RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq

RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cloudboy -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:13:36 AM)
quote: Can you back up your claim that the current President is responsible for the legislation dismantling mortgage regulations, and allowing predatory lending that was enacted in the 1990s? The trouble is broader than that. The Bush administration as a group is ideologically opposed to regulation and espouses that the free market is the best regulator. (Think Enron. These guys were looking to Enron management to staff the department of energy.) Hence when it had clues that actions should be taken (lower level fed executives issuing warnings) nothing happened. In my view any administration that presided over this fiasco would bear some responsibility for it, because its the Government's job to protect and insure the general welfare of the people. Although we may not be able to "blame" the Bush Administration, we certainly cannot give them any positive credit for taking remedial action. (But they don't believe in the Gov't taking remedial action, unless its something more manageable like regime change in the Middle East.) We can't blame Bush for skyrocketing gas prices either, but what have they done on the transportation front to address it? They are one sad group of leaders. The IRAQ war and Katrina pretty much exposed them for who they are. "The surge" also exposes them as being five years behind the curve. For current Republican wonks, that's an unadulterated "success."

thishereboi -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:26:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 How is any of what you said pertinent to the topic at hand? (Answer: it isn't) Oh sorry, did he say something?

peterK50 -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:28:40 AM)
"More-of-the-Same" Mc Cain & the republicans wanting to tout the surge is like reviewing a play based on the third act only. What about the fraud that lead up to the war? The mismanagement after? The surge is the troop level the Generals wanted from the beginning but Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush over ruled them. Who's re-writing history here?

Alumbrado -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 8:07:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: Can you back up your claim that the current President is responsible for the legislation dismantling mortgage regulations, and allowing predatory lending that was enacted in the 1990s? The trouble is broader than that. The Bush administration as a group is ideologically opposed to regulation and espouses that the free market is the best regulator. (Think Enron. These guys were looking to Enron management to staff the department of energy.) Hence when it had clues that actions should be taken (lower level fed executives issuing warnings) nothing happened. In my view any administration that presided over this fiasco would bear some responsibility for it, because its the Government's job to protect and insure the general welfare of the people. Although we may not be able to "blame" the Bush Administration, we certainly cannot give them any positive credit for taking remedial action. (But they don't believe in the Gov't taking remedial action, unless its something more manageable like regime change in the Middle East.) We can't blame Bush for skyrocketing gas prices either, but what have they done on the transportation front to address it? They are one sad group of leaders. The IRAQ war and Katrina pretty much exposed them for who they are. "The surge" also exposes them as being five years behind the curve. For current Republican wonks, that's an unadulterated "success." I'm well aware that the trouble is much broader than that, and that is the whole point....venal politicians on both sides of the aisle are always at fault. It isn't called the Iron Triangle for nothing. The notion that one party is any different than the other is rendered ludicrous by the frequency with which members change loyalties, positions, and even parties when they think it will get them elected...the only thing that matters to any of them, is staying at the trough. It is beyond naivete to see their serial behavior as 'good guys and bad guys'. There is only one party...the party of rich corrupt lawyers. O59 is big on demanding proof and then ignoring it, while making sweeping generalization that he runs away from when asked for proof in return, such as the one that Bush is responsible for the housing crisis, in that he allowed the predatory lending to be made legal... trouble is, those bills were signed in the 90s. They are all responsible, just like successive presidents allowed Ken Lay to have the keys to the hen house and the White House. None of these hot button issues are as comic book simplistic as made out by the partisan cheerleaders on the internet...both party's hands are equally dirty. The Democrats own Iraq, and the economy, and racism, every bit as much as the Republicans...who in return own illegal immigration, and selling out the nation, and phony patriotism in lockstep with the Dems, while both sides would ship their daughters off for an abortion or their grandmothers off for euthenasia in a hot minute if they thought it would benefit them. Since we have chosen to allow ourselves to be represented and led by an increadingly inbred bunch of partial psychopaths, it is small wonder that rational political discussion is made impossible by the schoolyard antics of those who think this is some sort of team sport, where their side will 'win' if they cheat hard enough. Which is exactly why more people need to be calling BullShit! on the partisan finger pointing smokescreen.

cloudboy -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 4:22:55 PM)
quote: The Democrats own Iraq, and the economy, and racism, every bit as much as the Republicans... How many Republicans voted against "the use of force" vote on IRAQ? Who was the last Republican President to reduce federal spending or run a budget surplus? Which party introduced the policy of increasing spending and cutting taxes while claiming they could balance the budget too?

Alumbrado -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 4:25:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 How is any of what you said pertinent to the topic at hand? (Answer: it isn't) Oh sorry, did he say something? It might not be pertinent for you to know that people are parroting StormFront agit-prop here under the guise of 'informing' us how 'baaaahhhhaaad' Obama is, and how a black President would ruin the 'order of things', but for some of us its a survival skill.

Alumbrado -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 4:38:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: The Democrats own Iraq, and the economy, and racism, every bit as much as the Republicans... How many Republicans voted against "the use of force" vote on IRAQ? Who was the last Republican President to reduce federal spending or run a budget surplus? Which party introduced the policy of increasing spending and cutting taxes while claiming they could balance the budget too? How many Democrats voted to start, and sustain all of the military actions in Iraq? How many of them are getting rich off of the war? How many of them are in favor of the Patriot Act, and secret tribunals and warrantless wiretaps, etc. if they get to use them for their purposes? How many Democrats presume that minorities will always need rich white liberals to tell them how to think and vote? When was the last Democrat or Republican President that wasn't a corrupt multi-millionaire, bought and paid for by the same lobbyists? Who was Bill Clinton's head of the economic advisory council and George Bush's golf buddy again? And if you think that taxes or prices or corruption actually went down (instead of playing creative accounting with the numbers) when either the Democrats or Republicans held the majority in Congress or occupied the White House, you've swallowed way too much koolaid.

Thadius -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 4:47:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: The Democrats own Iraq, and the economy, and racism, every bit as much as the Republicans... How many Republicans voted against "the use of force" vote on IRAQ? Who was the last Republican President to reduce federal spending or run a budget surplus? Which party introduced the policy of increasing spending and cutting taxes while claiming they could balance the budget too? Name one wartime president that ran a budget surplus or reduced federal spending. Oh and to answer your last question... take a close look at the tax cuts during the JFK admin with the same claims....

cloudboy -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:15:57 PM)
1. Yes Democrats voted for the war, but many did not. They were the only ones. 2. The Democrats did not prosecute or plan the war. 3. Although there are similarities between the parties, there are also large differences. Without going into a treatise, here is what I see to be the fundamental difference between each party today: The Democrats are not completely captive of their funding base because all the interests don't line up neatly: business, environmental, consumer, and labor. On the Republican side, there are minimal divisions within its economic base. There are no consumer, environmental, or labor constituents to blunt its big business emphasis on low taxes, deregulation, and generous corporate subsidies. (The social conservative don't care strongly about these issues.) Result: Monolithic thinking on the Republican side of issues --- more grey area thinking on the Democratic side. Naturally Grey area thinking always involves more analysis and transparency. Information and Fact Gathering: Democrats like to refer to experts and scientists to make policy. (Think Al Gore, for example.) It makes sense that experts should be a starting point for making policy, and so for past Presidential administrations, experts in federal agencies would draft plans and try to sell them to the White House. In the Bush administration, its the opposite. The White House generates all the ideas, and the agencies only roles are to promote them. Hence, important policymaking positions at the Treasury Department and The Council of Economic advisors have either been left vacant or ignored. This orientation also helps explain how the mortgage crisis, foreseen by workers in the Federal Reserve, went ignored even though clear signs of a problem had been spotted. This also explains how the CIA was told how to work the intelligence on IRAQ and why Cheney and Rumsfeldt formed their own intelligence click at the war department to justify their invasion plans. Parting shot: Its fine to try to have a non partisan POV, but I think when you try to eviscerate the differences between Republicans and Democrats -- you devolve into unhelpful nihilism. In other words, rarely do you ever spot better policies or ways of conducting government. You must spot the strengths and weaknesses.

cloudboy -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:22:07 PM)
quote: Name one wartime president that ran a budget surplus or reduced federal spending. Ronald Reagan was not a wartime President. He's the one who got the whole borrow and spend machine rolling. Bush is only the second President ever to conduct a war and cut taxes. (No one else in history ever thought it was a good idea. Yes, JFK tried it, but his policies were later reversed.) Its all part of his Orwellian war scheme of endless war without sacrifice. AKA -- he doesn't want to fund the war --- and by stop lossing soldiers, paying exorbitant funds to Blackwater, etc. --- he gives Americans the appearance we are not at war. If there was a draft and Americans really had to live with this war, they would not put up with it.

slvemike4u -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:28:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber celticlord, Yup. Bush is sure a leader alright. So was Hitler. So was Saddam. Vlad the Impaler was a heck of a nice guy too. Robert E. Lee was respected by his man as a great leader. Personally, in a world of globalized economies, I still think I'd like a guy who could go to a G-8 conference and NOT try to flag down the Itallian officials by yelling "HEY! AMIGOS!!!" repeatedly across the cavernous, echoing room.* *AP, two weeks ago. I have not read the whole thread,hope I'm not the first person to object to you including Robert E.Lee amongst the pack of scum you listed...

Thadius -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:40:13 PM)
Actually, my complaints were about him refering to some of us as "Good Germans".... I figured, General Lee had enough history and folks to defend his name. [;)]

Alumbrado -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:41:15 PM)
What you have listed above are partisan perceptions that they would like people to fall for so they can be scared into voting against the 'evil other side'. The Republicans claim (also based on pure perception) that they are somehow the party of patriotism and family values. All smoke and mirrors. And all easily debunked by the points I raised above: > They switch sides and positions quicker than a cheap transistor, including swapping party affiliation if it will keep them feeding at the trough. > They all feed at the same trough, the one stocked by people like Ken Lay, Bill Clinton's appointee and Bush's golfing buddy, The Iron Triangle is non-partisan > While quick to be outraged at the evil doing of the other side, they are equally quick to use it for their profit while explaining 'but that's different'. > Time after time after time, the proponents of one hot button issue after another are found to be hypocritical when it comes to personal behavior...be it Feinstein's concealed carry permit, or Roy Cohn's love life. These are professional liars (lawyers), enjoying the status of an elite ruling class by dint of their partial psychopathy ( no remorse, no conscience, high verbalization, superficial charm, almost the whole checklist). Only there is no 'evil other side', there is only one side, and the multi-party facade is just a version of 'good cop/bad cop' designed to keep people from seeing that both parties have only one shared goal... to transfer as much money and power from the hands of the many to the pockets of the few... by any means possible. And to that, I say the 'better way' is for people to first realize who the enemy really is....

caitlyn -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:43:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado It might not be pertinent for you to know that people are parroting StormFront agit-prop here under the guise of 'informing' us how 'baaaahhhhaaad' Obama is, and how a black President would ruin the 'order of things', but for some of us its a survival skill. I remember when you were a great read. Time to change the channel already!

Alumbrado -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:48:04 PM)
You can find any number of 'channels' that will only post what you want to hear.

Thadius -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 7:52:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: Name one wartime president that ran a budget surplus or reduced federal spending. Ronald Reagan was not a wartime President. He's the one who got the whole borrow and spend machine rolling. Bush is only the second President ever to conduct a war and cut taxes. (No one else in history ever thought it was a good idea. Yes, JFK tried it, but his policies were later reversed.) Its all part of his Orwellian war scheme of endless war without sacrifice. AKA -- he doesn't want to fund the war --- and by stop lossing soldiers, paying exorbitant funds to Blackwater, etc. --- he gives Americans the appearance we are not at war. If there was a draft and Americans really had to live with this war, they would not put up with it. I didn't claim Reagan was a wartime president. Bush is not the first president to fund Blackwater with exorbitant funds (Clinton used many PMOs do exact his policies around the world). Spending is the problem, not tax cuts. If you look at the few times that taxes have been cut, revenues have actually gone up. Instituting a draft to affect political opinions would be, in my eyes, irresponsible, and political suicide for whoever brought it up, and a kick in the nuts to people that feel the job needs to be finished... http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/multimedia/details.aspx?id=323 I know personally I enjoyed knowing that the folks I was serving with were there because they volunteered, not because they were afraid of a jail term.

caitlyn -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 8:46:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado You can find any number of 'channels' that will only post what you want to hear. Its not really a question of what I want to hear. Honestly, I used to have a bit of message board admiration for your posts ... but as of late you only seem to engage in attack-based posts that are only roughly topical and seem based on the ability to divine what is within a person's heart, based on a few words on a message board. I don't know Al ... you can hit back with a snarky comment, or maybe take this as constructive criticism.

Alumbrado -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 8:51:09 PM)
There is nothing 'constructive' about what you are defending.... and why would I care about the 'admiration' of someone who defends such things?

caitlyn -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 9:01:37 PM)
I'm not defending anything, so you point ... is pointless.

Alumbrado -> RE: Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq (7/21/2008 9:04:53 PM)
Then why did you derail this thread to complain about me personally, if you weren't defending the viewpoint I criticized?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625