Quote by: Technosoul  I feel that Conservative in-put is of value to keep things in balance. As well as liberal in-put. Finding a middle ground where both aspects are employed where they are the most useful.
*Absolutely. I would take it further in that an equally active third party would make for an even more fair playground.
I do not know if McCain is being honest about trying to be a progressive moderate like Hillary with his lastest activites or not. I am offically for a mixture of socialsim and capitalism relative to economics.
*Also skeptical. Let the market dictate. Keep corrupt social gov't policies out of my business.
I would agree that finger pointing is somewhat useless nowadays because, in spite of what they might say in words or as a philosophy, they all have fumbled the ball when in action. Same as if you had two basketball teams who did not make every shot a into the hoop. (aka basket).
*BINGO!
I do not give President Bush that excuse. I do not think the lies he said about Saddam was done in error, but were intended for the purpose of deception.
*The same can be said for BC thru his negligence in order to save face ala Monicagate. He is a friggin' coward. He feared the backlash suffered from the Gulf War all the while being able to maintain "not one American life lost in Kosovo" while ignoring the Somalia deboccle. That credit does not belong to him. It belongs to our Military and Commanders. I have heard Hillary slyly going there and suddenly backing off after being called out on the sniper fire lie. Don't believe I have heard her refer to Somlia of which bin Laden is also connected. Another blatant example of cowardess from BC. A new four letter word in her vocabulary perhaps?
There is difference between Clinton and Bush about Bin Laden. He had a radicial terrorist group and not a government. When it was confirmed he used a small bomb to blow a hole in a ship Clinton responded by sending in a missle to blow up Laden's terrorist training camp. The situation at that time demanded a measured response and not total war. Clinton gave Bush a passdown about the group of men who came here to learn how to fly an airliner and Bush knew they might hijack an airliner, which was common those days. And that they were funded by a questionable source. Bush basically ignored that and did not direct the CIA / FBI to monitor those people.
*Don't buy it. Taliban and bin Laden existing even then. Brooklyn cell ignored. 93 WTC plan was implemented in Afganistan in the late 80's. BC knew it and refused to take action. I seem to recall a change in the FISA laws while he was in charge which led to the break down in communication of intelligence.
Keep in mind BO and HC are also funded by several questionable sources.
However, what those guys did do was totally unexpected. And if the jets had only caused damage to the top floors of the WTC, and if the other people escaped and the fire was put out. Then the incident would have had less of an impact on us and we might not have had a full scale war with the government of Afganistan. Although more security would have been called relative to air traffic, along with a serious attempt to get Bin Laden and his group of people, which would have been a sensitive issue as the relatives of Bin Laden were visiting with the VP and Halliburton about a pipeline that would run through Afganistan.
And the Laden family were important contractors used internationally by private businesses here, relative to the business of oil and natural gas production. Just like Shell Oil now has a gaint contract with Iran to develope natural gas production for Iran.
*Strongly disagree. Full scale attack was necessary. US had already been labled a paper tiger and the negligence of previous administartion inspired laughter among our enemies thruout the world. bin Ladens have already ousted UBL and bin Ladens involved in contracts under former administration as well.
I do not know why Bin Laden found the Laden-Hallibuton pipeline project in Afganistan offensive to his religious ideals. But for some reason he deciced to become the black sheep of the family. But he did get some of the money (millions) earned by the Laden contractor and construction business and so in a way he was funded by Hallibuton who had hired that company to do constructive things for oil interests. For which the VP was the CEO of.
*bin Laden connected to attack on 93 WTC bombing, no? EIJ & al Qaeda organized years before. Tanzania, Somalia etc....
Halliburton Shmalliburton. Contracted under Clinton in Kosovo. Contracted under Bush 41. Outstanding success in extinguishing oil fires in Gulf War. Logical choice, no?
It is stranger then fiction that the Bush/Chaney White House did not have a clue about that riff in the Laden family and that it represented a dangerous situation. Nor can I comprehend why all this stuff was not being seriously investigated by Congress.
*Key word.... Congress.
Now one famous conservative once said "give me a break" and those words fits our current situation. Let the Democrats give a break from the conservative based Republican policies that now still dominate.
*Danger Will Robinson!
We hear the same claim about some myth that Democrats will tax and spend. McCain is recomending better management of pork spending, and I agree. Hillary is recomending that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes like they used to do before Bush gave them too many tax breaks, or allowed them to go tax free by putting their head offices off shore. If her plan is activated then any those social programs would have funding without rasing taxes for people in the middle or lower tax brackets. Obama has echoed her plan, that he o-dopted from her and then presented it as his idea.
*Exactly. His policies just a tick off Hillary's. His self proclaimed hundreds of successfully passed legislation in IL were handed to him on a silver platter by Emil Jones of the Chicago Machine to the dismay of many Dems in office with far more experience. Obama is a manufactured politician. He is an empty suit. Ask yourself why the Democrat Gov. and highly influential legislative members of a state from which a viable Pres. candidate hales are so silent?
Higher taxes are inevitable regardless of the candidate. The question remains who better to manage tax and spend policies. More Socialism is definitly not the answer. This gov't can't even practically manage the unnecessary programs presently in existance and you say we need more gov't?!?! Look to the airline industry as your guide and then say with out breaking into uncontrollable laughter more gov't is the answer. As to pork, Hillary has just a record setting request in earmarks to the tune of 2.3 BIL and BO in contrast has 100 MIL including some 2 mil for the hospital where his wife works. But then again, BO doesn't take special interest monies or influence. (insert roflmao)
Foot Note: Michelle Obama's salary increased three fold at that same hospital immediately after being elected to the Senate...hmmmm.
Nearly all of Obama's ideas were created by Hillary Clinton only he just modified them a bit to make it sound like he is presenting something different and better. Hillary coined this motto about "change" also.
*Refer to above.
The idea that McCain is sticking with his voting record is coming into queston as you pointed out. The "you get what you see" idea does not impress me because I see that as four more years of Bushism. And I have been a Bush basher for a long time, even before he was elected the first time.
*Shall I call you a McCain basher then? Lately McCain seems hell bent on removing himself from the Bushisms. So maybe just a conservative basher would suffice.
I was protesting the war in Irag before it happened and was unhappy that Congress allowed him to use trickery to get away with his pre-emptive strike when Hillary made it clear he has no permission to act on that authority without the full blessings of the U.N. Somehow her concerns were overruled because Congress was still controlled by a Republican majority and she was in the Senate, and as a newly elected person in the Senate she still did not have a lot of influence back then.
*Even so, she gave her blessing and I'll never buy into the trickery factor. Too many facts remain classified to this day. BO on the other hand saw his dissent it as a campaign slogan, nothing more.
When Bush asked for funding the package included all war expendatures, also for Afganistan and the war on terrorism, grouped in with the war in Iraq. A no vote would have also cut funding for Afganistan and related efforts to stop terrorism. Keep that fact in mind when you cite voting records. |
May 9, 2008, 06:53 pm
