• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Tim Russert should be questioned!!

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Scooter Libby maintains it was Tim Russert who TOLD him about Valeri Plame working for the CIA.

Huh huh, ...will the special prosecutor follow up on this, or just conveniently ignore Tim Russert while off on a wild goose chase, cause' they just got to get "something" on somebody from the Bush administration! ;)

We would not like seeing a fellow liberal news reporter being indicted, as it does not serve the democratic party, ...hell no, that would be too much of an embarrassment now wouldn't it?:smile:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Stu Ghatze said:
Scooter Libby maintains it was Tim Russert who TOLD him about Valeri Plame working for the CIA.

Huh huh, ...will the special prosecutor follow up on this, or just conveniently ignore Tim Russert while off on a wild goose chase, cause' they just got to get "something" on somebody from the Bush administration! ;)

We would not like seeing a fellow liberal news reporter being indicted, as it does not serve the democratic party, ...hell no, that would be too much of an embarrassment now wouldn't it?:smile:
Two points...

1) You made an accusation where the forum members could not readily understand the whole story because you did not provide any sources to prove what you say is correct...

So I had to look it up myself, and found that an indictement would be meaningless...

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Russert was the first to tell him of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency agent Valerie Plame. Russert testified previously that he did not tell Libby of Plame's identity. This conflict in testimony has been speculated to be the basis for further investigation into wrongdoing in the act of exposing Plame's identity to the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Russert

As to your title of this thread, it has already been done...

To me, that is nothing more than a "he said/he said" situation...A procescutor can't indict someone just because someone makes an accusation...There has to be some credible evidence, even circumstantial, to provide an indictment...Do you know of any that would make an indictement a legitimate thing to do, or are you just crossing your fingers?...

Libby is making the accusation, so he has to be the one to provide this evidence...if he can't do it, the prosecutor will not idict anyone based on hearsay...

Point #2) You suck...

As a Conservative, I hang my head low knowing you're still in the batting order...

One of the points I always notice is how some on the left like to immediately throw out crap and pray something sticks...Accusing 50 Conservatives of mis-doing and being correct 1 out of those 50 is considered a major victory and gives them the misguided motivation that they've somehow won something...

For you to stoop to this same level is disappointing...This "anything to make the other side look bad" rarely works for the left, so I see no reason for you to use the same tactics...

"They act like vengeful wackjobs, so I will rebutt with the same"...what a concept...:roll:
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stu Ghatze said:
Scooter Libby maintains it was Tim Russert who TOLD him about Valeri Plame working for the CIA.

Huh huh, ...will the special prosecutor follow up on this, or just conveniently ignore Tim Russert while off on a wild goose chase, cause' they just got to get "something" on somebody from the Bush administration! ;)
Nothng like proving one's ignorance on a topic, now is there?

As CNREDD clearly proved in his last post, and as was COMMON knowledge, Russert has already testified and that his testimony is one of the potential conflicts that good old Scooter needs to sweat about.

As far as your blanket whine about Democrats, too bad for you that you're so miserable about us. I have nothing against Republicans in general, only specific individuals who are on the record for points that I personally disagree with.

I find your posts to so often be factually incorrect and socially inept.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stu Ghatze said:
Scooter Libby maintains it was Tim Russert who TOLD him about Valeri Plame working for the CIA.

Huh huh, ...will the special prosecutor follow up on this, or just conveniently ignore Tim Russert while off on a wild goose chase, cause' they just got to get "something" on somebody from the Bush administration! ;)

We would not like seeing a fellow liberal news reporter being indicted, as it does not serve the democratic party, ...hell no, that would be too much of an embarrassment now wouldn't it?:smile:
Yeah right, it is the Democratic oppression machine that is covering for Russert, and the little guys are taking the fall!

I'd take Scooter's word, after all the Bush administration has been playing this thing straight from day one.

Whatever man! The whole thing was triggered from the Bush administrations dishonesty in their sale of the Iraq war, and now that the law is catching up to them, it is VERY hard to say that they don't deserve it. Scooter, Rove, and the whole posse doesn't have a lick of credibility. In fact, their credibility was so low even then, that had not it been Colin Powell making that UN speech, the American public probably wouldn't even have believed it.

And now even Powell admits that it was a farse!

Yeah I'm sure what Libby saying now nothing but the truth!
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Once again, Bush was only acting on the Iraq intelligence that was GIVEN to him by Russia, Britain, FBI, and CIA. So, it wasn't Bush's Farce, but the farce of the Intelligence givers. It's amazing how ppl can be so wrong when the facts are staring them right in the face. But I forgot, Bush is the scapegoat for everything wrong in the world. Katrina is Bush's fault. The earthquakes in Pakistan are Bush's fault. Jesus's death can probably be blamed on Bush too.

Give me a break. :roll:
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Donkey1499 said:
Once again, Bush was only acting on the Iraq intelligence that was GIVEN to him by Russia, Britain, FBI, and CIA.
In a word: BULLSHIT!

The Neocon militia made up the entire deal, and Bush is tied into those Aholes 100%.

I am looking forward to Mr. Fitzpatrick's report next week! Finally we will have an honest window into the truth, whatever that may be. If all of the Bushie's are innocent that will be revealed. If they are indicted, that too will be revealed. Does it mean they will then be convicted? No way to know, is there?

I would be shocked if the grand jury is dismissed without any indictments based on all the reports on the news. Let's wait and see and then we can start attacking each other again.

It should be very interesting to hear the Republicans spin this one if it's as bad as reports indicate. You guys were multi-orgasmic when any Democrat takes any misstep, so let's see how you all react when the handcuffs are on the other side?
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
Once again, Bush was only acting on the Iraq intelligence that was GIVEN to him by Russia, Britain, FBI, and CIA. So, it wasn't Bush's Farce, but the farce of the Intelligence givers. It's amazing how ppl can be so wrong when the facts are staring them right in the face. But I forgot, Bush is the scapegoat for everything wrong in the world. Katrina is Bush's fault. The earthquakes in Pakistan are Bush's fault. Jesus's death can probably be blamed on Bush too.

Give me a break. :roll:
Bush made the call to war. Bush was the one that took the mixed bag of intelligence regarding AN IMMINATE THREAT and CHERRY PICKED only the PRO WAR peices, leaving the contrarian stuff ignored. Bush filtered the intel for what he wanted to sell. People in his adminstration did it on purpose, and the buck stops with him; not with Russia or anyone else.

Cheney and Rummy have been calling for the war since PNAC. They abused the political capital from September 11th to push it through under the face of national security, when they should have been chasing Al Quadia. Not one person, other than Tom Friedman, was suggesting that we go to war to push Democracy.

All of this was obvious to the most of the world right from the beginning, and soon most of America will believe it too. Look at how opinion is trending. Hold on to that dream of nobel American freedom being the guiding light for world stability, cause dreamers like you are gonna be hard to come by in a few years - even if Iraq doesn't fall into full civil war. At some point, people are going to come to realize that Bush is not driven by anything other than croonism and greed.

Even if Iraq manages to suceed, Bush will eventually replace Nixon as the embarrasment of the GOP.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
26 X World Champs said:
In a word: BULLSHIT!

The Neocon militia made up the entire deal, and Bush is tied into those Aholes 100%.

I am looking forward to Mr. Fitzpatrick's report next week! Finally we will have an honest window into the truth, whatever that may be. If all of the Bushie's are innocent that will be revealed. If they are indicted, that too will be revealed. Does it mean they will then be convicted? No way to know, is there?

I would be shocked if the grand jury is dismissed without any indictments based on all the reports on the news. Let's wait and see and then we can start attacking each other again.

It should be very interesting to hear the Republicans spin this one if it's as bad as reports indicate. You guys were multi-orgasmic when any Democrat takes any misstep, so let's see how you all react when the handcuffs are on the other side?
#1: It's not BS.

#2: Whatever gave you the idea that I was a republican?

#3: If you don't believe that the WMD lie wasn't Bush's, then do the research. It's all fact told on Fox, NBC, and even CNN. All conservative, moderate, liberal sources.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
python416 said:
Bush made the call to war. Bush was the one that took the mixed bag of intelligence regarding AN IMMINATE THREAT and CHERRY PICKED only the PRO WAR peices, leaving the contrarian stuff ignored. Bush filtered the intel for what he wanted to sell. People in his adminstration did it on purpose, and the buck stops with him; not with Russia or anyone else.

Cheney and Rummy have been calling for the war since PNAC. They abused the political capital from September 11th to push it through under the face of national security, when they should have been chasing Al Quadia. Not one person, other than Tom Friedman, was suggesting that we go to war to push Democracy.

All of this was obvious to the most of the world right from the beginning, and soon most of America will believe it too. Look at how opinion is trending. Hold on to that dream of nobel American freedom being the guiding light for world stability, cause dreamers like you are gonna be hard to come by in a few years - even if Iraq doesn't fall into full civil war. At some point, people are going to come to realize that Bush is not driven by anything other than croonism and greed.

Even if Iraq manages to suceed, Bush will eventually replace Nixon as the embarrasment of the GOP.
Ok, what if it had been a Democrat or Independent president that made the same exact choices that Bush made. Would your view on this be any different? Would you blame the intel givers instead of the president? Or is all this crap you just posted purely anti-Bush? Either way, Saddaam had to be removed, sooner or later. Next, Kim Jong Il needs to be removed because he's just as bad.

You can't blame Bush for the faulty intelligence. And Congress was in with it too. They were with Bush 100% for the War in Iraq. So why is Bush the scapegoat?
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
#1: It's not BS.

#2: Whatever gave you the idea that I was a republican?

#3: If you don't believe that the WMD lie wasn't Bush's, then do the research. It's all fact told on Fox, NBC, and even CNN. All conservative, moderate, liberal sources.
Even Clinton believed Bush had WMD! But he didn't go to war, why?

Even daddy Bush knew Saddam used WMD (cause he sold them to him), but he didn't go into Iraq. Why?

Because it takes more than belief of WMD violations to start a war. It needs to be brought through the legal process, which Bush abandoned to get the war started on a rushed timetable.

Why did he want to rush the timetable, because he needed the war to happen and happen fast. He wanted to get Saddam out no matter what, and since the military was already repositioning, there was no point in waiting for legalities that might dilute the duped American unity that was thursty for security. The snake oil saleman had to dress up his war of choice as a war of need.

Now it is starting to unravel, cause that is what happens when you base policy on a house of cards.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
python416 said:
Even Clinton believed Bush had WMD! But he didn't go to war, why?

Even daddy Bush knew Saddam used WMD (cause he sold them to him), but he didn't go into Iraq. Why?

Because it takes more than belief of WMD violations to start a war. It needs to be brought through the legal process, which Bush abandoned to get the war started on a rushed timetable.

Why did he want to rush the timetable, because he needed the war to happen and happen fast. He wanted to get Saddam out no matter what, and since the military was already repositioning, there was no point in waiting for legalities that might dilute the duped American unity that was thursty for security. The snake oil saleman had to dress up his war of choice as a war of need.

Now it is starting to unravel, cause that is what happens when you base policy on a house of cards.
Bush Sr. did go into Iraq. Desert Storm? Then Clinton pulled out before finishing the fight. Clinton and Hussein are ol' buddies. They were on the phone alot. So part of the reason we are there now is because of Clinton. But, like with Bush, all the blame can't be laid on one guy. Politics is a group effort.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Donkey1499 said:
#1: It's not BS.

#2: Whatever gave you the idea that I was a republican?

#3: If you don't believe that the WMD lie wasn't Bush's, then do the research. It's all fact told on Fox, NBC, and even CNN. All conservative, moderate, liberal sources.
I never said YOU were a Republican? I said REPUBLICANS, not you, OK?

Bush made every decision, that was what he was supposed to do. If he made poor decisions it is his fault, period? Are you forgetting the famous words of Harry S. Truman (The Buck Stops Here)?

Research me? You're the one making the claims therefore it is your responsibility to back up your claims with solid, non-partial evidence. Too often people in this community make lame claims and then ask the people disputing their claims to prove them wrong! That is very weak, sorry.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
Ok, what if it had been a Democrat or Independent president that made the same exact choices that Bush made. Would your view on this be any different? Would you blame the intel givers instead of the president? Or is all this crap you just posted purely anti-Bush? Either way, Saddaam had to be removed, sooner or later. Next, Kim Jong Il needs to be removed because he's just as bad.

You can't blame Bush for the faulty intelligence. And Congress was in with it too. They were with Bush 100% for the War in Iraq. So why is Bush the scapegoat?
Party doesn't matter to me. My problem isn't with the GOP, it is with TODAY's GOP that has been hijacked by a bunch of neoconservative idealouges and greedy croonies. If I could have anyone as president from 2000, it probably would have been McCain.

The right-wing talking heads like Coulter love to polarize the country saying that dirty liberals hate America, freedom, and Republicans. But in the end, all the problem is two things:

1) the Neoconservatives hijacking the GOP
2) the disabiling of the checks and balances that the founders intended

Put 1 and 2 together, and you have an unchecked, ideology driven, war profitteering and croonie serving party with total control over American governence. At some point it will crack due to the unsustainable extremes pushed by the neocons, and the flashpoint of that meltdown is what we have witnessed in the past weeks.

It is about time!
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
python416 said:
Party doesn't matter to me. My problem isn't with the GOP, it is with TODAY's GOP that has been hijacked by a bunch of neoconservative idealouges and greedy croonies. If I could have anyone as president from 2000, it probably would have been McCain.

The right-wing talking heads like Coulter love to polarize the country saying that dirty liberals hate America, freedom, and Republicans. But in the end, all the problem is two things:

1) the Neoconservatives hijacking the GOP
2) the disabiling of the checks and balances that the founders intended

Put 1 and 2 together, and you have an unchecked, ideology driven, war profitteering and croonie serving party with total control over American governence. At some point it will crack due to the unsustainable extremes pushed by the neocons, and the flashpoint of that meltdown is what we have witnessed in the past weeks.

It is about time!
But both sides do have their nutjobs. Moore and Franken on one side, Coulter and Hannity on the other. Today's GOP is corrupt; as is today's DNC.
McCain is a moderate, which there is nothing wrong with that, except that moderates don't know who's side they're on. Me, I see it how TreeBeard does. I'm on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side. I just try to correct ppl the best I can.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
Party doesn't matter to me. My problem isn't with the GOP, it is with TODAY's GOP that has been hijacked by a bunch of neoconservative idealouges and greedy croonies. If I could have anyone as president from 2000, it probably would have been McCain.

The right-wing talking heads like Coulter love to polarize the country saying that dirty liberals hate America, freedom, and Republicans. But in the end, all the problem is two things:

1) the Neoconservatives hijacking the GOP
2) the disabiling of the checks and balances that the founders intended

Put 1 and 2 together, and you have an unchecked, ideology driven, war profitteering and croonie serving party with total control over American governence. At some point it will crack due to the unsustainable extremes pushed by the neocons, and the flashpoint of that meltdown is what we have witnessed in the past weeks.

It is about time!
Excuse me, what is all this talk of "hijacking"?

Is it just me, or were the same "neocons" elected to second term, or am I crazy? All this fear mongering has not worked people, the evil PNAC and the devil never made any deals, and Americans chose to push that agenda further, nothing was "hijacked"!:roll:

As to the "cronies" I agree with that, only a fool would try to deny the hurt this has caused to the party, and more importantly, the country. I am no longer supporting Bush, but remain loyal to my party, and the agenda, and policies of ridding the world of dictators, terrorists, and theocracies.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Donkey1499 said:
Bush Sr. did go into Iraq. Desert Storm? Then Clinton pulled out before finishing the fight. Clinton and Hussein are ol' buddies. They were on the phone alot. So part of the reason we are there now is because of Clinton. But, like with Bush, all the blame can't be laid on one guy. Politics is a group effort.
Dude, you are completely wrong. I have never heard anyone make such a baseless claim.

The decision to not enter Iraq in 1991 was made Bush 41. I have seen many interviews where he says this himself. Clinton didn't take office until Jan. 1993.

Clinton and Hussein weren't buddies, Saddam and the Reagen administration were. Even the right-wingers know it. It is fact and not debatable.

Check it out for yourself.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
Excuse me, what is all this talk of "hijacking"?

Is it just me, or were the same "neocons" elected to second term, or am I crazy? All this fear mongering has not worked people, the evil PNAC and the devil never made any deals, and Americans chose to push that agenda further, nothing was "hijacked"!:roll:

As to the "cronies" I agree with that, only a fool would try to deny the hurt this has caused to the party, and more importantly, the country. I am no longer supporting Bush, but remain loyal to my party, and the agenda, and policies of ridding the world of dictators, terrorists, and theocracies.
Traditional GOP beliefs are often in conflict with Neoconservatism. By hijacking, I am speaking to the fact that the GOP is the voting support, but the policies being executed do not represent traditional GOP values. The spending maddness is the biggest example.

While conservatism suggests strong national security, it does not suggest nation building, and certainly doesn't allow for $200 billion dollars to be spent to "bring democracy" to Iraq.

If dictatorship was not allowed by conservative beliefs, then how did the old GOP become so close with the house of Saud?
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
Traditional GOP beliefs are often in conflict with Neoconservatism. By hijacking, I am speaking to the fact that the GOP is the voting support, but the policies being executed do not represent traditional GOP values. The spending maddness is the biggest example.

While conservatism suggests strong national security, it does not suggest nation building, and certainly doesn't allow for $200 billion dollars to be spent to "bring democracy" to Iraq.

If dictatorship was not allowed by conservative beliefs, then how did the old GOP become so close with the house of Saud?

Traditional conservatives went out with Pat Buchanan decades ago, and their isolationists views are no longer acceptable. The majority of the country, Dem, and Rep. believe that there is danger lurking around the world, and that we are the target of that aggression. Spending is out of control, one of the reasons I don't support Bush anymore, but trust me, it's not just the Rep. spending, Bush just refuses to veto ANY bill, or spending plan. Pork is stuffed in to these bills by both sides, and this blame game is used as a smoke screen, one for which Americans fall for everytime, sadly. We have been "nation building" since the Marshall plan sir, it's what we do, and we are quite good at it, try not to forget that.;)
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Donkey1499 said:
Bush Sr. did go into Iraq. Desert Storm? Then Clinton pulled out before finishing the fight. Clinton and Hussein are ol' buddies. They were on the phone alot. So part of the reason we are there now is because of Clinton. But, like with Bush, all the blame can't be laid on one guy. Politics is a group effort.
You've just lost all creditability with me and probably any sane person on this planet! Not only are your typed words incredibly ignorant, bereft of facts, but your conclusions couldn't be more off base.

You must either be very young and/or very under educated. You apparently have no recollection of the first Gulf War? It ended in 1991. Clinton took office in 2003, almost 2 years later.

Do YOURSELF a favor and take a remedial class in recent US & World History. The accuracy of your posts would have to improve since this last post did not contain anything close to the facts.:think: :cuckoo: :crazy3: :shocked2:
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
Traditional conservatives went out with Pat Buchanan decades ago, and their isolationists views are no longer acceptable. The majority of the country, Dem, and Rep. believe that there is danger lurking around the world, and that we are the target of that aggression. Spending is out of control, one of the reasons I don't support Bush anymore, but trust me, it's not just the Rep. spending, Bush just refuses to veto ANY bill, or spending plan. Pork is stuffed in to these bills by both sides, and this blame game is used as a smoke screen, one for which Americans fall for everytime, sadly. We have been "nation building" since the Marshall plan sir, it's what we do, and we are quite good at it, try not to forget that.;)
The original reasoning and expectations made to congress when it authorized the use of power (which it had to do as part of the diplomatic process), scoffed at the idea of a $200 billion dollar cost, and a long term presence. And now that it what we have.

When the presence of American forces in the middle east is the recuitment driver for terrorism, it is like trying to put a fire with gasoline.

Pork is being stuffed by bothsides but the GOP is the one that is cutting taxes and creating the budget deficit. They don't even produce honest budjets. If this is a propetual war, then why not include the total cost of the Iraq war in the budjet? Because they want to spin the number so they don't look that bad, and then on a supplimental they can acuse any objector as not supporting the troops. Pathetic when they are the ones that sent them into combat without proper equipment and robbed the national guard of people and assets for thing like hurricanes.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
The original reasoning and expectations made to congress when it authorized the use of power (which it had to do as part of the diplomatic process), scoffed at the idea of a $200 billion dollar cost, and a long term presence. And now that it what we have.

When the presence of American forces in the middle east is the recuitment driver for terrorism, it is like trying to put a fire with gasoline.

Pork is being stuffed by bothsides but the GOP is the one that is cutting taxes and creating the budget deficit. They don't even produce honest budjets. If this is a propetual war, then why not include the total cost of the Iraq war in the budjet? Because they want to spin the number so they don't look that bad, and then on a supplimental they can acuse any objector as not supporting the troops. Pathetic when they are the ones that sent them into combat without proper equipment and robbed the national guard of people and assets for thing like hurricanes.

Seems as if you need to study the tax cuts a bit closer sir, you'll find that the government brought in more funds by the tax cut, then by raising the taxes would have. If you let the people have that money, they will spend it, and it all comes back tri fold. It's a simple formula that Dems can't seem to grasp, but the facts a right there in the last fiscal report.

As for this tired argument about sending the troops in without proper equipment, it's nonsense. These IED's rip through even the strongest steel, there is no metal that can take the brunt of some of these blasts. We also did not expect the number of IED's we would encounter, but once we saw the problem, companies here were working night and day to get them that extra protection for the Humvee's.

The Guard in LA, had 76% of their force, Alabama 67%, Mississippi 70%, how is that robbed of forces? This is more nonsense, where are you getting this crap son? The problem was a govenor that would not allow the troops in to her state, not the lack of Guard. In fact, we even sent in the 82nd Airbourne, to protect, and restore order, they had just returned from Iraq.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
Seems as if you need to study the tax cuts a bit closer sir, you'll find that the government brought in more funds by the tax cut, then by raising the taxes would have. If you let the people have that money, they will spend it, and it all comes back tri fold. It's a simple formula that Dems can't seem to grasp, but the facts a right there in the last fiscal report.
Ahh the trickle down theory. Yes, combined with a little bit of a post hoc fallacy and you have some talking points that can actually make sense to the uneducated, even if they aren't acurate.

There is no direct theory that can isolate the cause of an increase in taxation revenue to a decrease in taxation rates. Pundits love to simplify statistics and theories they don't even understand to fake a valid point.

I have studied economics and taxation in considerable depth, but thanks for the suggestion, Sir.

Deegan said:
As for this tired argument about sending the troops in without proper equipment, it's nonsense. These IED's rip through even the strongest steel, there is no metal that can take the brunt of some of these blasts. We also did not expect the number of IED's we would encounter, but once we saw the problem, companies here were working night and day to get them that extra protection for the Humvee's.
As for the IEDs, you are breaking out another GOP favorite logical fallacy: The Insignificant Causal Fallacy. Just because IEDs can in certain cases rip through the strongest steel, that doesn't make it OK to force troops to use non-armoured Humvees. If that was the case, then why did the administration make a considerable effort to change the situation once it finally broke in the "liberal media"? Of more importantly:

WHY DID IT TAKE MEDIA EXPOSER IN THE FIRST F**KING PLACE!

Maybe they should have gotten a clue about a bottomless well of IEDs in the future when they let the insurgents walk off with that big cache of explosives in 2003 (RDX wasn't it?).

Deegan said:
The Guard in LA, had 76% of their force, Alabama 67%, Mississippi 70%, how is that robbed of forces? This is more nonsense, where are you getting this crap son? The problem was a govenor that would not allow the troops in to her state, not the lack of Guard. In fact, we even sent in the 82nd Airbourne, to protect, and restore order, they had just returned from Iraq.
This one I love. The press let it float right by. They quote moderately depleted troop levels, and neglict to mention the equipment that was seriously depleted. You Sir are the one that is buying the crap. The troop levels were also depleted, requiring out of state people to come in, when locals (who are more familar with the area) should have been there in stronger numbers.

If you think that Iraq war didn't reduce the Guard's ability to react, then that is your problem. But it is the truth and many in the Guard have admitted it.

Yes the state government has some responbility as well, but don't try to pin the worst appointment (Brownie) and most pointless re-org (FEMA under DHS) EVER, as the fault of the govenor or mayor.

The military is streched to the limit. Stop loss policies, tour extension, removing or ignoring the NG foreign deployment guidelines, etc. Why wasn't this expected? Or right, it was, just ignored by Bush.
 
Last edited:

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
Ahh the trickle down theory. Yes, combined with a little bit of a post hoc fallacy and you have some talking points that can actually make sense to the uneducated, even if they aren't acurate.

There is no direct theory that can isolate the cause of an increase in taxation revenue to a decrease in taxation rates. Pundits love to simplify statistics and theories they don't even understand to fake a valid point.

I have studied economics and taxation in considerable depth, but thanks for the suggestion, Sir.



As for the IEDs, you are breaking out another GOP favorite logical fallacy: The Insignificant Causal Fallacy. Just because IEDs can in certain cases rip through the strongest steel, that doesn't make it OK to force troops to use non-armoured Humvees. If that was the case, then why did the administration make a considerable effort to change the situation once it finally broke in the "liberal media"? Of more importantly:

WHY DID IT TAKE MEDIA EXPOSER IN THE FIRST F**KING PLACE!

Maybe they should have gotten a clue about a bottomless well of IEDs in the future when they let the insurgents walk off with that big cache of explosives in 2003 (RDX wasn't it?).



This one I love. The press let it float right by. They quote troop levels, and neglict to equipment. You Sir are the one that is buying the crap. The troop levels were also depleted, requiring out of state people to come in, when locals (who are more familar with the area) should have been there in stronger numbers.

If you thing that Iraq war didn't reduce the Guard's ability to react, then that is your problem. But it is the truth and many in the Guard have admitted it.

Yes the state government has some responbility as well, but don't try to pin the worst appointment (Brownie) and most pointless re-org (FEMA under DHS) EVER, as the fault of the govenor or mayor.

The military is streched to the limit. Stop loss policies, tour extension, removing or ignoring the NG foreign deployment guidelines, etc. Why wasn't this expected? Or right, it was, just ignored by Bush.

Listen, you can spin all day, but the facts are there, the government did take in more then was caculated through raising taxes, and trickle down did work, that's why Reagan was a two term president, and the most loved, admired, and respected president in recent memory. Folks were wrong in 1984, and you are all wrong today. The economy does not get a boost from tax hikes, it's a proven fact, you say you know all about it, but the facts make you look ignorant.

As for the rest of your :spin: I refuse to go in to a silly he said she said, I saw helicopters dropping supplies, and removing people from a top their roof, I don't know what you saw? The press did nothing about armour, they reported a problem that was already being addressed, and pounced on their usual anti-war rhetoric, nothing else is even worth discussing.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
Listen, you can spin all day, but the facts are there, the government did take in more then was caculated through raising taxes, and trickle down did work, that's why Reagan was a two term president, and the most loved, admired, and respected president in receny memory. Folks were wrong in 1984, and you are all wrong today. The economy does not get a boost from tax hikes, it's a proven fact, you say you know all about it, but the facts make you look ignorant.

As for the rest of your :spin: I refuse to go in to a silly he said she said, I saw helicopters dropping supplies, and removing people from a top their roof, I don't know what you saw? The press did nothing about armour, they reported a problem that was already being addressed, and pounced on their usual anti-war rhetoric, nothing else is even worth discussing.
The economy doesn't get a boast from tax hikes, but borrowing from your grandchildren to give to the today's rich is not sound ecnomoic policy and anyone should be able to see that.

Tax cuts are great if you can make them budjet neutral, but there are unquestionaliby irresponsible policies being pushed by Bush. Removing the estate tax while running a serious deficit? Argue me that please!

The press said nothing about armour in New Orleans? I was talking about the military unpreparedness in Iraq.

Do you seriously believe that Iraq did not reduce the capacity of the NG to handle Katrina? Yes or No

Do you think that ignoring the foreign deployment guidelines of the NG is fair? Yes or No

And sure they pulled people of their roofs, but what about the 30,000 in the dome that were left for days? What the hell was that? You can launch a tomahawk and drop a bomb on a dome in Iraq in a few hours, but you can't drop water to 30,000 people in a dome (in the the US) in a few days? That is BS.

While I may not know all of the economic "facts", the "fact" that you suggest tax cuts in this fiscal environment are good while completely ignoring the deficit make you look a little ignorant too. All you are doing is pushing a different kind of tax into the future for another generation (and adminstration) to deal with, and Reagan loved to do that!

Tax cuts that go straight to debt is one of the cheapest political moves for someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative. Don't you care what bills you are leaving for your grandkids?
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
The economy doesn't get a boast from tax hikes, but borrowing from your grandchildren to give to the today's rich is not sound ecnomoic policy and anyone should be able to see that.

Tax cuts are great if you can make them budjet neutral, but there are unquestionaliby irresponsible policies being pushed by Bush. Removing the estate tax while running a serious deficit? Argue me that please!

The press said nothing about armour in New Orleans? I was talking about the military unpreparedness in Iraq.

Do you seriously believe that Iraq did not reduce the capacity of the NG to handle Katrina? Yes or No

Do you think that ignoring the foreign deployment guidelines of the NG is fair? Yes or No

And sure they pulled people of their roofs, but what about the 30,000 in the dome that were left for days? What the hell was that? You can launch a tomahawk and drop a bomb on a dome in Iraq in a few hours, but you can't drop water to 30,000 people in a dome (in the the US) in a few days? That is BS.

While I may not know all of the economic "facts", the "fact" that you suggest tax cuts in this fiscal environment are good while completely ignoring the deficit make you look a little ignorant too. All you are doing is pushing a different kind of tax into the future for another generation (and adminstration) to deal with, and Reagan loved to do that!

Tax cuts that go straight to debt is one of the cheapest political moves for someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative. Don't you care what bills you are leaving for your grandkids?
I certainly care about debt, most Americans don't though, and I just can't listen to the whining of some of these Democrats about debt, while they owe thousands on twelve different credit cards. This is called hypocrisy, they want the government to do something they can't do themselves, and want the rich to pay for it! I am for tax cuts because they work, and they will eventually bring down the debt, if we stop spending. I have said, I have lost faith in our president, he spends too much, but a lot of that is on two important wars. Let's finish what we started, then we can begin to attack the debt, we just can't get defocused right now, we need to address the enemy, and quit attacking eachother.

Iraq was a mistake, not the mission, or the reason, but the timing. The real threat is Iran, N.K, Syria, do you know what a nuclear explosion would do to our economy, our debt, just think about that, it's real people, these fanatics think we deserve our own Hiroshima.
 
Top Bottom