| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/04/2004 12:49:17 PM · #26 |
I thought this was relevant:
"You can't depend on the man who made the mess to clean it up."
--Richard Nixon, 1972 US President, Watergate
Message edited by author 2004-08-04 12:54:39. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 12:55:59 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I thought this was relevant:
"You can't depend on the man who made the mess to clean it up."
--Richard Nixon, 1952 US President, Watergate |
That's relevant, all right! That's why Bush was elected. The U.S. decided that we couldn't depend on Gore to clean up the mess that he and Clinton made. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 01:10:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
You have inadvertently made my point - that is, you shouldn't pick and choose which aspects of the economy you charge to or attribute to Bush, or to Clinton. Most economic swings take place regardless of who is in office. One COULD make the case that most of the Enron, etc. debacles were only made possible because of the lack of oversight during the Clinton administration, but that would be too simplistic - I think that our culture of stock-market "greed" both enabled and encouraged such criminal activities to occur - and that was apolitical.
Ron |
***
While many of the economic debacles were going on during the Clinton years and continued on into the Bush years, I think it's a good idea to ask why these companies, like Enron, gave so much money as political campaign contributions to the Bush campaign and to what extent those campaign contributions are now helping to form the Bush economic and energy policies. That's the reason why we want to know what was discussed and what policies came about from Dick Cheney's energy meetings. |
In all liklihood, "these" ( unidentified ) companies probably gave so much money as political campaign contributions to the Bush campaign for the same reasons that people like Lewis and Soros gave so much money to political organizations like ACT Now and MoveOn.Org - namely because they agreed with the political positions of the receipient parties and wished to support the same. |
***
Not the same thing as giving money directly to a candidate. MoveOn.org is bringing issues up to the fore and not expecting a candidate to vote in it's favor for projects or policies it wants to get implemented, such as with Enron or Unocal. Incidentally, Enron also had a major influence on Clinton and had him push for a damn project in India that was a very bad idea for the Indian people. That's the nature of politics in America. Doesn't matter if it's Democrats or republicans. The thing we have to see here is just how much influence these corporations have in the Bush administration, and in what way, and how much our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as, the WTC attacks are results of these policies if any.
Message edited by author 2004-08-04 13:10:57. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 01:18:10 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
You have inadvertently made my point - that is, you shouldn't pick and choose which aspects of the economy you charge to or attribute to Bush, or to Clinton. Most economic swings take place regardless of who is in office. One COULD make the case that most of the Enron, etc. debacles were only made possible because of the lack of oversight during the Clinton administration, but that would be too simplistic - I think that our culture of stock-market "greed" both enabled and encouraged such criminal activities to occur - and that was apolitical.
Ron |
***
While many of the economic debacles were going on during the Clinton years and continued on into the Bush years, I think it's a good idea to ask why these companies, like Enron, gave so much money as political campaign contributions to the Bush campaign and to what extent those campaign contributions are now helping to form the Bush economic and energy policies. That's the reason why we want to know what was discussed and what policies came about from Dick Cheney's energy meetings. |
In all liklihood, "these" ( unidentified ) companies probably gave so much money as political campaign contributions to the Bush campaign for the same reasons that people like Lewis and Soros gave so much money to political organizations like ACT Now and MoveOn.Org - namely because they agreed with the political positions of the receipient parties and wished to support the same. |
***
Not the same thing as giving money directly to a candidate. MoveOn.org is bringing issues up to the fore and not expecting a candidate to vote in it's favor for projects or policies it wants to get implemented, such as with Enron or Unocal. Incidentally, Enron also had a major influence on Clinton and had him push for a damn project in India that was a very bad idea for the Indian people. That's the nature of politics in America. Doesn't matter if it's Democrats or republicans. The thing we have to see here is just how much influence these corporations have in the Bush administration, and in what way, and how much our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as, the WTC attacks are results of these policies if any. |
Give me a BREAK! If what you say was true, then they could raise the issues by funding large ad campaigns and not give money to EITHER party. Of COURSE they're expecting the party they support to vote in it's favor for projects or policies it wants to get implemented - that's why they're only giving money to the democrats. Same for the Trial Lawyers Assoc. and the Teachers' Unions.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2004 01:19:00 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by RonB:
That's relevant, all right! That's why Bush was elected. The U.S. decided that we couldn't depend on Gore to clean up the mess that he and Clinton made. |
I guess you need to be reminded that Mr. Bush actually lost the election (popular vote) by over 500,000 votes. Moreover, if the heavily Republican tilted Supreme Court hadn't interfered, Mr. Bush would've lost the electoral college, too.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2004 01:47:06 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
You have inadvertently made my point - that is, you shouldn't pick and choose which aspects of the economy you charge to or attribute to Bush, or to Clinton. Most economic swings take place regardless of who is in office. One COULD make the case that most of the Enron, etc. debacles were only made possible because of the lack of oversight during the Clinton administration, but that would be too simplistic - I think that our culture of stock-market "greed" both enabled and encouraged such criminal activities to occur - and that was apolitical.
Ron |
***
While many of the economic debacles were going on during the Clinton years and continued on into the Bush years, I think it's a good idea to ask why these companies, like Enron, gave so much money as political campaign contributions to the Bush campaign and to what extent those campaign contributions are now helping to form the Bush economic and energy policies. That's the reason why we want to know what was discussed and what policies came about from Dick Cheney's energy meetings. |
In all liklihood, "these" ( unidentified ) companies probably gave so much money as political campaign contributions to the Bush campaign for the same reasons that people like Lewis and Soros gave so much money to political organizations like ACT Now and MoveOn.Org - namely because they agreed with the political positions of the receipient parties and wished to support the same. |
***
Not the same thing as giving money directly to a candidate. MoveOn.org is bringing issues up to the fore and not expecting a candidate to vote in it's favor for projects or policies it wants to get implemented, such as with Enron or Unocal. Incidentally, Enron also had a major influence on Clinton and had him push for a damn project in India that was a very bad idea for the Indian people. That's the nature of politics in America. Doesn't matter if it's Democrats or republicans. The thing we have to see here is just how much influence these corporations have in the Bush administration, and in what way, and how much our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as, the WTC attacks are results of these policies if any. |
Give me a BREAK! If what you say was true, then they could raise the issues by funding large ad campaigns and not give money to EITHER party. Of COURSE they're expecting the party they support to vote in it's favor for projects or policies it wants to get implemented - that's why they're only giving money to the democrats. Same for the Trial Lawyers Assoc. and the Teachers' Unions. |
***
But the contributions through moveon.org come from individuals and there is likely little direct access to these politicians once in office. Not like with say, Ken Lay, who was Bush's good friend and gave lots of money to him, most likely with the expectation of advancing Enron's projects and initiatives. It's a laugh when you look at the numbers and compare how much money the individuals contributed from moveon to all congressional campaigns and what Bush alone received from big business. 2 million dollars contributed by moveon.org individuals to all congressional campaigns they favored, compared with the hundreds of millions received by Bush alone from big business, never mind about other republican congressional campaigns. I think the moveon contributions represent a lot more democratic way.
Besides, what has Cheney to hide by not telling us who was involved with his energy policy meetings, if not that it would show just who influenced the writing of Bush energy policy? He knows that it would look bad. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 01:57:09 PM · #32 |
hahahah Ron. Your a funny one, ill give ya that.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2004 02:02:12 PM · #33 |
| Bottom line is this: You can argue about whether or not Kerry earned his purple hearts, but you can't argue if he served in wartime military and that he led men in combat. With Bush, the only thing you can argue is if he served at all, and he still hasn't proven that he has. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 02:06:51 PM · #34 |
OSAMA BIN LADEN
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE...
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA
"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
SADDAM/AL QAEDA LINK
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM...
"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories... for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
"David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
IRAQ FUNDING
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004...
"We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004
"I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
CREATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION...
"President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION
"President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY...
"So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
"So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
GAY MARRIAGE
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE...
"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE
"Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS...
"We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS
The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
For the new thread go here...
Message edited by author 2004-08-04 14:17:13.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2004 02:32:39 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Bottom line is this: You can argue about whether or not Kerry earned his purple hearts, but you can't argue if he served in wartime military and that he led men in combat. With Bush, the only thing you can argue is if he served at all, and he still hasn't proven that he has. |
Ah, but he HAS proven that he served. Either that or the National Guard was paying a civilian to fly in their aircraft. And he somehow got someone to forge several AF Forms 526. And he effectively fooled Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, Jr. (Ret.), who verified some of his MILITARY pay records. His Statement
So, if you can argue whether BUSH served, even though there's proof that he did, then you can argue about Kerry's service. Try again. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 02:35:24 PM · #36 |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 02:37:43 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
I guess you need to be reminded that Mr. Bush actually lost the election (popular vote) by over 500,000 votes. Moreover, if the heavily Republican tilted Supreme Court hadn't interfered, Mr. Bush would've lost the electoral college, too. |
How quicklyl you have forgotten the long hard fought battles BY THE DEMOCRATES when they thought Bush was going to win the popular and Gore the Electoral... They had shit loads of reasons why we had to follow the electoral results.
Also, you can't just say, "well he won the popular he should be president". It doesn't work that way. Hundreds of thousands of people don't vote because they live in states like California, New York, Mass, or Texas and they are the minority and just decide not to vote because in the end, their vote doesn't count.
And in closing, The Supreme Court only stepped in when the LIBERAL Florida State Supreme Court started retroactivly writing new election laws in favor of gore. If they hadn't tried to break the law they wouldn't have had to step in.
PS: Gore never won a SINGLE recount!
|
|
|
|
08/04/2004 02:45:58 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Bottom line is this: You can argue about whether or not Kerry earned his purple hearts, but you can't argue if he served in wartime military and that he led men in combat. With Bush, the only thing you can argue is if he served at all, and he still hasn't proven that he has. |
Ah, but he HAS proven that he served. Either that or the National Guard was paying a civilian to fly in their aircraft. And he somehow got someone to forge several AF Forms 526. And he effectively fooled Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, Jr. (Ret.), who verified some of his MILITARY pay records. His Statement
So, if you can argue whether BUSH served, even though there's proof that he did, then you can argue about Kerry's service. Try again. |
***
Those military pay records were almost illegible and you could not read every other word on them. Are there any who served with Bush who will come forward now and acknowledge that he knew Bush back then in the military reserve? I think Kerry had 12 former military men who served with him on stage at the democratic national convention with him, is what I remember reading (I did not actually see that since I watched very little of the DNC).
Besides, getting paid does not prove that a person served...just that they were getting paid. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 03:01:11 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Ah, but he HAS proven that he served. Either that or the National Guard was paying a civilian to fly in their aircraft. And he somehow got someone to forge several AF Forms 526. And he effectively fooled Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, Jr. (Ret.), who verified some of his MILITARY pay records. His Statement
So, if you can argue whether BUSH served, even though there's proof that he did, then you can argue about Kerry's service. Try again. |
Bush's military records suddenly found |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 03:04:23 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Bottom line is this: You can argue about whether or not Kerry earned his purple hearts, but you can't argue if he served in wartime military and that he led men in combat. With Bush, the only thing you can argue is if he served at all, and he still hasn't proven that he has. |
Ah, but he HAS proven that he served. Either that or the National Guard was paying a civilian to fly in their aircraft. And he somehow got someone to forge several AF Forms 526. And he effectively fooled Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, Jr. (Ret.), who verified some of his MILITARY pay records. His Statement
So, if you can argue whether BUSH served, even though there's proof that he did, then you can argue about Kerry's service. Try again. |
***
Those military pay records were almost illegible and you could not read every other word on them. Are there any who served with Bush who will come forward now and acknowledge that he knew Bush back then in the military reserve? I think Kerry had 12 former military men who served with him on stage at the democratic national convention with him, is what I remember reading (I did not actually see that since I watched very little of the DNC).
Besides, getting paid does not prove that a person served...just that they were getting paid. |
Bush did serve the military in wartime and it quite easy to prove. He̢۪s doing it RIGHT NOW as commander and chief!
Message edited by author 2004-08-04 15:04:45. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 03:11:26 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Bush did serve the military in wartime and it quite easy to prove. He's doing it RIGHT NOW as commander and chief! |
Don't you mean "Bush: Flip Flopper in Chief."
|
|
|
|
08/04/2004 03:14:18 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
That's relevant, all right! That's why Bush was elected. The U.S. decided that we couldn't depend on Gore to clean up the mess that he and Clinton made. |
I guess you need to be reminded that Mr. Bush actually lost the election (popular vote) by over 500,000 votes. Moreover, if the heavily Republican tilted Supreme Court hadn't interfered, Mr. Bush would've lost the electoral college, too. |
You guys just can̢۪t get over it can you? The popular vote has never elected any US president. That̢۪s just the way it works. For those that are still confused, I suggest you read this. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 03:16:53 PM · #43 |
Are you still trying to get someone to respond to you stupid thread? Keep tying someone̢۪s bound to bite. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 03:29:46 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I thought this was relevant:
"You can't depend on the man who made the mess to clean it up."
--Richard Nixon, 1972 US President, Watergate |
Ok since nobody is seeing the relevence here, ill go ahead and connect the dots:
Richard M. Nixon |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 03:32:46 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Are you still trying to get someone to respond to you stupid thread? Keep tying someone's bound to bite. |
Don't hate the messenger... it's not my fault our fearless Flip Flopper in Chief doesn't know which way the popular wind blows from day to day.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2004 03:45:19 PM · #46 |
| I think that anyone who WANTS to be POTUS should be automatically not allowed. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 04:01:17 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
In good old Clinton times in my area:
Motorola built 4 manufacturing plants
Lucent built 2 manufacturing plants
Tellabs built 1 plant
3-com built 1 plant
Gas price 1.45 gallon
3 bedroom new home price 130,000 $
Milk gallon 2.20 $
In good new Bush times in my area:
Motorola closed 3 manufacturing plants
Lucent closed 2 manufacturing plants
Tellabs closed 1 plant
3-com closed 1 plant
Gas price 2.05 gallon
3 bedroom new home price 330,000 $
Milk gallon 4,20 $
4 more years please,I love misery ! |
Amen you can say that again Kosta!
|
|
|
|
08/04/2004 04:17:11 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***
Those military pay records were almost illegible and you could not read every other word on them. Are there any who served with Bush who will come forward now and acknowledge that he knew Bush back then in the military reserve? I think Kerry had 12 former military men who served with him on stage at the democratic national convention with him, is what I remember reading (I did not actually see that since I watched very little of the DNC).
Besides, getting paid does not prove that a person served...just that they were getting paid. |
Yeah, just like a purple heart doesn't prove that a person was wounded in combat, just that they got someone to sign a piece of paper saying that they shed a drop of blood while on active duty in a combat zone.
Message edited by author 2004-08-04 16:45:47. |
|
|
|
08/04/2004 04:25:20 PM · #49 |
Hello, your talking equity, which they don't get unless some poor sap buys their home. And guess what? Its gonna cost them that earned equity to buy a new one. Not to mention how much their taxes were raised by all that equity!
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
In good old Clinton times in my area:
Motorola built 4 manufacturing plants
Lucent built 2 manufacturing plants
Tellabs built 1 plant
3-com built 1 plant
Gas price 1.45 gallon
3 bedroom new home price 130,000 $
Milk gallon 2.20 $
In good new Bush times in my area:
Motorola closed 3 manufacturing plants
Lucent closed 2 manufacturing plants
Tellabs closed 1 plant
3-com closed 1 plant
Gas price 2.05 gallon
3 bedroom new home price 330,000 $
Milk gallon 4,20 $
4 more years please,I love misery ! |
Yes, 4 more years, please. Under Bush the average homeowner in your area increased their equity by $200,000 ( that's 254% ). And that's in just 4 years. Who knows how much they will gain in another 4 years under Bush. Do you think that they spent an extra $200,000 on gasoline and milk in the last 4 years? And under Bush's tax plan, they won't have to pay full taxes on the gain as they would under Kerry's plan. |
***
Real estate was going up and up and up under Clinton and so Bush economic policies probably had little to do with that. If the economy is so strong now, then why are there such large inventories of automobiles at this time of the year that it seems the auto makers can't give them away? |
|
|
|
|
08/04/2004 04:53:18 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by dwolff:
Hello, your talking equity, which they don't get unless some poor sap buys their home. And guess what? Its gonna cost them that earned equity to buy a new one. Not to mention how much their taxes were raised by all that equity! |
Well I don't know about you, but as for me, the more taxes I have to pay the better I like it. I'd rather pay an extra $50,000 in taxes to receive an extra $200,000 in income than not pay the extra taxes and not get the extra income. Even with the extra taxes, I'd still be $150,000 ahead. As for buying a new one, eventually an older couple should downsize to a house or condo that isn't as large as the one they maintained when they were rearing children. They the equity can be used for more pleasurable purposes. |
|
