clinton was impeached. he just wasnt removed from office.
Hair splitting at best. He was not successfully impeached. Another trophy of Republican incompetence. Had they allowed Clinton to focus on his Presidency, and not spent the last half of his second term trying to lynch him, 9/11 probably could have been prevented.
I was a Republican until they stooped that low. They weren't doing the work of the people, and America paid for it.
I favor the Democrats trying to balance the budget versus the current tax cuts that help the rich and shift the debt burden to my kids.
Sorry, by their I meant 'US government'...as a whole.
Why would you favor the Dems to balance the budget? When they had cntrol they didn;t do it? It was a republican congress lead by true conservatives and a democrat pres....so maybe with the opposite we have a chance I guess...but I doubt it. I really think a conserv. repub congress and a dem pres is the best combo for balancing the budget.
Hair splitting at best. He was not successfully impeached. Another trophy of Republican incompetence. Had they allowed Clinton to focus on his Presidency, and not spent the last half of his second term trying to lynch him, 9/11 probably could have been prevented.
I was a Republican until they stooped that low. They weren't doing the work of the people, and America paid for it.
Acually, a successful impeachment doesn't have to involve being removed from office. It's people like you who believe Lindra Tripp should apologize to the nation, and suggest Bill Clinton was but a hapless victim that continue to amaze me. And if you're unaware of the countless opportunites Clinton had to act against terrorism then you do not need to argue this any further. But if a continual apology for someone who was time after time credibly accused of rape suits you right, then hey, don't let me get in your way. After all, I'm sure none of this interfered with his running the country in the first place. Unless you're suggesting he had no conscience as well.
It was just BJ! Come on!
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Yes, spending has to be cut, especially on the war.
I don't welcome tax increases, but I realize the goal in doing so will be to balance the debt in this country.
Please let me educate everyone who believes this logic, which has always been taught by the dems.....and if false
You cannot tax yourself out of debt! We can discuss GDP, money supply, etc, but to simplify there is historical proof that raising tax levels does have a negative impact on economical growth, while lowering tax rates improves economic growth
Would you rather have 28% of a million dollars or
22% of 1.5 million??
That is the point, the govt can only get revenues from taxes dollars we pay, the rates matter less than the dollars...
The economy does shrink when tax rates increase and that lowers revenue, but when tax rates are lowered, the economy grows because you have more to spend/invest, and that means someone is making more money. Therefore, the tax revenue increases.
Simplification, but true. If you want to increase tax dollars to the govt you should be FOR lower tax rates for everyone including the rich.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
I favor the Democrats trying to balance the budget versus the current tax cuts that help the rich and shift the debt burden to my kids.
Balancing the budget is a conservative idea and was promoted by cons for decades, but the dems hated it and always shot it down. I wish someone would do it, but I don't have any faith in dems or repubs.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Sorry, by their I meant 'US government'...as a whole.
Why would you favor the Dems to balance the budget? When they had cntrol they didn;t do it? It was a republican congress lead by true conservatives and a democrat pres....so maybe with the opposite we have a chance I guess...but I doubt it. I really think a conserv. repub congress and a dem pres is the best combo for balancing the budget.
There were problems in '94 because we had a Democratic president and the Democrats had been in Congress for a while. People don't police each other well when they've been in power for too long. Inherently, it's not Republican or Democrat, but it's Republican now because of they've been in power for way too long.
clinton was impeached. he just wasnt removed from office.
Yeah, what you said doesn't counter what I said. Clinton was Impeached, he was found not guilty and acquitted on all charges, and because of that, of course he didn't have to leave office or suffer any kind of restriction of government.
Please let me educate everyone who believes this logic, which has always been taught by the dems.....and if false
You cannot tax yourself out of debt! We can discuss GDP, money supply, etc, but to simplify there is historical proof that raising tax levels does have a negative impact on economical growth, while lowering tax rates improves economic growth
Would you rather have 28% of a million dollars or
22% of 1.5 million??
That is the point, the govt can only get revenues from taxes dollars we pay, the rates matter less than the dollars...
The economy does shrink when tax rates increase and that lowers revenue, but when tax rates are lowered, the economy grows because you have more to spend/invest, and that means someone is making more money. Therefore, the tax revenue increases.
Simplification, but true. If you want to increase tax dollars to the govt you should be FOR lower tax rates for everyone including the rich.
The economic growth of late has been heavily concentrated among a smaller number of people. The percentage of the national income that went to corporate profits has almost doubled under Bush, but the percentage going to wages has dropped.
In 2004 Alan Greenspan said, “We have greatly increased wealth, but almost all of the increased wealth is going to the owners of capital, and none to people who work for wages.”
Even as tax rates are coming down, federal spending keeps going up. Federal spending increased 7.4 percent last year and the $182 billion increase was about twice the pace of inflation.
Eventually, we have to pay for all of the spending. Raising taxes is one option. I realize this slows the economy, but we can't borrow more because that means higher interest costs on future generations.
It comes down to trimming government spending. You can't have the tax relief and no spending restraints.
And there was nothing in that post about pre-war intelligence. But if you must know, all the major intelligence agencies worldwide which agreed in whole in reguards with Saddam Hussien having WMDs, still stand by that assessment. That information was not fabricated by Bush or his administration. The intelligence community may have let this administration down, in a variety of ways, but no one lied to you.
That's not exactly true. The French intelligence forces dismissed and did not buy into the Niger documents about the enriched uranium findings that the Italian secret service found (fabricated?).
It's the whole Nigergate issue, with corrupt Italian secret services (currently under political review from Parliament for a series of illegal activities) such as Rocco Martino, who is linked to Michael Ledeen, Karl Rove's foreign policy advisor, etc. etc. I am sure you can find sources on the web for more details.
Anyway, the point is that those documents proving that Iraq was building a nuclear programme, because of the purchase of enriched uranium, were instead seized by the UK and the US as evidence of WMD and used in the PR campaign for war in Iraq.
So the point I am making is that not all intelligence agencies believed in WMD, but rather ad hoc evidence was created and used to justify going to war in Iraq.
That's not exactly true. The French intelligence forces dismissed and did not buy into the Niger documents about the enriched uranium findings that the Italian secret service found (fabricated?).
It's the whole Nigergate issue, with corrupt Italian secret services (currently under political review from Parliament for a series of illegal activities) such as Rocco Martino, who is linked to Michael Ledeen, Karl Rove's foreign policy advisor, etc. etc. I am sure you can find sources on the web for more details.
Anyway, the point is that those documents proving that Iraq was building a nuclear programme, because of the purchase of enriched uranium, were instead seized by the UK and the US as evidence of WMD and used in the PR campaign for war in Iraq.
So the point I am making is that not all intelligence agencies believed in WMD, but rather ad hoc evidence was created and used to justify going to war in Iraq.
LGT, there are MANY examples of things like this or worse that illustrate how the Bush admin. was less than honest. In some cases they just outright lied when they knew otherwise. I once had a thread on here (from last year) that dealt specifically with this iisue - in it, there were dozens of examples that showed that Bush et al knew they were slinging bullshit.
Check this out from Gregory Thielmann, who was Colin Powell's closest intel person:
"Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who
enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all
wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was
working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions
perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket. The aluminum was
exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,” recalls
Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State
months before."
But there was a good deal more in Secretary Powell’s speech that
bothered the analysts. Powell claimed Saddam still had a few dozen Scud
missiles. “I wondered what he was talking about,” says Thielmann. “We did not have evidence that the Iraqis had those missiles, pure and simple.”
Again and again, you see the same warnings from people, credible people, both domestically and internationally.
Check this out from David Kay, who was Bush's weapons inspector in Iraq. I've cut and pasted this from an email I had some time ago:
"Although previous CIA reports had referred to the biowarfare trucks,
Powell's U.N. presentation put them in the spotlight.
Citing "eyewitness accounts," he called them "one of the most worrisome
things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq."
"We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on
wheels and on rails," Powell said. He showed what he called "highly
detailed and extremely accurate" diagrams of how the trucks were
configured, and warned that they could spew enough anthrax or botulinus
toxin "in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people."
But Kay, who sought to confirm Curveball's claims in Iraq after the end
of major combat, said Powell's account was "disingenuous."
Kay added: "If Powell had said to the Security Council: 'It's one
source, we never actually talked to him, and we don't know his name,' as
he's describing this, I think people would have laughed us out of
court."
Powell assured U.N. diplomats that two other Iraqi sources, who he said
were "in a position to know," had corroborated the "eyewitness account."
The CIA later said those reports arrived in December 2000 and mid-2002.
Kay said the debriefing files on the pair showed that they never had
direct contact with the biowarfare trucks. "None of them claimed to have
seen them," he said. "They said they were aware of the mobile program.
They had heard there was a mobile program."
A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.
The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.
LGT, there are MANY examples of things like this or worse that illustrate how the Bush admin. was less than honest. In some cases they just outright lied when they knew otherwise. I once had a thread on here (from last year) that dealt specifically with this iisue - in it, there were dozens of examples that showed that Bush et al knew they were slinging bullshit.
Oh yes, I agree.
My main point was a rebuttal of the statement that all intelligence agencies worldwide believed in the WMD issue, which was not true.
As far as I can tell, it's the same as the Republican stance. And by that I mean it depends on the Democrat. I suspect we'll actually see some bipartisian discussion on this issue (as opposed to traditional lip service) after January 2007.
The most widely held stance is support of the McCain/Kennedy sponsored bill that was passed in the Senate but defeated in the House as a result of conservative opposition. President Bush said yesterday that he is actually optimistic about getting more done on immigration with a Democrat-controlled House than he could with the Republican controlled House, mostly because a lot of House Republicans were/are fucking insane.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Well, that seems to be true...though I don;t hold out a lot of hope for this House either.
We'll see. It only took the GOP 12 years to piss off 65% of the country, now it's our turn. If Speaker Pelosi can keep various the committee chairmen/women under her thumb(and she's definitely more than capable of doing so), we could see some progress in terms of actual governing. Minimum wage, prescription drug prices, etc. Stuff that can lead to real benefits for a large % of the American people. I just hope they don't move too far to the center. Rahm Emmanuel's name has been mentioned for Majority Whip, and I think he'd work well with Speaker Pelosi.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
We'll see. It only took the GOP 12 years to piss off 65% of the country, now it's our turn. If Speaker Pelosi can keep various the committee chairmen/women under her thumb(and she's definitely more than capable of doing so), we could see some progress in terms of actual governing. Minimum wage, prescription drug prices, etc. Stuff that can lead to real benefits for a large % of the American people. I just hope they don't move too far to the center. Rahm Emmanuel's name has been mentioned for Majority Whip, and I think he'd work well with Speaker Pelosi.
you hope they don't move to the center? you want them to stay, specifically nancy, far left?
wont that piss off the other half? seems going towards the middle make everyone a little bit happier
We'll see. It only took the GOP 12 years to piss off 65% of the country, now it's our turn. If Speaker Pelosi can keep various the committee chairmen/women under her thumb(and she's definitely more than capable of doing so), we could see some progress in terms of actual governing. Minimum wage, prescription drug prices, etc. Stuff that can lead to real benefits for a large % of the American people. I just hope they don't move too far to the center. Rahm Emmanuel's name has been mentioned for Majority Whip, and I think he'd work well with Speaker Pelosi.
I'm not sure that a raise in the middel wage equates real benefits to a large % of the American people.
Unless the repub somehow privatize part of SS in a hurry, we will ahve all missed a great opportunity to have more of a say in our retirements. And that is a shame.
privatizing social security would bankrupt the system.
The system is broken......that's the point...the only way it isn't already 'bankrupt' is that they just keep stealing people's money that they will never see again...that's pretty fair.
I'm talking a portion...and I'm talking about an overhaul so bankrupting the current system is of no concern. It's merelty another scare tactic.
the system isnt broken yet, it will be in the future. there does need to be an overhaul of the system, but privatizing it will bankrupt it faster than the current system is, so what would be the point?
if i understand the plan correctly, taking a portion out for investment could possibly make individuals better off, but that money isnt going back into the system, its going to individuals. so you have more money coming out of the system and none of that new invested money going back into the system. thats how it goes bankrupt faster. thats why the plan is retarded and doesnt make any sense. sure it might make some people better off, but it wouldnt save the system as some republicans claim it wouldve.
If people can invest their own money they won't be depending on SS in the future...quite simple...
Anyhow, no use arguing, the issue is dead for now.....and I am sad.
Comments
I don't welcome tax increases, but I realize the goal in doing so will be to balance the debt in this country.
Wow...are you sure...you sure they won't just spend more? Have you seen their track record?
Hair splitting at best. He was not successfully impeached. Another trophy of Republican incompetence. Had they allowed Clinton to focus on his Presidency, and not spent the last half of his second term trying to lynch him, 9/11 probably could have been prevented.
I was a Republican until they stooped that low. They weren't doing the work of the people, and America paid for it.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
I favor the Democrats trying to balance the budget versus the current tax cuts that help the rich and shift the debt burden to my kids.
Sorry, by their I meant 'US government'...as a whole.
Why would you favor the Dems to balance the budget? When they had cntrol they didn;t do it? It was a republican congress lead by true conservatives and a democrat pres....so maybe with the opposite we have a chance I guess...but I doubt it. I really think a conserv. repub congress and a dem pres is the best combo for balancing the budget.
Acually, a successful impeachment doesn't have to involve being removed from office. It's people like you who believe Lindra Tripp should apologize to the nation, and suggest Bill Clinton was but a hapless victim that continue to amaze me. And if you're unaware of the countless opportunites Clinton had to act against terrorism then you do not need to argue this any further. But if a continual apology for someone who was time after time credibly accused of rape suits you right, then hey, don't let me get in your way. After all, I'm sure none of this interfered with his running the country in the first place. Unless you're suggesting he had no conscience as well.
It was just BJ! Come on!
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Please let me educate everyone who believes this logic, which has always been taught by the dems.....and if false
You cannot tax yourself out of debt! We can discuss GDP, money supply, etc, but to simplify there is historical proof that raising tax levels does have a negative impact on economical growth, while lowering tax rates improves economic growth
Would you rather have 28% of a million dollars or
22% of 1.5 million??
That is the point, the govt can only get revenues from taxes dollars we pay, the rates matter less than the dollars...
The economy does shrink when tax rates increase and that lowers revenue, but when tax rates are lowered, the economy grows because you have more to spend/invest, and that means someone is making more money. Therefore, the tax revenue increases.
Simplification, but true. If you want to increase tax dollars to the govt you should be FOR lower tax rates for everyone including the rich.
Balancing the budget is a conservative idea and was promoted by cons for decades, but the dems hated it and always shot it down. I wish someone would do it, but I don't have any faith in dems or repubs.
There were problems in '94 because we had a Democratic president and the Democrats had been in Congress for a while. People don't police each other well when they've been in power for too long. Inherently, it's not Republican or Democrat, but it's Republican now because of they've been in power for way too long.
The economic growth of late has been heavily concentrated among a smaller number of people. The percentage of the national income that went to corporate profits has almost doubled under Bush, but the percentage going to wages has dropped.
In 2004 Alan Greenspan said, “We have greatly increased wealth, but almost all of the increased wealth is going to the owners of capital, and none to people who work for wages.”
Even as tax rates are coming down, federal spending keeps going up. Federal spending increased 7.4 percent last year and the $182 billion increase was about twice the pace of inflation.
Eventually, we have to pay for all of the spending. Raising taxes is one option. I realize this slows the economy, but we can't borrow more because that means higher interest costs on future generations.
It comes down to trimming government spending. You can't have the tax relief and no spending restraints.
That's not exactly true. The French intelligence forces dismissed and did not buy into the Niger documents about the enriched uranium findings that the Italian secret service found (fabricated?).
It's the whole Nigergate issue, with corrupt Italian secret services (currently under political review from Parliament for a series of illegal activities) such as Rocco Martino, who is linked to Michael Ledeen, Karl Rove's foreign policy advisor, etc. etc. I am sure you can find sources on the web for more details.
Anyway, the point is that those documents proving that Iraq was building a nuclear programme, because of the purchase of enriched uranium, were instead seized by the UK and the US as evidence of WMD and used in the PR campaign for war in Iraq.
So the point I am making is that not all intelligence agencies believed in WMD, but rather ad hoc evidence was created and used to justify going to war in Iraq.
LGT, there are MANY examples of things like this or worse that illustrate how the Bush admin. was less than honest. In some cases they just outright lied when they knew otherwise. I once had a thread on here (from last year) that dealt specifically with this iisue - in it, there were dozens of examples that showed that Bush et al knew they were slinging bullshit.
"Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who
enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all
wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was
working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions
perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket. The aluminum was
exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,” recalls
Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State
months before."
But there was a good deal more in Secretary Powell’s speech that
bothered the analysts. Powell claimed Saddam still had a few dozen Scud
missiles. “I wondered what he was talking about,” says Thielmann. “We did not have evidence that the Iraqis had those missiles, pure and simple.”
Again and again, you see the same warnings from people, credible people, both domestically and internationally.
"Although previous CIA reports had referred to the biowarfare trucks,
Powell's U.N. presentation put them in the spotlight.
Citing "eyewitness accounts," he called them "one of the most worrisome
things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq."
"We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on
wheels and on rails," Powell said. He showed what he called "highly
detailed and extremely accurate" diagrams of how the trucks were
configured, and warned that they could spew enough anthrax or botulinus
toxin "in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people."
But Kay, who sought to confirm Curveball's claims in Iraq after the end
of major combat, said Powell's account was "disingenuous."
Kay added: "If Powell had said to the Security Council: 'It's one
source, we never actually talked to him, and we don't know his name,' as
he's describing this, I think people would have laughed us out of
court."
Powell assured U.N. diplomats that two other Iraqi sources, who he said
were "in a position to know," had corroborated the "eyewitness account."
The CIA later said those reports arrived in December 2000 and mid-2002.
Kay said the debriefing files on the pair showed that they never had
direct contact with the biowarfare trucks. "None of them claimed to have
seen them," he said. "They said they were aware of the mobile program.
They had heard there was a mobile program."
The above quote is from here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5958.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1106-01.htm
A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.
The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
by the way, what do you suggest...? surely you would not complain without a plan or solution...
Oh yes, I agree.
My main point was a rebuttal of the statement that all intelligence agencies worldwide believed in the WMD issue, which was not true.
Thanks for the info!
They want their votes....so the more the merrier and get them voting rights ASAP.
The most widely held stance is support of the McCain/Kennedy sponsored bill that was passed in the Senate but defeated in the House as a result of conservative opposition. President Bush said yesterday that he is actually optimistic about getting more done on immigration with a Democrat-controlled House than he could with the Republican controlled House, mostly because a lot of House Republicans were/are fucking insane.
Well, that seems to be true...though I don;t hold out a lot of hope for this House either.
i can tell you a few issues i sure as hell hope died with the republicans:
stem cell research bans
gay marriage bans
creationism in classrooms
abstinence only sex ed
way to keep us safe guys!
We'll see. It only took the GOP 12 years to piss off 65% of the country, now it's our turn. If Speaker Pelosi can keep various the committee chairmen/women under her thumb(and she's definitely more than capable of doing so), we could see some progress in terms of actual governing. Minimum wage, prescription drug prices, etc. Stuff that can lead to real benefits for a large % of the American people. I just hope they don't move too far to the center. Rahm Emmanuel's name has been mentioned for Majority Whip, and I think he'd work well with Speaker Pelosi.
you hope they don't move to the center? you want them to stay, specifically nancy, far left?
wont that piss off the other half? seems going towards the middle make everyone a little bit happier
I'm not sure that a raise in the middel wage equates real benefits to a large % of the American people.
Unless the repub somehow privatize part of SS in a hurry, we will ahve all missed a great opportunity to have more of a say in our retirements. And that is a shame.
The system is broken......that's the point...the only way it isn't already 'bankrupt' is that they just keep stealing people's money that they will never see again...that's pretty fair.
I'm talking a portion...and I'm talking about an overhaul so bankrupting the current system is of no concern. It's merelty another scare tactic.
If people can invest their own money they won't be depending on SS in the future...quite simple...
Anyhow, no use arguing, the issue is dead for now.....and I am sad.