Will the politics of obstruction continue? (1 Viewer)

[Jack Dawson]

There is a lot to do for Americans of all ages. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats obstruct the beginning of the fixing of social security. For years that has been their mantra in elections "Social Security is going broke, Social Security is going broke". Well now to see them say it is NOT is almost humorous. Yes the elderly need help on prescription drugs, yes unemployed people need to be retrained if they were 'downsized'. These are all areas that need to be addressed.

Let's be honest about a couple of things here. NEITHER the Republicans or Democrats will stop the flow of jobs out of this country, both will yell, neither will stop. Immigration will NOT be fixed by EITHER party, though both will be paying lip service to it. NEITHER party will take the chance of losing the Hispanic vote because it is the fastest growing group in America. Does something NEED to be done? Yes it does will it get done? NO

We as Americans will survive because we see a need and fill it, find that are broke and fix them. We will be fine, but at the same time let's be honest.
This is NOT the time for obstruction but rather construction. I don't understand the Democrats opposing all of the minority appointees of Bush. That is something that really has me baffled.

Here is another truth about the jobs, those jobs lost in the mills in the Carolinas have been replaced by higher paying jobs in the auto industry, the jobs that were lost in the NE are being replaced by higher paying 'high tech' jobs.

The other thing I need to get off my chest is STOP the hate. Disagree, debate but don't hate, we just don't need that from either end of the specturm.

Hey, thanks for listening.

 

[shuamort]

There is a lot to do for Americans of all ages. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats obstruct the beginning of the fixing of social security. For years that has been their mantra in elections "Social Security is going broke, Social Security is going broke". Well now to see them say it is NOT is almost humorous. Yes the elderly need help on prescription drugs, yes unemployed people need to be retrained if they were 'downsized'. These are all areas that need to be addressed.

Umm, not really. The democrats have been saving that Social Security will be going broke in 2053 and not 2042. Their figures come from the CBO (the nonpartisan, U.S. Government’s Congressional Budget Office). Bush's figures come from the Social Security Administration’s Trustees, who were all appointed by President Bush. His trustees predict that it will go broke "no earlier than 2042". Of course, the trustees' language leaves the possibility that it could go broke anytime after 2042, which would include 2053.

Are the democrats being nitpickers? Yes. Completely. They are definitely fighting the wrong battle by saying that and at the same time, they're obfuscating their message. It's poor posturing on their part.

Let's be honest about a couple of things here. NEITHER the Republicans or Democrats will stop the flow of jobs out of this country, both will yell, neither will stop. Immigration will NOT be fixed by EITHER party, though both will be paying lip service to it. NEITHER party will take the chance of losing the Hispanic vote because it is the fastest growing group in America. Does something NEED to be done? Yes it does will it get done? NO.

Maybe the parties think that if all of the jobs leave that this will stop immigration. :rofl Seriously though, what needs to be fixed about immigration? What are the problems?

We as Americans will survive because we see a need and fill it, find that are broke and fix them. We will be fine, but at the same time let's be honest.
This is NOT the time for obstruction but rather construction. I don't understand the Democrats opposing all of the minority appointees of Bush. That is something that really has me baffled.

The democrats are not opposing the appointees by Bush on the basis of their minority status. They're opposing them on the appointees' beliefs or actions. Gonzales, for instance, has been flip-flopping on the torture issue. His bid for Attorney General, where his opinion on torture is definitely germane, is being brought up because this is a very dangerous opinion to be eschewing especially when he would have the power to "authorize" it."The president has consistently stated that the United States will not use torture in any circumstances, so it is simply implausible that I would ever be called upon to address whether the president's constitutional authority as commander-in-chief would permit him to, in effect, nullify the torture statute for national security reasons," Gonzales wrote in one response. Gonzales also said that U.S. laws and the Constitution might not forbid interrogation techniques overseas that would be considered "cruel and inhuman" in the United States. He says that Bush won't use it so it won't be a problem. BUT (and this is a big BUT), should it be used on foreign soil it might not be unconstitutional. It's that playing both sides of the fence and the ambiguity that he's implying that really scares the f*ck out of me.

 

[Squawker]

To answer the topic of the thread--with Dean as the head of the DNC we can see a lot more of it. They have shown themself to be the Party of NO even if Republicans have some very good ideas that would benifit the country.

Gonzales also said that U.S. laws and the Constitution might not forbid interrogation techniques overseas that would be considered "cruel and inhuman" in the United States. He says that Bush won't use it so it won't be a problem. BUT (and this is a big BUT), should it be used on foreign soil it might not be unconstitutional. It's that playing both sides of the fence and the ambiguity that he's implying that really scares the f*ck out of me.

That is a matter of international law so things might not be considered torture in Iraq for example ,but they would be in the touchy, feely left wing crowd in the US. Gonzales isn't going to advocate anything that is illegal. What bothers me about your sentiment is that you are giving non US citizens the same rights and protections that we have in our own country. Our constitution applies only to US citizens. We can't force our views and laws on other countries.

 

[shuamort]

To answer the topic of the thread--with Dean as the head of the DNC we can see a lot more of it. They have shown themself to be the Party of NO even if Republicans have some very good ideas that would benifit the country. That is a matter of international law so things might not be considered torture in Iraq for example ,but they would be in the touchy, feely left wing crowd in the US. Gonzales isn't going to advocate anything that is illegal. What bothers me about your sentiment is that you are giving non US citizens the same rights and protections that we have in our own country. Our constitution applies only to US citizens. We can't force our views and laws on other countries.

:roll: In 1882, U.S President Chester Arthur signed the 1864 Geneva Treaty which grants prisoners of war with the same care, protection, and treatment regardless of the person's origin. What bothers me about your statement is that you're so glib about responsibilities and care of other human beings. I hope you never meet a Vietnam POW that's been tortured and say that it's ok if any country doesn't have to follow the Geneva Convention and its responsibilities to its cosignators peoples.

Gonzales beliefs DO go against the Geneva Convention AND if his actions are done I would expect to get an Abu Gharib, but this time, on US soldiers. I dont want that blood on my hands.

Furthermore, going by your sentiments that we can't force our views and laws on other countries, I'm assuming that you are NOT a Bush supporter as he is waging wars on other countries.

 

[Squawker]

I hope you never meet a Vietnam POW that's been tortured and say that it's ok if any country doesn't have to follow the Geneva Convention and its responsibilities to its cosignators peoples.

I have known many and that is my point. Americans are and have been subjected to "real" torture and In case you haven't noticed Terrorists cut peoples heads off and blow them up. The legal status of terrorists is not the same as an "Army" and does not fall under the same laws. Our men can get their friggin head cut off but if we step on a terrorist toes our left wing cry babies support the terrorists right to not be "tortured". Then you wonder why we say, "What side are you on anyway"? That is just idiotic.

 

[shuamort]

I have known many and that is my point. Americans are and have been subjected to "real" torture and In case you haven't noticed Terrorists cut peoples heads off and blow them up. The legal status of terrorists is not the same as an "Army" and does not fall under the same laws. Our men can get their friggin head cut off but if we step on a terrorist toes our left wing cry babies support the terrorists right to not be "tortured". Then you wonder why we say, "What side are you on anyway"? That is just idiotic.

Good grief. Do you understand how the world works?

The people in Iraq who were being tortured are NOT terrorists. Gonzalez's mandates do NOT apply solely to terrorists either. PLEASE READ AND COMPREHEND what's going on in the world before pontificating your false beliefs.

What really gets me about your posts are the fact that they are ironic. Ironic in the sense that the original posters is requesting a respite from divisive politics while you come in and begin fingerpointing and blaming at liberals and at someone whom you're accusing of being a liberal (even more ironic, since I'm NOT one either.)

In toto, I believe the US should follow the golden rule when it comes to Prisoners of War, inclusive of those still under capture at G-Bay. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". For crying out loud, that's at the bottom of Kohlberg's levels of moral development. I can't understand why we wouldn't treat people with human respect and give them the basic rights we give our citizens. If we believe they've committed a crime, there should be a trial to allow them to prove that they have not committed it if they actually haven't. (As opposed to the prisoners of G-Bay who are being held indefinitely, some without even having the charges against them told to them.).Now that's idiotic.

 

[Squawker]

The people in Iraq who were being tortured are NOT terrorists.

Oh really? Do you know something we don’t?

What really gets me about your posts are the fact that they are ironic. Ironic in the sense that the original posters is requesting a respite from divisive politics while you come in and begin fingerpointing and blaming at liberals and at someone whom you're accusing of being a liberal (even more ironic, since I'm NOT one either.)

Try reading for comprehension.

I can't understand why we wouldn't treat people with human respect and give them the basic rights we give our citizens.

We treat them with a hell of a lot more (respect) puke, than they give our men and women. Terrorist deserve nothing except a bullet.

As opposed to the prisoners of G-Bay who are being held indefinitely, some without even having the charges against them told to them.

Try this one—They
Are Terrorists !

 

[shuamort]

Oh really? Do you know something we don’t?

I'm not sure what "we" you're referring to... but people who have read the 9/11 Commission report have found NO corroboration, ties, or links with Iraq and Al Qaeda. The prisoners in Abu Gharab have been Iraqis who had sided with the Iraqi republican guard and were defending the Saddam regime. Is it remotely possible that one of them could be a terrorist? Sure. Of course, that's not what they were put in Abu Gharab for.

We treat them with a hell of a lot more (respect) puke, than they give our men and women.

Yeah, mature people know how to treat someone or a country with respect. (Not "puke" as your grammar might imply.)

Terrorist deserve nothing except a bullet. Try this one—They
Are Terrorists !

How about you, got any proof? I can wait.

 

[anomaly]

Oh really? Do you know something we don’t?
Try reading for comprehension. We treat them with a hell of a lot more (respect) puke, than they give our men and women. Terrorist deserve nothing except a bullet. Try this one—They
Are Terrorists !

Are you aware that we have murdered over 15,000 Iraqi civilians? Were these innocents terrorists? Also, Bush has indirectly killed over 1100 Americans, in the name of the 'freedom' of Iraq. This attack was not needed. As the Iraqi people were continually oppressed (note: Saddam had, for whatever reason, slowed the killing...) they would have eventually thrown over Saddam. This was like invading cuba now...the guy in charge will die soon! Saddam has probably less than ten years left on this earth before he dies natuarally. And most likely the Iraqis would have had a revolution before this. What is your reason for invading Iraq? I still haven't heard an answer from a con that makes sense.

 

[GarzaUK]

Squawker in this day and age I am amazed by your attitude.

First off you didn't comment on my nazi quote "All people who protest are unpatriotic." Please - I'm dying for you to explain this, since you did label protesters unpatriotic.

You said," We treat them with a hell of a lot more (respect) puke, than they give our men and women. Terrorist deserve nothing except a bullet."

Well it's hard to know if they are terrorists in Cuba, since the US can't seem to prosecute them for some reason, maybe lack of evidence.

4 British "terrorists" in Cuba where released back to Britain. The British government didn't have enough evidence to prosecute them so they released them into the public. Funny thing - u usually need evidence to imprison someone "Innocent, till proven guilty." If I'm wrong in basic freedoms, please inform me.

Yes REAL terrorists tend to shoot people, or cut of heads etc and and they are barbaric for it. So therefore does that mean that the US has the lisence to be "barbaric" to them, by I don't know - putting a bullet through the head. Just coz one side is barbaric doesn't mean we have to lower ourselves to their standards, is the West not better than terrorists?

Just a side note here, the west has done worse things to men that shoot them in the head or cut of their head throughout history.
Just on top of my head, Spanish guerilla's (terrorists) cut off the genetials of the invading French soldiers of Napolean Bonaparte. Shoot me in head any day, if terrorists can do that.

 

[Squawker]

Are you aware that we have murdered over 15,000 Iraqi civilians? Were these innocents terrorists? Also, Bush has indirectly killed over 1100 Americans, in the name of the 'freedom' of Iraq.

Get your links and facts out here to prove it. Do you have any idea how many mass graves were discovered in Iraq? Look that one up too. You don't think it was worth it? When would it ever be worth it to you? When 50,000 were murdered, 100,000, 500,000? What would it take for you to act ?

 

[GarzaUK]

Get your links and facts out here to prove it. Do you have any idea how many mass graves were discovered in Iraq? Look that one up too. You don't think it was worth it? When would it ever be worth it to you? When 50,000 were murdered, 100,000, 500,000? What would it take for you to act ?

Most of those people were murdered when the US and the UK (I might add) loved Saddam Hussein. I remember Donald Rumsfeld giving Saddam a little love in the 80's.

Zimbabwe has killed 2 millions, Pol Pot (supported by the US) murdered millions of Cambodians, I don't know the exact number, but he is ranked up there with Hitler and Stalin as the most evil men of all time.

Lots of country's kill innocents, is the US going to invade them all, including Saudi Arabia and China?

Mankind will sort itself out slowly, countries with time and progress will follow democracy - without external hands. The world just needs time to catch up with us, give them a chance.

 

[Squawker]

Squawker in this day and age I am amazed by your attitude.

First off you didn't comment on my nazi quote "All people who protest are unpatriotic." Please – I'm dying for you to explain this, since you did label protesters unpatriotic.
I don’t believe I said that – you will have to show me.
You said," We treat them with a hell of a lot more (respect) puke, than they give our men and women. Terrorist deserve nothing except a bullet."

Well it's hard to know if they are terrorists in Cuba, since the US can't seem to prosecute them for some reason, maybe lack of evidence.
Not can’t – won’t ---- for various and obvious reasons I wouldn’t repeat on the internet.
4 British "terrorists" in Cuba where released back to Britain. The British government didn't have enough evidence to prosecute them so they released them into the public. Is that supposed to mean something? Clinton Pardoned terrorist and released them into society too.Funny thing - u usually need evidence to imprison someone "Innocent, till proven guilty." If I'm wrong in basic freedoms, please inform me.

Yes REAL terrorists tend to shoot people, or cut of heads etc and they are barbaric for it. So therefore does that mean that the US has the lisence to be "barbaric" to them, by I don't know - putting a bullet through the head. Just coz one side is barbaric doesn't mean we have to lower ourselves to their standards, is the West not better than terrorists? The left doesn’t seem to think so when they equate stepping on toes to “torture”. I honestly can’t remember the last time the left wing in this country stood up for America or Americans.

Just a side note here, the west has done worse things to men that shoot them in the head or cut of their head throughout history.
Just on top of my head, Spanish guerilla's (terrorists) cut off the genetials of the invading French soldiers of Napolean Bonaparte. Shoot me in head any day, if terrorists can do that. You can pick apart my words, you can hold on to your idealism, but if you have never seen a man whipped and beaten into submission, or a woman raped before your eyes, or a child s throat cut in front of their parents, you don’t know evil.

Most of those people were murdered when the US and the UK (I might add) loved Saddam Hussein. I remember Donald Rumsfeld giving Saddam a little love in the 80's.

That's a left wing propaganda piece showing Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein and implying they were bussom buddies.

Lots of country's kill innocents, is the US going to invade them all, including Saudi Arabia and China.

Maybe we will in time. We have brought democracy to many countries. I always thought the left were the champions of the world, but that isn't true at all is it. No matter what the price is they never want to pay it.

 

[shuamort]

Get your links and facts out here to prove it. Do you have any idea how many mass graves were discovered in Iraq? Look that one up too. You don't think it was worth it? When would it ever be worth it to you? When 50,000 were murdered, 100,000, 500,000? What would it take for you to act ?

I'm still waiting for you to prove your claims. Why should anyone else have to go by the same standards if you can't apply them to yourself (except for the fact that your claims can't be proven).

That's a left wing propaganda piece showing Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein and implying they were bussom buddies.

You mean it didn't happen?

As a conciliatory gesture, the U.S. removed Iraq from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1982, paving the way for Rumsfeld to visit Baghdad in 1983, about the midpoint of the decade-long Iran-Iraq war.

At the time, intelligence reports indicated the Iraqis were using illegal chemical weapons against Iran "almost daily." During several trips to Iraq, Rumsfeld told government officials that the U.S. would consider an Iraqi loss to Iran a major strategic defeat. In a personal meeting with Saddam Hussein in December 1983, Rumsfeld told the Butcher of Baghdad that the U.S. wanted to restore full diplomatic relations with Iraq.

In 2002, Rumsfeld tried to put a gloss on this meeting by claiming that he warned Hussein against using banned weapons, but that claim was unsupported by the State Department's notes on the meeting.

As a result of the openings created by Rumsfeld's diplomatic triumphs, U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr.. Care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, and components which would be used to develop nerve poisons like sarin gas and ricin.

Yeah... it's a left-wing conspiracy. What with facts and photos and proof. Oh, wait, conspiracy isn't the word....it's called history. As for bosom buddies. Well, they did pass on illegal chems et al and created an open diplomacy with Hussein. UNLESS, of course, YOU HAVE PROOF OTHERWISE, SQUAWKER.

Maybe we will in time. We have brought democracy to many countries. I always thought the left were the champions of the world, but that isn't true at all is it. No matter what the price is they never want to pay it.

Of course, you know that the U.S. doesn't have a democracy to being with so it'd be ironic for us to create democracies elsewhere.

 

[Squawker]

I can't keep up with the spin. I would have to be drunk to follow it. What was the question?

 

[shuamort]

I can't keep up with the spin. I would have to be drunk to follow it. What was the question?

1. Do you have any proof that the people held at G-Bay are terrorists as you implied on post 7?
2. Do you have proof that the Hussein/Rumsfeld meeting is just a left-wing propaganda piece or do you concede to the facts that I've presented are real?
3. Follow up to question 2, if the facts I presented are incorrect, can you show proof that they are?