| Author | Post |
|---|
dover_diva
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
You know Terrance you are particularly tedious in your blogs. Can't find anything to really back up your position why Obama should lead this country-- so you continue to belittle the others that are REALLY trying to have an exchange of opinions. Why don't YOU read a marxist manual.(I have been accused of not knowing a marxist vs a communist but at least I can say I have read the manifestos. Have YOU???)
I posed the question a long while back re: HOW DID OBAMA get the backing from the Dems to go against H.Clinton and get all the "bigwigs" backing him when he was an unknown,had very little experience,NOBODY even knew you he was.You got the answer? So how do you think Obama was chosen from relative obscurity to where he is now.????? Who are is backers???? Why HIM????? Charisma goes so far but, lets discuss HOW, WHY, and WHO is going to benefit if he gets elected (God forbid).
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:56 pm |
|
| PTG did you already forget that you posted your last post already? Is that why you've used a convoluted way of posting it again? Were you intending to quote yourself?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:45 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Seems this Saviour of America just doesn't understand that you need to think before you speak. He should stick to the script Soros writes for him.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080713/POLITICS-USA-POLITICS-OBAMA-JERUSALEM-DC/
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:40 pm |
|
| bioya......
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I guess we all make mistakes. I would be happy to discuss topices, but no matter where I look, I can't find information on what they are.
Terrance wrote:
You actually seem to take pride in flaunting your ignorance on topices.
Well done.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:31 pm |
|
I guess we all make mistakes. I would be happy to discuss topices, but no matter where I look, I can't find information on what they are.
Terrance wrote:
You actually seem to take pride in flaunting your ignorance on topices.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:28 pm |
|
Seems this Saviour of America just doesn't understand that you need to think before you speak. He should stick to the script Soros writes for him.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080713/POLITICS-USA-POLITICS-OBAMA-JERUSALEM-DC/
|
dover_diva
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 08:46 pm |
|
| PTG it is very hard to carry on a "discussion" with individuals who see their side as "right" and everyone else is wrong. So you made a mistake(SSI _SSA).Big deal--but the blindness is in pointing out the "mistake" and mocking the individual,because really the mocker can't come up with anything else. Hey- Terrance and Fred I edited my "mistake".
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 08:29 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I guess that since you cannot simply discuss the fact that Social Security was a socialist initiative (Hence the Name), you would rather question my slip in calling SS (Social Security) by inserting the I, which is a supplemental SS added by the same political group that created the program in the first place, then Disability was tacked on and on and on.
BTW my wife has had no issue with SS for 2 years and applying was easy. Don't have an issue however, because no one will answer the phone and you can plan on spending most of your day at the locall SS office if you want a live answer.
It's a great example of what happens when you let the government run essential services in this country that could better be handled by the private sector.
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: SSI was a socialist concept from the inception. It has been expanded to cover every needy group in the country and expanded beyond its original intent. That is why Socialism is receding in Europe, the people have realized they cannot afford it any longer.
If you can honestly think that the "politicians" will resolve health care delivery, you are driving with blinders on.
You know SSI is not Social Security don't you? SSI came about when some boob decided to consolidate several welfare eligibility categories and have them administered under a different agency.
You need to bone up on your SSA vs SSI history. SSI was a different group at a different time.
Church Socials are socialist initiatives too? How about Ladies' Socials?
You actually seem to take pride in flaunting your ignorance on topices.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 08:22 pm |
|
I guess that since you cannot simply discuss the fact that Social Security was a socialist initiative (Hence the Name), you would rather question my slip in calling SS (Social Security) by inserting the I, which is a supplemental SS added by the same political group that created the program in the first place, then Disability was tacked on and on and on.
BTW my wife has had no issue with SS for 2 years and applying was easy. Don't have an issue however, because no one will answer the phone and you can plan on spending most of your day at the locall SS office if you want a live answer.
It's a great example of what happens when you let the government run essential services in this country that could better be handled by the private sector.
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: SSI was a socialist concept from the inception. It has been expanded to cover every needy group in the country and expanded beyond its original intent. That is why Socialism is receding in Europe, the people have realized they cannot afford it any longer.
If you can honestly think that the "politicians" will resolve health care delivery, you are driving with blinders on.
You know SSI is not Social Security don't you? SSI came about when some boob decided to consolidate several welfare eligibility categories and have them administered under a different agency.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 08:05 pm |
|
Rightwinger wrote: Terrance wrote: Social Security has been tampered with and abused by the politicians. It's funds have been misused.
We actually agree on something!
Scary, isn't it?
There's more of a chance of that happening if we refrain from labels and name-calling. Even if we disagree, it's better if we refrain from labels and name calling. We lose nothing. We gain a discussion as opposed to a contest.
The SSA is hard to deal with at times, but I found it relatively easy to apply for my pension benefits. I have been collecting those benefits ever since without a hitch.
The "hitch' is the benefit amount has been tampered with by the politicians and no one is getting the full amount they should be getting. The politicians have also enabled corporations to destroy our manufacturing base and ruin our economy. Out sourcing and relocating industry "off shore" have resulted in the loss of many of our jobs. Therefore we have less workers contributing into the system
Do you really think we would be better off right now if Social Security just disappeared?
There is nothing wrong with the concept. The problem is with corrupt politicians who have plundered the funds, and did everything they could to dismantle the program.
Maybe there are better ways for us to be doing things, but this one shouldn't be discarded because a bunch of crooks took over our government.
Would you close a store because the managers were misappropriating the earnings, or would you get rid of the managers?
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 07:32 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Social Security has been tampered with and abused by the politicians. It's funds have been misused.
We actually agree on something!
Scary, isn't it?
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 07:28 pm |
|
Fred wrote: I refuse to accept that government regulation or deregulation is evil in and of itself, and refuse to accept that government can't runs things efficiently. Social Security is perfect example of a program that is RAN very well.....now, they may have mandates placed on them or they may have other parts of the program that you may not agree with, but the program itself runs pretty well, and there is not a lot of waste in this particular program.
If Social Security has been managed so well, then why do we now have to work longer to collect 100% of our benefits? The social security money taken from each individual should go directly into their own retirement fund and options should be made available to each of us with regard to how it is invested and managed.
Have you ever tried to contact the IRS by phone? Have you ever tried to resolve a dispute with them? Have you ever visited the IRS office in Dover and try to get someone to discuss an issue?
Every time I have to contact a government agency whether State or Federal, I
have to be prepared to waste valuable time and be subjected to their rudeness
in the process. ( There are exceptions, of course, but I am talking about the
majority of the time.)
Sorry, I do not agree with your statements!
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 07:10 pm |
|
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Socialism! Socialism!
Has a familiar ring don't you think. Some people on this blog actually hear ringing.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 07:07 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: SSI was a socialist concept from the inception. It has been expanded to cover every needy group in the country and expanded beyond its original intent. That is why Socialism is receding in Europe, the people have realized they cannot afford it any longer.
If you can honestly think that the "politicians" will resolve health care delivery, you are driving with blinders on.
You know SSI is not Social Security don't you? SSI came about when some boob decided to consolidate several welfare eligibility categories and have them administered under a different agency.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
SSI was a socialist concept from the inception. It has been expanded to cover every needy group in the country and expanded beyond its original intent. That is why Socialism is receding in Europe, the people have realized they cannot afford it any longer.
If you can honestly think that the "politicians" will resolve health care delivery, you are driving with blinders on.
Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:59 pm by Playing the Game
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:56 pm |
|
The SSA does a good job at administering the benefits. Please point to any audit that indicates otherwise.
Again, tell me a problem that Obama (or McCain) addresses, and why that solution is so bad (or better), rather then simply voting because your grandpappy was/is/wasn't/isn't a liberal/conservative, or you don't like the label.
There was an interesting survey done and the results published on American Catholics...perhaps you saw it, CR, in the Dialog. Basically, most Catholics identify themselves with the label of "Conservative", but in the same breath believe that the government shoud be bigger to solve some of our problems. I don't think it has to be bigger, necessarily, but I do think the results on the first issue were the successful result of the right wing demonizing "liberals". Heck, we see it here all the time with the idiotic comparisions to other forms of government or economic systems....
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:52 pm |
|
Social Security has been tampered with and abused by the politicians. It's funds have been misused. Had we gone to a single payer system years ago, Medicare would no longer be an issue.There would also be no Prescription Drug Benefit.
|
dover_diva
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
| You're right!!!!God if they were a more corrupt,inefficient,misuse of money (well,maybe we could add medicare/medicaid,farm subsidies,labor unions-------------) and us taxpayers have nothing to say where it goes (I don't think the SSA could undergo a real audit and still be called a wonderful thing).
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
| Fred, if you honestly believe that Social Security is run very well, then you deserve what you will get under Liberals and Socialists.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:34 pm |
|
Okay, RW...I hear how you formed your opinion on why you are a conservative, and that is fair enough. I can tell you that I went through the same type of epiphany regarding my move to the Dems. I have seen corporations take over the political parties of our country, and while I do believe they own more then a bit of each, I firmly believe that they hold the Repubs a bit tighter.
However, let's return to the subject. Tell me of a problem that Obama plans to address, and why you think it either should not be addressed, or why McCain's plan is better. I refuse to accept that government regulation or deregulation is evil in and of itself, and refuse to accept that government can't runs things efficiently. Social Security is perfect example of a program that is RAN very well.....now, they may have mandates placed on them or they may have other parts of the program that you may not agree with, but the program itself runs pretty well, and there is not a lot of waste in this particular program.
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 05:59 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Getting back to Obama...tell me what specific program or proposal that he has made to solve a problem, and then telll me why you think McCain's is so much better. We've beat the two people's solutions to Iraq to death, and I'm willing to go at it again, but why not try to take the time to learn what about Obama you don't like so you can intelliegently argue against it? I've done it with McCain's issues because I truly want to know. I don't agree with either on everything, and I do think that they both offer solutions that will work...either in part or in total.
As a child, I listened to my parents and other family members talk about how the
Democratic party was for the average working man and that the Republican
Party represented the interests of the wealthy. Most of the men in my family
were union workers and ALL Democrats. As I grew older, I formed my own
opinion on each party. I realized that my views and ideals were conservative
and therefore registered as a Republican. I believe that we should not expect
the federal government to bail us out every time we make dumb decisions or
act & live irresponsibly. The Democratic party has moved so far to the left
it is frightening. Mc Cain was not my candidate of choice, but he has more
experience than Obama and he has proven that he is willing to work with you
Dems, so I hope that will help him win the Presidency.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:57 pm |
|
Rightwinger wrote: Terrance wrote: You would think someone who screwed up a post by posting it several times would have the good sense to edit out the second, third, etc repeats.
Class and upbringing always manage to shine through.
You just can't help putting yourself up on that high horse!
You may think you are better than us, but your insulting remarks speak
volumes about how "classy" YOU are.
You will not see another post from me on this matter. Meanwhile, back to
OBAMA and what he intends to accomplish by raising taxes.
I hope that's a promise.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:47 pm |
|
| Getting back to Obama...tell me what specific program or proposal that he has made to solve a problem, and then telll me why you think McCain's is so much better. We've beat the two people's solutions to Iraq to death, and I'm willing to go at it again, but why not try to take the time to learn what about Obama you don't like so you can intelliegently argue against it? I've done it with McCain's issues because I truly want to know. I don't agree with either on everything, and I do think that they both offer solutions that will work...either in part or in total.
|
dover_diva
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:14 pm |
|
| Ok I edited my error. Mea Culpa.
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:11 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: You would think someone who screwed up a post by posting it several times would have the good sense to edit out the second, third, etc repeats.
Class and upbringing always manage to shine through.
You just can't help putting yourself up on that high horse!
You may think you are better than us, but your insulting remarks speak
volumes about how "classy" YOU are.
You will not see another post from me on this matter. Meanwhile, back to
OBAMA and what he intends to accomplish by raising taxes.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:22 pm |
|
You would think someone who screwed up a post by posting it several times would have the good sense to edit out the second, third, etc repeats.
Class and upbringing always manage to shine through.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:15 pm |
|
Rightwinger wrote: Terence, go back and review all your postings, there is a pattern of
personal attacks on bloggers who disagree with your point of view.
Again, let's get back to the topic.
You look foolish now don't you? You criticized me for something I didn't do. I did not attack anyone for anything. I complained about an obvious misposting that caused a voluminous amount of text to appear several times. The author apologized for it in response to my complaint.
So rather than acknowledge your mistake you seek to cover up your inability to comprehend what I wrote by changing the issue. I can't help it if you looked foolish. You have to take responsibility for that. It doesn't help you look better when you take it to the next level of foolishness - denial and redirection.
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:04 pm |
|
Terence, go back and review all your postings, there is a pattern of
personal attacks on bloggers who disagree with your point of view.
Again, let's get back to the topic.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 01:49 pm |
|
Rightwinger wrote: Terrance wrote: DD the next time you're about to regurgitate, please do so in private.
The topic is OBAMA! You continue to post insults to those who do not agree with
your views.
I don't know how this appears on your screen, but on mine, it repeats itself several times and it takes a long time to scroll to the bottom of it. It's long to start. Why repaste it several times at the bottom?
DD at least had the good sense to appologize for it.
Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 01:53 pm by Terrance
|
dover_diva
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 01:28 pm |
|
| So says you
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 12:25 pm |
|
dover_diva wrote: Sorry about the repeat (reguritate) I had to hiccup.
As I have said before,if you ain't got a decent comeback, or proof in writing, other than ,name calling then NOTHING anyone says about Obama or the rest of the "Dems"/liberals/socalists/communists is going to make a difference. If it weren't for double standards then liberals would have NO standards.Annoy a liberal.ACLU enemy of the state.
You are absolutely right on this point...without proof of the crap that people put out about Obama, it is not going to make a difference. If your type keeps screaming about Dems/liberals/socialists/communists without an understanding of what each of these outlooks actually is, you won't make a difference, either....those of us who you mention DO know and understand the difference between them. Your type doesn't.
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:20 am |
|
| So does any one know how the Larry Sinclair guy fits into this race ? Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:21 am by Helen here
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:27 am |
|
I don't see your point. He had a comic that made an off-color comment and that reflect on him how? I think McCain's creeping inability to answer simple questions is more relevant....If one compares a comment by Bernie Mac and one by Phil Gramm, I think Phil's comment is a bit more important.
However, McCain did get in a good one with the ambassador comment.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4056 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:26 am |
|
Terrance wrote: DD the next time you're about to regurgitate, please do so in private.
AMEN
I've walked away from here for months at a time because of those types posts.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:03 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Apparently you have lost the ability to face the truth about the things you don't believe in. Taos Eddy, that was your downfall the last time. If you are unwilling to discuss them, you need to step away from the dance.
This from the man who refuses to respond when asked a simple question. Since you persist in calling me by the name Taos Eddy, I will henceforth refer to you as Nasty.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:59 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: How many more of these "rabbits" is Obama going to pull out of his hat before he realizes that he is running for the office of President of the United States?
http://www.comcast.net/articles/tv/20080712/Obama.Bernie.Mac/
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:57 am |
|
| Apparently you have lost the ability to face the truth about the things you don't believe in. Taos Eddy, that was your downfall the last time. If you are unwilling to discuss them, you need to step away from the dance.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:54 am |
|
| DD the next time you're about to regurgitate, please do so in private.
|
dover_diva
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:42 am |
|
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill
Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution notes: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
The Left is at it again.
Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.
Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous.
Here are their accusations:
Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq ... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)
Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)
Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)
Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.
Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.
The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:
President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.
Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After the 2000 election:
When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qa'ida members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. ... Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."
In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.
On 22 July 2003, four months after the launch of OIF, Bill Clinton said in a nationally-televised interview, "It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons [in Iraq]." That's "incontestable" as in irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible, undeniable and indisputable.
So, Harry and Nan, Ted and Dick, what's your real agenda?
Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.
Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.
For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.
In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?
Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.
One of only a few sane Democrat voices:
"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there." --Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)
UPDATE: 2006 -- The Demos surrender, retreat and defeat plan:
"The idea that we're going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." --DNC chairman Howard Dean
"There is no reason that young american soldiers need to be going into Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, women...." --John Kerry
"Everyone knows there is no military solution to the difficulties we face in Iraq. ... Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today. ... The answer for this is, let's elect more Democrats in 2008. That will help solve the problem." --Hillary Clinton
More sanity from Mr. Lieberman: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
UPDATE: 2007
April 07 -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adopts Newsweek's surrender line and declares the United States has lost the war in Iraq. "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."
Ted Kennedy defended Mr. Reid's assertion: "Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and it has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. ... What is failure is this bankrupt policy, this ineffective no-win policy of the administration?"
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner called on Mr. Reid to retract the statement: "He is telling our enemies they have won. While Mr. Reid may be willing to throw in the towel and declare this a lost cause, I am certain that American troops are not. ... Mr. Reid's comments are demoralizing to our troops, and just plain wrong."
July 07 -- John Kerry, arguing for American defeat in Iraq, claimed, "We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen".
Well, here's a summary of what what happened after America abandoned Vietnam: Some one million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials; 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's "re-education" camps; Tens of thousands were abused or tortured; Prisoners were incarcerated for as long as 17 years, according to the U.S. Department of State, with most terms ranging from three to ten years.
In Laos, tens of thousands were sent to "re-education" camps and an unknown number died. In Cambodia, more than 1.7 million of Cambodia's 8 million inhabitants perished from disease, starvation, overwork, or outright execution in a notorious genocide" perpetrated by the infamous Khmer Rouge. John Kerry claims to have supplied weapons to the Khmer Rouge during his four-month tour in Vietnam.
Next time he's asked if he told the truth about post-war Vietnam, Kerry should reply, "It didn't happen."
"Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have...revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. ... We're not going to baby sit a civil war. ... [OIF] is proven to be a foreign policy disaster." -- Barack Obama
August 07 -- There is a confluence of analysis from the warfront in Iraq that OIF has turned a corner. Clearly, good news is bad news for those Leftists who have staked their political fortunes on America's failure, surrender and retreat from Iraq. Asked about the political implications should commanding Gen. David Petraeus report significant progress in Iraq, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) replied, "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that."
"
Good news out of Iraq is "a real big problem"? Guess that depends upon whose side you're on.
Hey PTG ---Terrance and Fred are Not ever going to believe anything, but what they think they know.
Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:12 pm by
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 01:10 am |
|
How many more of these "rabbits" is Obama going to pull out of his hat before he realizes that he is running for the office of President of the United States?
http://www.comcast.net/articles/tv/20080712/Obama.Bernie.Mac/
|
joeschulte
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 238 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 11:49 am |
|
| We have a wide open means of communicating , the internet , with closed minds . Human advancement aided by technology.....................zero
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 01:52 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Terrance wrote: There is a hard core of really nasty people posting on this blog. Some try to mask it, but when you get past the smarmy facade, they are very unpleasant. Some are just overt about it.
I don't know how you manage to continue to respond to obviously disengenuous people in the manner you do. You end up repeating yourself over and over.
Yes, there are. Call it my liberal, optomistic self, but I do believe that the truth will set us free. Take a look sometimes at the Iraq blog, which provides an interesting look back at many of the people here's views from three years ago. I stand by everything that I have wrote, including what I think would happen with the surge waaay before it happened.
Yes, it does get a bit tiresome with the number of people who can't logically make their own arguments, and run out of steam shortly after they copy and paste the latest "gem" from O'Reilly, Sean, or Rush. I do not do the copy and paste unless I am very clear that I am doing so, as I tend to think it shows a lack of originality. I will give PTG that; at least he spews forth his own stuff.
I also think it is important to look for those areas we DO agree. I see many fundie churches coming around to the realization that the Bible says that we are to be stewards of the earth. They wrap this new found belief that we should take care of our planet in Bible-speak, but I don't care...we are after the same means. We can learn much from each other when we have the same goals in mind, even if we are starting from different places.
It's not just a question of their intelligence or their analytical ability. The problem is with their intent. They are not here trying to reach a meeting of the minds. They are here to "preen" and to "score".
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 01:12 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: There is a hard core of really nasty people posting on this blog. Some try to mask it, but when you get past the smarmy facade, they are very unpleasant. Some are just overt about it.
I don't know how you manage to continue to respond to obviously disengenuous people in the manner you do. You end up repeating yourself over and over.
Yes, there are. Call it my liberal, optomistic self, but I do believe that the truth will set us free. Take a look sometimes at the Iraq blog, which provides an interesting look back at many of the people here's views from three years ago. I stand by everything that I have wrote, including what I think would happen with the surge waaay before it happened.
Yes, it does get a bit tiresome with the number of people who can't logically make their own arguments, and run out of steam shortly after they copy and paste the latest "gem" from O'Reilly, Sean, or Rush. I do not do the copy and paste unless I am very clear that I am doing so, as I tend to think it shows a lack of originality. I will give PTG that; at least he spews forth his own stuff.
I also think it is important to look for those areas we DO agree. I see many fundie churches coming around to the realization that the Bible says that we are to be stewards of the earth. They wrap this new found belief that we should take care of our planet in Bible-speak, but I don't care...we are after the same means. We can learn much from each other when we have the same goals in mind, even if we are starting from different places.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 03:54 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: My good friend is a "Whiskopalian" priest in Virginia. Dubbing them to the left is interesting. If you've been to a service, they speak loudly and sing clearly in their praise of Christ, I would think the Lutherans, of which our oldest son has "converted" to as the "left wing" of christianity.
I don't need to rely on the editor to hopefully catch Terrance in a faux pas. I have no qualms in directly reporting such activity. I have been on the receiving end before and do try to warn before action is taken. I am not one to throw stones any longer, I enjoy the banter and rancor of these forums. I will not stand down to anyone based on sputum.
Reminiscent of the Gestapo - don't you think?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 03:51 am |
|
Fred wrote: I've been curious about the Unitarians, as well...wanna attend a service together? I suspect we would both end up arguing with the minister/pastor/leader/chief/chief bottle washer, or whatever they call the person in front (?) of their services.
I think most | | |