothing wrong with a little nuclear waste though, how else are we going to ween ourselves off those horrible polluting fossil fuels so we can save the planet from the ravaging effects of global warming? Today I can say I have met a Constitutional scholar from Europe!

Private recycling companies do a great job, but there needs to be a legislative framework in place; not every positive aspect of a clean enviroment pays back in hard cash.
I was really getting to the idea that the Constitution did not foresee everything, and shouldn't be used as a legislative divider. A good idea is a good idea regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in the Constitution. Same as bad ideas :p

[bradclark1]

The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas.
Hate to enlighten you but nothing of this scope happened under the Clintonistas. It happened under the Buck-a-roo's. And we all know the Buck-a-roo's knew an attack was coming but ignored it.

[The WosMan]

The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas.

But that has nothing at all to do with Iraq, absso****inglutely nothing.

Now for healthcare, that i belive to be one of those services provided by the govrernment to all CITIZENS and payed for by taxes, illegals can kindly go **** themselves. The main reason i think like this is that private helath insurance companies are only motivated by profit and profit margins, they will do what ever it takes NOT to pay anything back, while i do agree that greed is generaly a driving force behind progress, healthcare is not one of those cases.

And you think government officials in control of that are any better? How do you think guys like Kennedy are elected over and over again? They create a dependancy on the government's services and they get to keep their jobs where they control all that money. There is no difference. The only people who are deserving of free healthcare are those who have given their health or their limbs for the service of our country.

Hate to enlighten you but nothing of this scope happened under the Clintonistas. It happened under the Buck-a-roo's. And we all know the Buck-a-roo's knew an attack was coming but ignored it.
__________________ So that's why Sandy Berger was running out of the Pentagon with his pants stuffed with documents. The path to 9/11 was a long one, most of which was ignored completely by BJ Billy.

[AVGWarhawk]

The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas.
Hate to enlighten you but nothing of this scope happened under the Clintonistas. It happened under the Buck-a-roo's. And we all know the Buck-a-roo's knew an attack was coming but ignored it.

Clintonists past what they new on to the Bush. Osama was known about during the Clinton admin. Heck, even Oliver North stated he was afraid of the guy. There was subway bombings and bombing in the parking garage at the world trade centers. It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists.

[The WosMan]

The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas.
Hate to enlighten you but nothing of this scope happened under the Clintonistas. It happened under the Buck-a-roo's. And we all know the Buck-a-roo's knew an attack was coming but ignored it.

Clintonists past what they new on to the Bush. Osama was known about during the Clinton admin. Heck, even Oliver North stated he was afraid of the guy. There was subway bombings and bombing in the parking garage at the world trade centers. It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists.

Don't forget the USS Cole.

[DeepIron]

How do you think guys like Kennedy are elected over and over again? They create a dependancy on the government's services and they get to keep their jobs where they control all that money.
And how is the "here and now" any different? Geez, don't confuse "dependancy" with responsible law making... (of which there has been damn little of over the last 30 years or so).
To quote Jerry Reed: "She got the goldmine, I got the shaft." I'm tired of getting "shafted"...

The Golden Rule: He who controls the gold, makes the rules.

[AVGWarhawk]

So that's why Sandy Berger was running out of the Pentagon with his pants stuffed with documents. The path to 9/11 was a long one, most of which was ignored completely by BJ Billy.

Yes, this was ignored for 8 years. Bush got stuck holding the bag! Darn guy was reading a book to some grade school kids. Sure, they were helping him with the big words but none the less.

[The WosMan]

HA.......yep

[antikristuseke]

And you think government officials in control of that are any better? How do you think guys like Kennedy are elected over and over again? They create a dependancy on the government's services and they get to keep their jobs where they control all that money. There is no difference. The only people who are deserving of free healthcare are those who have given their health or their limbs for the service of our country.


Im not talking about free healthcare, im talking about tax funded healthcare for all citizens. That makes healthcare accessible to everyone who pays taxes as a service provided by the government. There is no incentive here not to treat people because if there is a budget surplus for whatever reason it does not go into the pockets of anyone. This solution will allso be a lot cheaper for everyone instead of paying ridiculously high insurance premiums. Ofcourse this system isnt perfect and has some inherant problems, but systems of natinalised healthcare seem to function a damn sight better than privatized ones.

[Tchocky]

The children of this country are not suffering by any means. That's strange, because the US has the highest child poverty rate in the developed world. link (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060719)
Funny though how the same group of politicians that seem to care so much about children have no problems with allowing people to kill them before they are born. Before that comment sets in, that is just my honest opinion, I am not looking to open another can of worms, I just find it hypocritical....that is all. Well yes, it's a difference of opinion. One politician will consider it murder, the other a medical procedure where no life is taken. No hypocrisy when they're not starting from the same base assertion.

[AVGWarhawk]

Im not talking about free healthcare, im talking about tax funded healthcare for all citizens.

There is free healthcare. Just visit any emergency room and see it at work. The ER has turned into the family doctor. What, are they going to turn you away while you are bleeding from the jugular? Nope. But guess what, those like me who pay for my families healthcare pay a premium to cover those that choose to use the ER like the family doctor and have no coverage. They know they will get the help and they use it without blinking an eye.

[AVGWarhawk]

Anyway men, before this gets ugly and I hope it does not, I really do not have the answer and I suspect Capital Hill does not either. Now or whoever takes the reigns.

[antikristuseke]

Im not talking about free healthcare, im talking about tax funded healthcare for all citizens.

There is free healthcare. Just visit any emergency room and see it at work. The ER has turned into the family doctor. What, are they going to turn you away while you are bleeding from the jugular? Nope. But guess what, those like me who pay for my families healthcare pay a premium to cover those that choose to use the ER like the family doctor and have no coverage. They know they will get the help and they use it without blinking an eye.

There are people who abuse the system, yes, but that has got nothing to do with nationalized vs privatized healthcare since those abusing the system can do so regardless.

Edit: Yeah, it would indeed be nice if everything stayed civil :)

[bradclark1]

It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists.
Please show anything that says that?

Edit: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

[DeepIron]

There is free healthcare. Just visit any emergency room and see it at work.

Yeah, the Hypocratic Oath at work...

But guess what, those like me who pay for my families healthcare pay a premium to cover those that choose to use the ER like the family doctor and have no coverage. They know they will get the help and they use it without blinking an eye.

Yeah, going to the emergancy room for a hangnail is a little extreme... but it happens...

Well, that's about the truth of it... And a prime reason why the health care system needs to be overhauled. I agree with AK, I'd much rather see my tax $$$ supporting a health care system that all CITIZENS can benefit from instead of funding this insane war...

[bradclark1]

There is free healthcare. Just visit any emergency room and see it at work. The ER has turned into the family doctor.
The problem with this is if you don't own anything you have free health care. If you own anything (your house) you are not eligible. That is the problem with unaffordable health care. There is no middle ground.

[waste gate]

The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas.
Hate to enlighten you but nothing of this scope happened under the Clintonistas. It happened under the Buck-a-roo's. And we all know the Buck-a-roo's knew an attack was coming but ignored it.

I never thought you a 'truther'. Now I know.

WTC 1993. If was taken seriously then three thousand wouldn't have died on 9/11 and you wouldn't be blaming the Bush administration now. Eight years of talk didn't stop them did it?


For the record Mr. Berger took the documents from the National Archive and to this day hasnot complied with his plea which included taking a lie detector examination.
Why hasn't that been pushed by the Bush justice department?

[AVGWarhawk]

It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists. Please show anything that says that?

Edit: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

Read it here. The terrorists were darn busy during Clinton watch.

http://store.nationalreview.com/archives/detail.mhtml?&an=5624540&qblrb=Clinton%20Has%20No%20Clothes%09anywhere%09%0 9anywhere%09and%092000%0912%0929%092002%0912%0929% 09%09rel

[bradclark1]

If was taken seriously then three thousand wouldn't have died on 9/11 and you wouldn't be blaming the Bush administration now. Eight years of talk didn't stop them did it?

You keep thinking that.:roll:

WTC 93 - People went to jail.

[bradclark1]

It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists. Please show anything that says that?

Edit: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

Read it here. The terrorists were darn busy during Clinton watch.

http://store.nationalreview.com/archives/detail.mhtml?&an=5624540&qblrb=Clinton%20Has%20No%20Clothes%09anywhere%09%0 9anywhere%09and%092000%0912%0929%092002%0912%0929% 09%09rel

I suggest you read these. You'll notice the umm support the GOP provided in these efforts. The terrorists were darn busy during Clinton watch in your opinion because of the help the GOP gave them which seems to be forgotten now. You will notice that Clinton had more problems fighting terrorism with the GOP then fighting actual terrorists.

When terrorists first tried to take down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb in February 1993, there was no organized outcry of recrimination against George Herbert Walker Bush, who had left the Oval Office a scant six weeks earlier. Nobody sought political advantage by blaming Bush for the intelligence failures that had allowed the terrorist perpetrators to conspire undetected for more than three years…

Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.
Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.
So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas…

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm
Myths Debunked - Clinton Didn't Fight Terrorism

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
Urban legends.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/08/18_blumenthal.html
"The Clinton Wars" Excerpts: How the GOP Undercut Clinton's Efforts to Fight Terrorism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/516805.stm
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced a major reorganisation, with a greater emphasis on the prevention of terrorist attacks against American interests.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html
The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill
The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html
WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES

http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/policy.html
Nevertheless, as strong as the bill was, it should have been stronger. For example, President Clinton asked the Congress to give U.S. law enforcement increased wiretap authority in terrorism cases. But the Congress refused. After the President proposed that the Secretary of the Treasury consider the inclusion of taggants in explosive materials, so that bombs can be traced more easily to the bomb makers, the Congress exempted black and smokeless powder -- two of the most commonly used substances in improvised explosive devices.

[AVGWarhawk]

Good follow up bradclark! As I stated a few posts back the buck just gets passed to the next in line. Clinton really did not do much about it IMO and the buck got passed again. This time there was a whole bag of bucks when the trade centers were attacked. Bush could not sit on his thumbs. The country would have looked weak. In my previous posts everyone was gunho and now that we are losing, Bush is the idiot. It is a huge situation that is changing constantly. I suspect we will be there another 5 years. The region is just volatile to not have our presence there.

[bradclark1]

This time there was a whole bag of bucks when the trade centers were attacked. Bush could not sit on his thumbs. The country would have looked weak.
Bush did not address one terrorism issue until 911. Thats seven months that he just ignored the problem totally. Thats not passing the buck. Thats throwing the bank in the garbage.
Because of the impact and extent of 911 Tiny Tim could have been president and the same thing would have happened, we would have invaded Afghanistan. Who the actual president was didn't matter. There was only one action that was acceptable.

[AVGWarhawk]

This time there was a whole bag of bucks when the trade centers were attacked. Bush could not sit on his thumbs. The country would have looked weak. Bush did not address one terrorism issue until 911. Thats seven months that he just ignored the problem totally. Thats not passing the buck. Thats throwing the bank in the garbage.
Because of the impact and extent of 911 Tiny Tim could have been president and the same thing would have happened, we would have invaded Afghanistan. Who the actual president was didn't matter. There was only one action that was acceptable.


Sevens months in the White House and your feet are not wet as yet. I would suspect that terrorism was not forefront in the first seven months. His campaign promises were at the forefront.

I agree on the Tiny Tim and no matter what it would have happened. You stated there was only one action that was acceptable. What was that action? You lost me there.

[DeepIron]

You stated there was only one action that was acceptable. What was that action? You lost me there.
Me too... Are you referring to Bush's "War on Terrorism" and it's encompassing of "the Axis of Evil", WMDs, and the Invasion of Iraq?

[bradclark1]

I meant that invading Afghanistan was the only action acceptable.

[bradclark1]

Sevens months in the White House and your feet are not wet as yet. I would suspect that terrorism was not forefront in the first seven months. His campaign promises were at the forefront.

Each incoming administration is fully briefed on national security. If you had of read this link http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/ you would see that a bipartisan congressional study on terrorism had spent a lot of time and money and were trying to give the report to Bush but it was ignored because Bush wanted Cheney to do his own study. What a waste of time when that information is in his face. The VP never got around to it. It's unfortunate but terrorists weren't going by this administrations schedule.
Those excuses about wet feet and campaign promises are just that, excuses. I'm not trying to ride your butt but I noticed that when I showed you the myth's of Clinton inactivity you make excuses that terrorism wasn't a Bush priority. Obviously it wasn't but it sounds like you are trying to make excuses for him.

[DeepIron]

Gentlemen, the Japanese have a saying: "The Japanese fix the problem, Americans fix the blame". What has happened, has happened. Now, we are embroiled in an "open ended" war that goes well beyond "terrorism"... Our current Presidential leadership is a "lame duck", and we're confronted with trying to elect a leadership that will rectify the situation.

Excellent Wikipedia citation concerning Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present))

From the citation (and recent history is certainly bearing this out):

"Since the invasion, Afghanistan has become less stable due to increased warlord and Taliban activity, growing illegal drug production, and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul."

IMO, all the US has done in the Middle East, other than the successful execution of Saddam Hussein for crimes against Humanity (which incidentally had NOTHING to do with Osama bin Laden and the War on Terrorism), is to destabilize the region further, compromise US Foreign Policy, generally p*ss off people and dig another multi-billion dollar hole to throw US $$$ into.... :damn:

Meanwhile, private US interests get fat on lucrative contracts, US military men and women continue to die as do the Iraqi civilians, and the Iranians are now a more significant nuclear factor... :damn:

[August]

It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists. Please show anything that says that?

Edit: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

From your quote:

"We predicted it," Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. "We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999.

and:

"Could this have been prevented?" Hart asks. "The answer is, 'We'll never know.' Possibly not." It was a struggle to convince President Clinton of the need for such a commission, Hart says. He urged Clinton to address this problem in '94 and '95, but Clinton didn't act until 1998, prompted by politics. "He saw Gingrich was about to do it, so he moved to collaborate," Hart says. "Seven years had gone by since the end of the Cold War. It could have been much sooner."

Kind of misleading to blame Bush for not getting it done in just 7 months in office what your boy didn't get it done in 6 years, dontcha think Brad?

[AVGWarhawk]

Those excuses about wet feet and campaign promises are just that, excuses. I'm not trying to ride your butt but I noticed that when I showed you the myth's of Clinton inactivity you make excuses that terrorism wasn't a Bush priority. Obviously it wasn't but it sounds like you are trying to make excuses for him.
In my opinion Clinton was not adamant enough during his 8 years concerning the warning signs. I make no excuses for Bush. He is not my favorite guy. What I was attempting to get across and perhaps passing the buck was not the best way to explain it, what I meant was the torch of terrorism has been passed on since Bush Sr to Clinton and then onto 'Dubb-ya'. It was his watch that the walls came crashing down via the trade centers. That what I was attempting to get across. Clinton did not pursue it as much as he should have and Bush did like wise. Although you can brief all you would like and who really knows what was told as the Clintonists decided to spend their time clearing out government property up to and not excluding taking the 'w' keys from the keyboards in the White House. Fun and games it was in the 8 years of renting out the Lincoln bedroom. Both are plausibly responsible in the matter.

It does not matter at this juncture as we are still faced with what to do in Iraq. I think we should keep a presence there.

[bradclark1]

It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists. Please show anything that says that?

Edit: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

From your quote:

"We predicted it," Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. "We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999.

and:

"Could this have been prevented?" Hart asks. "The answer is, 'We'll never know.' Possibly not." It was a struggle to convince President Clinton of the need for such a commission, Hart says. He urged Clinton to address this problem in '94 and '95, but Clinton didn't act until 1998, prompted by politics. "He saw Gingrich was about to do it, so he moved to collaborate," Hart says. "Seven years had gone by since the end of the Cold War. It could have been much sooner."

Kind of misleading to blame Bush for not getting it done in just 7 months in office what your boy didn't get it done in 6 years, dontcha think Brad?
Not really, 'my boy' did not ignore terrorism for seven months. In December and January Bush's team were briefed on Al Qaeda posing the worst security threat facing the nation. Could 'my boy' have done more? Hell yes. Was he sitting on his butt with terrorism? No, as I've shown. Did Bush ignore the pre-briefing? Yes. Did Bush ignore the May security briefing? Yes. Did he ignore the congressional study that spent an hour and a half briefing Rice in favor of the VP doing a study when he got around to it.? Yes. All three together is a flashing light. Could presidential attention on these have prevented 911? We'll never know. So no I don't think what I've said is misleading at all. Your boy ignored terrorism for seven months.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEEDB1131F933A15750C0A9629C8B 63
They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.
One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led.

[bradclark1]

In my opinion Clinton was not adamant enough during his 8 years concerning the warning signs.
Hindsight 20/20 not to mention the GOP fighting him on every security issue that came to the houses.

[Although you can brief all you would like and who really knows what was told as the Clintonists decided to spend their time clearing out government property up to and not excluding taking the 'w' keys from the keyboards in the White House. Fun and games it was in the 8 years of renting out the Lincoln bedroom. Both are plausibly responsible in the matter.
I'm sure that had a bearing on things.:shifty:

[AVGWarhawk]

In my opinion Clinton was not adamant enough during his 8 years concerning the warning signs. Hindsight 20/20 not to mention the GOP fighting him on every security issue that came to the houses.

[Although you can brief all you would like and who really knows what was told as the Clintonists decided to spend their time clearing out government property up to and not excluding taking the 'w' keys from the keyboards in the White House. Fun and games it was in the 8 years of renting out the Lincoln bedroom. Both are plausibly responsible in the matter. I'm sure that had a bearing on things.:shifty:
Say what you like but people do not understand how it works. OK, for todays goverment problem, SoCal is blazing away. Dubb-ya said federal aid is on the way:roll: Sadly, I handle transportation for FEMA. Guess what, they have no funding to make this federal assistance happen. :o Hmmmmm....more beauracracy grinding to a stop? You bet! It happens with every presidency. So yeah, hindsight. I'm talking the here, now, today. Not looking over what we know at our leisure. Got to go bro, folks in SoCal need help.

[DeepIron]

Guess what, they have no funding to make this federal assistance happen.

And why are there no funds for domestic emergencies? (Does Katrina ring a bell?)

Because our flippin' government too too busy "protecting" us from "terrorists"...
We are spending so much time, money and attention to the Global Community that we are short-changing our own citizenry.

The Iraqi War isn't working and Bush can't flippin' reconcile himself to failure... There are other ways of dealing with the "terrorist" threat that don't include occupation of another sovereign nation... and spending BILLIONS of $$$ doing it...

SoCal is going to be a huge mess and we won't have the $$$ available for our OWN citizens... I go to SoCal once a month (I drive a semi for a living now) and I'm going to tell my dispatcher, "find someone else"... I drove in Louisiana after Katrina and it was very scary in places. There were a LOT of desparate people... And all they wanted was help...

And frankly, I don't give a rats a** if it's "business as usual for American bureaucrats" for whatever Adminstration is in office. The problem is not being addressed and it's not being changed to something more positive.

[AVGWarhawk]

And why are there no funds for domestic emergencies? (Does Katrina ring a bell?)

Because our flippin' government too too busy "protecting" us from "terrorists"...
We are spending so much time, money and attention to the Global Community that we are short-changing our own citizenry.
Katrina has nothing to do with it. The fiscal year of 2008 and monies available just clicked last month. This is how funding from year to year happens. They do not wait until January 1st. They need to make some calls to have FEMA moved to the head of the line with an open checkbook. Unfortunate it takes numerous calls to get it done.



Katrina is a whole different thread and perhaps looking at the Governer and Mayor who refused federal help needs to be read up on. Devastation there was MASSIVE! Know one knew were to start. I'm not on FEMA side as this wing is still screwed up. Nothing was learned at all.



And frankly, I don't give a rats a** if it's "business as usual for American bureaucrats" for whatever Adminstration is in office. The problem is not being addressed and it's not being changed to something more positive.
Nor will it be in your and my lifetime. We have fallen into an abyss of status quo generated over the years. Red Tape as it were.

[August]

Not really, 'my boy' did not ignore terrorism for seven months.

No, he ignored it for 8 whole years.

[DeepIron]

Nor will it be in your and my lifetime. We have fallen into an abyss of status quo generated over the years.
And that, my friend, is the quite possibly the saddest summation of this whole flippin' bureaucratic mess we call the US Government... :nope:

Katrina is a whole different thread and perhaps looking at the Governer and Mayor who refused federal help needs to be read up on. Devastation there was MASSIVE! Know one knew were to start. I'm not on FEMA side as this wing is still screwed up. Nothing was learned at all.
Actually, that was my point in mentioning Katrina... Here we are *again* with what will be another MASSIVE amount of damage in SoCal, and I doubt that we will have learned anything from the Katrina experience to alleviate the suffering and to "make things right" again.

And that's what really gets me. Here we are, this "Super Power" in the world, highest standard or living, freedoms and all that, and we still do all this stupid cr*p... We're supposed to LEAD the Freeworld, not rape and pillage it..

[SUBMAN1]

Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etcThat is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Per DeepIron

What the hell has gone wrong with this country?? Now, we use our kids as "cannon fodder" for an ongoing political power struggle? I frankly could care less about whether or not any particular political party scores "points" against the other. American politics have degenerated to the point of utter futility...

I agree 100%. America is tired of the Bush clan and the Clinton clan. Time for a new face with fresh ideas. The political jockeying during campaigning make ones stomach turn.Here here! +3 points telling it like it is!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I agree, now if we can only get that pesky cloning technology to work we could have another Reagan.........

Reagan:up: May man! Unfortune there is no one who could fill his shoes. Such a shame.Thompson can.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas. Hate to enlighten you but nothing of this scope happened under the Clintonistas. It happened under the Buck-a-roo's. And we all know the Buck-a-roo's knew an attack was coming but ignored it.That is BS. No other way to say it. They are inundated with threats every day, and have been since the 60's and 70's. No one believed it could happen.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Im not talking about free healthcare, im talking about tax funded healthcare for all citizens.
There is free healthcare. Just visit any emergency room and see it at work. The ER has turned into the family doctor. What, are they going to turn you away while you are bleeding from the jugular? Nope. But guess what, those like me who pay for my families healthcare pay a premium to cover those that choose to use the ER like the family doctor and have no coverage. They know they will get the help and they use it without blinking an eye.You again get more points! +1

-S

[SUBMAN1]

It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists. Please show anything that says that?

Edit: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/


Simple Google it. Google is your friend. An example - http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=clinton+iraq+1998&btnG=Google+Search

Not sure how you are going to respond to that link, but it's pretty incriminating for the Clinton's. :D

-S

[Sea Demon]

There's alot of damning things out there about the Clinton's. Some of it is in such absolute broad daylight, it's impossible to ignore. Although the left is utterly oblivious to their own self-destruction.

There's something wrong about the Dishwashers in Chinatown for Clinton. I know the Clinton's are bought and paid for by the Chicomms, but it's ridiculous the regular Joe Dem's refuse to see it.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101069.html

Chinese laundered campaign donations?????You don't say.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202007/news/nationalnews/hills_cash_eyed_as_chinese_lau.htm

I'll say it again. Giving the Democrats the White House, mainly HR Clinton, will be giving the Chinese butchers in Beijing, and Islamic Terrorists in the Middle East a boost. It is so clear that a Hillary presidency will be more of the same in regards to the selling/giving away the "keys to the kingdom" to China again.

And have you heard some of the Democrats in regards to our current situation in the war on terror? The whole Democrat party waffles on whether or not we should fight it, *surrender*, or go back to the "sweep under the rug" policies of Bill Clinton and pretend it never happened. And the ones who would fight it are ostracized for their commitments to confront enemies of this country. See Joe Lieberman***. A Democrat President would not be in America's interest right now while we are at war and are confronting real threats. The Democrats cannot and will not see the realities of the day. They are not FDR or Truman Democrats these days. Today's Democrats simply don't have the abiility to lead.

[Ishmael]

You guys just don't get it. The Bushes and the Clintons are just the two sides of the Corporatist World Order Agenda, designed to give the illusion of choice while preventing genuine alternative candidates from attempting to change that. Who do you think owns the media? The Bush admin is unconcerned because they know that a Hillary Clinton admin will continue the Occupation For Oil in Iraq, keep paying mercenaries like Blackwater, keep the mechanisms for state tyranny enacted during the Bush reign intact and pardon all the illegal acts committed by the Bush Regime.

Their goal is to bankrupt the US government while paving the way for the rise of The North American Union where only corporations and the wealthy will have rights. The only right remaining to us will be the right to starve. By this time, everyone will be forced to be implanted with RFID chips while all our internet conversations are monitored for non-right thinking.

The United States government will be gone within ten years. Replaced by the North American Union with police and prison services provided by Blackwater, CACI and their ilk.

As far as the "Health-Care System". I have no health insurance, haven't had any in a year, so if I get sick, I die. But then, after watching my wife's experiences with the health care system, I won't let those butchers any closer to me than I'd let the Bush admin. butchers. I figure I'm perfectly capable of dying on my own. I don't need those sick f**ks helping me on my way. When it's my time, I'll take a drive up into north central New Mexico on the Jicarilla Apache res and go for a walk in the Sangre de Cristos before a big blizzard. That way I can have my own do-it-yourself Tibetan funeral. I've decided I don't want to die on the white man's land, not even my own.

[Sailor Steve]

Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etcThat is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S
Actually you're thinking of the bill of rights. The Constitution itself is the instruction manual for running the government. It defines specifically what each branch of government can and cannot do, as as such is the controlling basis of all our laws. How it is to do those things and what the limitations of power are, are not clearly defined. So not clearly defined that the founders themselves had many arguments concerning what was and was not "Constitutional".

[bradclark1]

Not really, 'my boy' did not ignore terrorism for seven months.

No, he ignored it for 8 whole years.

This says different. Even with the GOP trying to block.

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/...dTerrorism.htm (http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm)
Myths Debunked - Clinton Didn't Fight Terrorism

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
Urban legends.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...lumenthal.html (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/08/18_blumenthal.html)
"The Clinton Wars" Excerpts: How the GOP Undercut Clinton's Efforts to Fight Terrorism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/516805.stm
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced a major reorganisation, with a greater emphasis on the prevention of terrorist attacks against American interests.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.t...ill/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html)
The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill
The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terroris...eet_10_96.html (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html)
WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES

http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/policy.html
Nevertheless, as strong as the bill was, it should have been stronger. For example, President Clinton asked the Congress to give U.S. law enforcement increased wiretap authority in terrorism cases. But the Congress refused. After the President proposed that the Secretary of the Treasury consider the inclusion of taggants in explosive materials, so that bombs can be traced more easily to the bomb makers, the Congress exempted black and smokeless powder -- two of the most commonly used substances in improvised explosive devices.

[SUBMAN1]

Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etcThat is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S Actually you're thinking of the bill of rights. The Constitution itself is the instruction manual for running the government. It defines specifically what each branch of government can and cannot do, as as such is the controlling basis of all our laws. How it is to do those things and what the limitations of power are, are not clearly defined. So not clearly defined that the founders themselves had many arguments concerning what was and was not "Constitutional".That is true. I'm trying to lump sum it and all of it - Bill of Rights, Admendments, COnstitution, etc. - but should have elaborated further. The point being it is not a set of documents that covers every aspect of the future, nor the past, but simply to provide a basic set of operating rules. That is the point I am trying to get across. It is not meant to replace laws.

-S

[bradclark1]

It was out there but Clinton refused to acknowledge it. Enlightened as to the Clintonists. Please show anything that says that?

Edit: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/


Simple Google it. Google is your friend. An example - http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=clinton+iraq+1998&btnG=Google+Search

Not sure how you are going to respond to that link, but it's pretty incriminating for the Clinton's. :D

-S
Nothing to respond to. You aren't saying anything. Anybody can drop google links on any subject under the sun.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+pre+briefing+terrorism&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+may+2001+intelligence+report&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+iraq+intelligence+report&btnG=Search

[Ducimus]

>>RE:Really getting tired of Bush...

Just responding to the post title. I suppose at some point, just about everyone will become disillusioned with Bush. He lost my support during the presidential debates for the second election. The subject of outsourcing came up. As i recall, his only response to that was something along the lines of "ya'all just gotta get a better eduction". Excuse me, Mr Nue klar? The man can't even pronounce nuclear correctly, and he's telling me the answer to american jobs being outsourced overseas was to retrain? I have never looked at him favorably since.

[baggygreen]

Im just impressed everyone has kept it civil in this thread - we should frame it and mount it!:rotfl:

I dont know that anyone coulda really stopped 9/11 as has been discussed. Clinton never woulda been allowed to launch a war or even higher profile strikes in order to try kill OBL, because there wasnt a perceived threat among the general population. Attacks still happened, but they were far away, in places that many americans had never heard of let alone knew the location of.

What it took for the public to realise that yes, there is actually a threat out there was a large-scale, very public and very bold attack. It will take another attack of the same style to make people think "oh, look, there is still a threat". Unfortunately most people will deem any big attacks a retaliation for the past few years' efforts in the ME. Fact of the matter is that this next attack will happen regardless of if we (the west) stay in the ME, pull out tomorrow, or even if we stop supporting Israel or something ridiculous like that.

On a lighter note, to everyone advocating a troop pullout today, i'll leave a quote from a teacher of mine about 10 years ago. Im bastardising the context, but thats ok. "withdrawing offers no protection at all, neither in the here and now or in the future";):D

[P_Funk]

Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etcThat is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S Laws are extentions of the founding documents. Every law written is assumed to be a clarical interpretation of the constitution. The constitution IS the ultimate law and any others are an exploration of the boundaries set by the most basic laws of the democracy in question. This is where you get the extended social welfare system being applied as a right. Less or more conservative interpretations indicate different levels of government involvement.

Referring to the common practise here of talking about how the government should only build roads and arm hicks on the borders is a very simple minded approach. It hails to an old world sense of government. Any student of history can see that static establishments that seek to deny progress to reality always fail ultimately. Relying on the utopian concept of the free market as being the true protector of people's needs is either naiive or intentionally dismissive of those that are left out. Greed is inherently capitalist and at the forefront of every business. Describing the collective benefits of society as being a natural ancillary to profit is proven idiotic. The term 'trickle down' is used to describe western capitalism. I never understood why anyone thought that was an acceptable reality. Those who work the hardest get the scraps and the fewest richest get the most because they already have too much for their own good. I just want someone to say f&*k the poor and get it over with. Enough romanticising of the free market already. Just be an honest capitalist someone and say that those without can go to hell if they can't hack it. The fundamental rights of those to equality are denied by the simple fact that poverty extinguishes the possibilities of many people. How can we all achieve something great if the lion's share already goes to those that have it. And when the economy falters, usually as a result of the rich getting so greedy that they invert the supply demand ratio, the poor are the ones forced to suffer the consequences since the rich offset the losses of poor economic profitability by cutting everything except for the revenues that go straight to the owner of the operation.

Pinko-Commie out.:|\\

[Ishmael]

Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etcThat is a bad comparrison because that falls under the section of laws, not basic freedoms. It has nothing to do with the constitution, which outlines your basic freedoms and rights and nothing more. Laws dictate what you can or can't do.

-S Laws are extentions of the founding documents. Every law written is assumed to be a clarical interpretation of the constitution. The constitution IS the ultimate law and any others are an exploration of the boundaries set by the most basic laws of the democracy in question. This is where you get the extended social welfare system being applied as a right. Less or more conservative interpretations indicate different levels of government involvement.

Referring to the common practise here of talking about how the government should only build roads and arm hicks on the borders is a very simple minded approach. It hails to an old world sense of government. Any student of history can see that static establishments that seek to deny progress to reality always fail ultimately. Relying on the utopian concept of the free market as being the true protector of people's needs is either naiive or intentionally dismissive of those that are left out. Greed is inherently capitalist and at the forefront of every business. Describing the collective benefits of society as being a natural ancillary to profit is proven idiotic. The term 'trickle down' is used to describe western capitalism. I never understood why anyone thought that was an acceptable reality. Those who work the hardest get the scraps and the fewest richest get the most because they already have too much for their own good. I just want someone to say f&*k the poor and get it over with. Enough romanticising of the free market already. Just be an honest capitalist someone and say that those without can go to hell if they can't hack it. The fundamental rights of those to equality are denied by the simple fact that poverty extinguishes the possibilities of many people. How can we all achieve something great if the lion's share already goes to those that have it. And when the economy falters, usually as a result of the rich getting so greedy that they invert the supply demand ratio, the poor are the ones forced to suffer the consequences since the rich offset the losses of poor economic profitability by cutting everything except for the revenues that go straight to the owner of the operation.

Pinko-Commie out.:|\\

Kinda makes you want to revisit Karl Marx again doesn't it? When you elect people who don't believe government works, why are you surprised when they can't make anything work in governing? What's most ironic to me is how many traits the neocons and Bolsheviks share. Both want the state to wither away for different reasons. Both think they know more than the masses of people. Both consider those people as sheep who must be forced to their own concept of "right action" and both will never willingly surrender power to oppositions.

[waste gate]

Kinda makes you want to revisit Karl Marx again doesn't it? When you elect people who don't believe government works, why are you surprised when they can't make anything work in governing? What's most ironic to me is how many traits the neocons and Bolsheviks share. Both want the state to wither away for different reasons. Both think they know more than the masses of people. Both consider those people as sheep who must be forced to their own concept of "right action" and both will never willingly surrender power to oppositions.



When you elect people who don't believe government works, why are you surprised when they can't make anything work in governing?


Excellent observation Ishmael!!!




Both consider those people as sheep who must be forced to their own concept of "right action" and both will never willingly surrender power to oppositions.


Time to take back our government. A Constitutional Convention is in order. Not so much to do away with our current constitution as to remove our current professional politicians and their contempt for the governed.

[The WosMan]

Yes, our government overall needs a complete enema so we can get back to our roots and that includes the Reps and the Dems because both have abandoned us. I never was a conspiracy person but the fact that Bush does nothing about illegals and they continue to build the highway from Mexico through the US to Canada leads me to believe Ishmael's statements more than I would have 5 or 6 years ago.

Didn't Jefferson say the government would need to be reset every 20 years or so? I think we are due.

[AVGWarhawk]

We can say this, in a year we will be done with Bush. What I say is, in a year I hope we do not see Hillary. We need new blood and new ideas. What we get from Bush and Clinton will just be more of the same old same old.

[bradclark1]

A lot can happen in a year. Those at the top now may very well be at the bottom. The next election is going to be a shocker.

[Ishmael]

Yes, our government overall needs a complete enema so we can get back to our roots and that includes the Reps and the Dems because both have abandoned us. I never was a conspiracy person but the fact that Bush does nothing about illegals and they continue to build the highway from Mexico through the US to Canada leads me to believe Ishmael's statements more than I would have 5 or 6 years ago.

Didn't Jefferson say the government would need to be reset every 20 years or so? I think we are due.
Thanks. It's nice to see I'm not the lone voice crying in the wilderness any longer. I don't believe a new Constitutional convention is necessary or desireable. My idea is to take their toys away. I have been convinced for some years now that, due to the corruptive nature of money and politics on both sides, that elective government has ceased to be representative government.

My idea is to take all executive and legislative offices at the state and national levels and replace elections with random selection from IRS tax rolls according to constitutional requirements. Just as there is no taxation without representation, the reverse should be true. Those selected by the lottery would be on the equivalent of National Guard duty giving them a leave of absence and a guarantee of a job on their return. While serving the state or nation, their expenses are paid by taxpayers. They serve one term of office and return to their lives. I would also pass a companion law forbidding lobbying by anyone who doesn't live in your district with summary execution as a penalty.

In this way, you avoid the seniority system of Congress as everyone would be equal. Committee chairmanships would also be decided by random drawing among the Congress and State Legislatures, so corporations wouldn't know who to try to bribe as each Congress would have new chairmen.

So what do you all think?

[Stealth Hunter]

In my opinion, we should damn the Electoral Vote system and replace it with a simple "One person, One vote" deal, not all this "You must win such-and-such state and gain so many votes to win". That's what stuck us with Bush as it is.

Gore won the Popular Vote (which really should be the only thing that counts), but lost the Electoral Vote. If we had Gore as president today, I think we could safely say that our country would not be as messed up as it is at the moment. We're literally selling ourselves out.

The United States' popularity with other countries is declining due to our poor decisions and idiotic movements. This fool of a president that we currently have has nearly destroyed all that the Founding Fathers built, and it's going to be a long and hellish trial for the next person to inherit the Democratic throne of our country to pull our asses out of it.

The Stock Market is a mess, our priorities are out of line, and we are making very strong enemies. Bush mocks the Iranians with a THIRD world war. As a veteran of the Iranian military and the Iran-Iraq War, I can honestly say that my countrymen would be MUCH harder than the Insurgents to fight. We could take a million deaths, but inflict twice that number on our enemies; but lo to the Chinese! It's a very dangerous game that we're getting in, and I fear that we might be reduced to ruin. The card game, gentlemen, is beginning to heat up- the stakes are now much higher than they were in the 1990's.

Whatever happens, we can only hope that the outcome favors life and deflation (the rich get richer, the poor get poorer; just like England; there will be no middle-class).

[waste gate]

In my opinion, we should damn the Electoral Vote system and replace it with a simple "One person, One vote" deal, not all this "You must win such-and-such state and gain so many votes to win". That's what stuck us with Bush as it is.

Gore won the Popular Vote (which really should be the only thing that counts), but lost the Electoral Vote. If we had Gore as president today, I think we could safely say that our country would not be as messed up as it is at the moment. We're literally selling ourselves out.

The United States' popularity with other countries is declining due to our poor decisions and idiotic movements. This fool of a president that we currently have has nearly destroyed all that the Founding Fathers built, and it's going to be a long and hellish trial for the next person to inherit the Democratic throne of our country to pull our asses out of it.

The Stock Market is a mess, our priorities are out of line, and we are making very strong enemies. Bush mocks the Iranians with a THIRD world war. As a veteran of the Iranian military and the Iran-Iraq War, I can honestly say that my countrymen would be MUCH harder than the Insurgents to fight. We could take a million deaths, but inflict twice that number on our enemies; but lo to the Chinese! It's a very dangerous game that we're getting in, and I fear that we might be reduced to ruin. The card game, gentlemen, is beginning to heat up- the stakes are now much higher than they were in the 1990's.

Whatever happens, we can only hope that the outcome favors life and deflation (the rich get richer, the poor get poorer; just like England; there will be no middle-class).

You poured many topics into your post. I suspect its because you don't yet understand the system and are frustrated with your impotence. You are the 'hippie' of your age.

Rather than summarily critisizing try to articulate how you would change the situation which frustrates you. It may help you feel better and or give you more focus and a goal.

[DeepIron]

Time to take back our government. A Constitutional Convention is in order. Not so much to do away with our current constitution as to remove our current professional politicians and their contempt for the governed.
Well said. The Founding Fathers built incredible documents in the Constitution and the Bill or Rights. It irks me to no end to see the "rules" bent, twisted and otherwise ignored by the very people we elect to support them.

I've never seen "politician" as a job title at an Unemployment Office. Serving in an elected office is a service to your country, not a career track... I wonder how many citizens would seek an elected Federal office from the private or business sectors knowing that they could only serve "X" number of years...:hmm:

[Stealth Hunter]

In my opinion, we should damn the Electoral Vote system and replace it with a simple "One person, One vote" deal, not all this "You must win such-and-such state and gain so many votes to win". That's what stuck us with Bush as it is.

Gore won the Popular Vote (which really should be the only thing that counts), but lost the Electoral Vote. If we had Gore as president today, I think we could safely say that our country would not be as messed up as it is at the moment. We're literally selling ourselves out.

The United States' popularity with other countries is declining due to our poor decisions and idiotic movements. This fool of a president that we currently have has nearly destroyed all that the Founding Fathers built, and it's going to be a long and hellish trial for the next person to inherit the Democratic throne of our country to pull our asses out of it.

The Stock Market is a mess, our priorities are out of line, and we are making very strong enemies. Bush mocks the Iranians with a THIRD world war. As a veteran of the Iranian military and the Iran-Iraq War, I can honestly say that my countrymen would be MUCH harder than the Insurgents to fight. We could take a million deaths, but inflict twice that number on our enemies; but lo to the Chinese! It's a very dangerous game that we're getting in, and I fear that we might be reduced to ruin. The card game, gentlemen, is beginning to heat up- the stakes are now much higher than they were in the 1990's.

Whatever happens, we can only hope that the outcome favors life and deflation (the rich get richer, the poor get poorer; just like England; there will be no middle-class).

You poured many topics into your post. I suspect its because you don't yet understand the system and are frustrated with your impotence. You are the 'hippie' of your age.

Rather than summarily critisizing try to articulate how you would change the situation which frustrates you. It may help you feel better and or give you more focus and a goal.

Then again, there's always looking at the bigger picture, jackass.

How lovely it is indeed! Not only are you a jackass, but you are also a smartass and a braggart. Why don't you lead the parade if you're so smart.:hmm:

[August]

Getting rid of the electoral college would be a really bad idea imo as without it you put all the power to elect presidents into the hands of a select few states. A president ought to represent ALL the people, not just city dwellers.

[waste gate]

In my opinion, we should damn the Electoral Vote system and replace it with a simple "One person, One vote" deal, not all this "You must win such-and-such state and gain so many votes to win". That's what stuck us with Bush as it is.

Gore won the Popular Vote (which really should be the only thing that counts), but lost the Electoral Vote. If we had Gore as president today, I think we could safely say that our country would not be as messed up as it is at the moment. We're literally selling ourselves out.

The United States' popularity with other countries is declining due to our poor decisions and idiotic movements. This fool of a president that we currently have has nearly destroyed all that the Founding Fathers built, and it's going to be a long and hellish trial for the next person to inherit the Democratic throne of our country to pull our asses out of it.

The Stock Market is a mess, our priorities are out of line, and we are making very strong enemies. Bush mocks the Iranians with a THIRD world war. As a veteran of the Iranian military and the Iran-Iraq War, I can honestly say that my countrymen would be MUCH harder than the Insurgents to fight. We could take a million deaths, but inflict twice that number on our enemies; but lo to the Chinese! It's a very dangerous game that we're getting in, and I fear that we might be reduced to ruin. The card game, gentlemen, is beginning to heat up- the stakes are now much higher than they were in the 1990's.

Whatever happens, we can only hope that the outcome favors life and deflation (the rich get richer, the poor get poorer; just like England; there will be no middle-class).

You poured many topics into your post. I suspect its because you don't yet understand the system and are frustrated with your impotence. You are the 'hippie' of your age.

Rather than summarily critisizing try to articulate how you would change the situation which frustrates you. It may help you feel better and or give you more focus and a goal.

Then again, there's always looking at the bigger picture, jackass.

How lovely it is indeed! Not only are you a jackass, but you are also a smartass and a braggart. Why don't you lead the parade if you're so smart.:hmm:


I'm not sure why I deserve so much hostility.?? Was it the: You are the 'hippie' of your age, comment? I didn't mean it as a slight, but rather as a call to activism.
Is this more of the frustration you feel?

EDIT: Did you say this in the Political Parties thread? Why would you want to eliminate the electoral system if you believe this?


One of the good points you made was in regards to the Republican idea of trust in the people. If history has taught us anything, it's that the people cannot be trusted fully. True, they deserve their rights, but too much can be a bad thing (the Roman Empire taught us that). To me, it seems that we should act as if we are holding the reigns of a horse: there's a time to loosen your grip and there's a time to hold tight and stand fast.


Don't feel bad about it. I'll chock it up to frustration and misunderstanding of the system.

[DeepIron]

<gets popcorn and a flak jacket>

[Ducimus]

Getting rid of the electoral college would be a really bad idea imo as without it you put all the power to elect presidents into the hands of a select few states. A president ought to represent ALL the people, not just city dwellers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/USA-2000-population-density.gif

[August]

Getting rid of the electoral college would be a really bad idea imo as without it you put all the power to elect presidents into the hands of a select few states. A president ought to represent ALL the people, not just city dwellers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/USA-2000-population-density.gif

Exactly my point.

[Onkel Neal]

Then again, there's always looking at the bigger picture, jackass.

How lovely it is indeed! Not only are you a jackass, but you are also a smartass and a braggart. Why don't you lead the parade if you're so smart.:hmm:

Hold up, no personal attacks, please.
If you reach a point where you cannot discuss this without calling names, better take a breather from the topic.

Thanks,
Neal