Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Democrats or Republicans its all the same game... « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

dr3z

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3812
Offline
#30 : June 30, 2008, 01:04:45 AM

Obama says he will get our troops out of Iraq ASAP. He may be lying. I don't know, but I like his lie better than McCain's truth.

That says all that needs to be said there. As far as Clinton balancing the budget and getting the economy on track. He was the president
during the internet boom of the 90's, ANY president durring that period would have seen a booming economy.
**I wrote a paper on this fact in college.

The '80s had their own economic boom as well. Reagan and the first still managed to leave a mountain of debt for the Clinton administration to clean up. The junior Bush wiped that out in his first term in office. The state of the economy now is directly related to our invasion of Iraq and the Bush family connection to the oil industry.
So your saying that the boom in China and India's economies and middle class have nothing to do with the supply and demand side of oil?
The US government, in particular the president's family are single handily setting the global price of a barrel of oil?

1sparkybuc

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7237
Offline
#31 : June 30, 2008, 06:26:35 AM

Obama says he will get our troops out of Iraq ASAP. He may be lying. I don't know, but I like his lie better than McCain's truth.

That says all that needs to be said there. As far as Clinton balancing the budget and getting the economy on track. He was the president
during the internet boom of the 90's, ANY president durring that period would have seen a booming economy.
**I wrote a paper on this fact in college.

The '80s had their own economic boom as well. Reagan and the first still managed to leave a mountain of debt for the Clinton administration to clean up. The junior Bush wiped that out in his first term in office. The state of the economy now is directly related to our invasion of Iraq and the Bush family connection to the oil industry.
So your saying that the boom in China and India's economies and middle class have nothing to do with the supply and demand side of oil?
The US government, in particular the president's family are single handily setting the global price of a barrel of oil?
Don't be ridiculous. The invasion of Iraq is a factor in the equation. It's not all of it but it had it's effect. At this point, it's very hard to differentiate between our "friends" and the terrorists. One attack is on our lives. The other is on our economy and the oil industry is making record profits while taking advantage of the situation. The oil we get from the middle east is a very small percentage of what we use, and yet what we pay is dictated by that. The Bush family made their fortune in oil. The connections are there and is another factor in a very sorry situation. Poverty levels have taken a huge jump in recent years and it will only get worse. Big oil will win. Other corporations and Americans in general will lose.

Bush has ignored educational issues during his 8 years and our industries have relocated for cheap labor and higher profits. All that's left to sell is our natural resources. Technology is moving to Asia and leaving us behind. I drive by the remnants of Bethlehem Steel every day. They produced the steel for many of our bridges and skyscrapers, not to mention railroads. They're building a slots casino and hotel there now. Oh, and a museum to the steel mill. I guess America's destiny is to be a tourist attraction for the world.

I suggest we invade Mexico. Fuel costs are half what they are here. 


dr3z

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3812
Offline
#32 : July 09, 2008, 08:32:45 PM

Remember the Dems are in control here............

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080709/ap_on_go_co/terrorist_surveillance

WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.

Opponents assailed the eavesdropping program, asserting that it imperiled citizens' rights of privacy from government intrusion. But Bush said the legislation protects those rights as well as Americans' security.

"This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they're planning," he said in a brief White House appearance after the Senate vote.

The bill is very much a political compromise, brought about by a deadline: Wiretapping orders authorized last year will begin to expire in August. Without a new bill, the government would go back to old FISA rules, requiring multiple new orders and potential delays to continue those intercepts. That is something most of Congress did not want to see happen, particularly in an election year.

The long fight on Capitol Hill centered on one main question: whether to protect from civil lawsuits any telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on American phone and computer lines without the permission or knowledge of a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. against wiretapping lawsuits.

Forty-six lawsuits now stand to be dismissed because of the new law, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. All are pending before a single U.S. District Court in California. But the fight has not ended. Civil rights groups are already preparing lawsuits challenging the bill's constitutionality, and four suits, filed against government officials, will not be dismissed.

Numerous lawmakers had spoken out strongly against the no-warrants eavesdropping on Americans, but the Senate voted its approval after rejecting amendments that would have watered down, delayed or stripped away the immunity provision.

The lawsuits center on allegations that the White House circumvented U.S. law by going around the FISA court, which was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The court is meant to approve all wiretaps placed inside the U.S. for intelligence-gathering purposes. The law has been interpreted to include international e-mail records stored on servers inside the U.S.

"This president broke the law," declared Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

The Bush administration brought the wiretapping back under the FISA court's authority only after The New York Times revealed the existence of the secret program. A handful of members of Congress knew about the program from top secret briefings. Most members are still forbidden to know the details of the classified effort, and some objected that they were being asked to grant immunity to the telecoms without first knowing what they did.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter compared the Senate vote to buying a "pig in a poke."

But Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., one of the bill's most vocal champions, said, "This is the balance we need to protect our civil liberties without handcuffing our terror-fighters."

Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote.

Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

The bill tries to address concerns about the legality of warrantless wiretapping by requiring inspectors general inside the government to conduct a yearlong investigation into the program.

Beyond immunity, the new surveillance bill also sets new rules for government eavesdropping. Some of them would tighten the reins on current government surveillance activities, but others would loosen them compared with a law passed 30 years ago.

For example, it would require the government to get FISA court approval before it eavesdrops on an American overseas. Currently, the attorney general approves that electronic surveillance on his own.

The bill also would allow the government to obtain broad, yearlong intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people, raising the prospect that communications with innocent Americans would be swept in. The court would approve how the government chooses the targets and how the intercepted American communications would be protected.

The original FISA law required the government to get wiretapping warrants for each individual targeted from inside the United States, on the rationale that most communications inside the U.S. would involve Americans whose civil liberties must be protected. But technology has changed. Purely foreign communications increasingly pass through U.S. wires and sit on American computer servers, and the law has required court orders to be obtained to access those as well.

The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law said three days.

The bill restates that the FISA law is the only means by which wiretapping for intelligence purposes can be conducted inside the United States. This is meant to prevent a repeat of warrantless wiretapping by future administrations.

The ACLU, which is party to some of the lawsuits that will now be dismissed, said the bill was "a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy."


dr3z

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3812
Offline
#33 : July 27, 2008, 08:34:51 PM

What did I tell ya, its all the same game.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080727/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_interview_dc

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Presidential candidate Barack Obama said President George W. Bush's decision to send a senior diplomat to nuclear talks with Iran was a substantive move and should be taken seriously by Tehran.

Obama, a Democrat, has been highly critical in the past of Bush's policies toward Iran and has promised that if elected he would pursue a policy of greater engagement aimed at persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program.

But in a rare signal of solidarity with the current Republican administration, Obama told a news conference in Paris on Friday that Iran should not wait for the next U.S. president to try to reach a deal over its nuclear program.

He also praised Bush's decision to send senior U.S. diplomat William Burns to talks in Geneva with Iranian officials.

"Bill Burns is a very serious guy. And the Iranians should take that gesture seriously," Obama told Reuters in an interview on Saturday as he flew back from a weeklong tour abroad.

Obama, who is running against Republican John McCain in the November election, is seeking to burnish his foreign policy credentials. He traveled to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and Britain.

Iran was a key topic in many of the meetings he had with leaders of those countries.

Iran has refused demands to freeze sensitive atomic work the West fears is aimed at making bombs. Tehran says the nuclear program is aimed at the peaceful purposes of generating electricity.

Envoys from the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain -- the so-called sextet of world powers -- attended the Geneva meeting.

"I want the Bush administration to be successful in working with the Europeans to get Iran to stand down on its nuclear weapons program," Obama said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted on Iranian state television saying his country has more than 5,000 active centrifuges for enriching uranium, suggesting a rapid expansion of nuclear work.

IMPRESSIONS OF MALIKI, KARZAI

Also in the Reuters interview, Obama talked of his impressions of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, both of whom he met during the trip.

"I think Maliki has made some tough choices, particularly going into Basra and Sadr City to disperse the Shia militias. I'm glad to see that he is eager to take more responsibility for his country's own security," Obama said.

"I think he recognizes that the Iraqi government both has to become more efficient and more inclusive. Whether he understands the degree to which that has to happen ... I can't tell," he added.

The Democratic candidate said Karzai is "very smart and charming" and has a vision for Afghanistan's future. But he said he needed to move to rid his government of corruption and combat the narcotics trade.

"I told President Karzai that I thought that he needs to really focus on issues of corruption and counternarcotics and to counter the narcotics trade much more aggressively than has been done so far," he said.

Obama has called for a renewed focus on Afghanistan, including the addition of two U.S. brigades and has called on European countries to do more to help stabilize the increasingly violent country.


samsdad

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3177
Offline
#34 : July 27, 2008, 09:17:37 PM

sigh.
Is this the most polarizing election cycle of all time?
Seriously...Im 32 and I never remember it this bad.

one small point dr3z....obama first proposed talking to Iran about their issues quite awhile ago. Bush came around to it later.

I do believe he was widely criticized for it at the time....now Bush does it and "they are all the same"....sounds like Bush heard a good idea....like you know talking before going to war


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28680
Offline
#35 : July 27, 2008, 09:41:17 PM

Doc is 100% right. All the same, in the end.

Although I'm not sure if this falls under that...

Obama Considers GOP Running Mate
By Amie Parnes and Ben Smith

(July 25) - Barack Obama's vice presidential search team has floated the name of a member of President Bush's first-term Cabinet, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, as Obama's running mate.

The search committee, now led by Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, raised Veneman's name — among others — in discussions with members of Congress, two Democrats familiar with the conversations said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12059.html


dr3z

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3812
Offline
#36 : July 27, 2008, 09:43:22 PM

sigh.
Is this the most polarizing election cycle of all time?
Seriously...Im 32 and I never remember it this bad.

one small point dr3z....obama first proposed talking to Iran about their issues quite awhile ago. Bush came around to it later.

I do believe he was widely criticized for it at the time....now Bush does it and "they are all the same"....sounds like Bush heard a good idea....like you know talking before going to war

Exactly, and now Obama is talking hard talk. Its like a total role reversal for both. What the hell is going on!!
Its all the same game. Obama is honestly not experianced enough to run the show alone. He's going to be pulled left and right
by his "advisors". Same as bush but differently. He's going to go in all about change and get a quick realization that
its the same old washington. People voting based on change are in for a ride.
I wish I can keep this post cause 4 years from now. When I ask whats changed lets see if someone can answer.

samsdad

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3177
Offline
#37 : July 28, 2008, 12:24:42 AM

i agree to a point. The problem is...mccain is the same as bush....at least with Obama we have a shot at someone new


Dash Riprock

****
Starter

Posts : 629
Offline
#38 : July 28, 2008, 07:18:30 AM

Obama says he will get our troops out of Iraq ASAP. He may be lying. I don't know, but I like his lie better than McCain's truth.

That says all that needs to be said there. As far as Clinton balancing the budget and getting the economy on track. He was the president
during the internet boom of the 90's, ANY president durring that period would have seen a booming economy.
**I wrote a paper on this fact in college.

The '80s had their own economic boom as well. Reagan and the first still managed to leave a mountain of debt for the Clinton administration to clean up. The junior Bush wiped that out in his first term in office. The state of the economy now is directly related to our invasion of Iraq and the Bush family connection to the oil industry.

That was a Republican House and Senate that made him balance the budget and reform welfare.

dr3z

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3812
Offline
#39 : July 28, 2008, 04:12:49 PM

i agree to a point. The problem is...mccain is the same as bush....at least with Obama we have a shot at someone new

Lets just say that Obama wins offce, Iran proves to be after nuclear weapons and intel reports that they are very very close.
Will Obama take out the factories? Will he condemn Israel if the do it? If Iran retaliates towards isreal. Will Obama defend?
Will he send us into another war? Knowing that he was elected to get us out of one.
Those are the kinds of things im voting on.......

Ironphist

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2385
Offline
#40 : July 28, 2008, 04:24:47 PM

if he condemns israel and/or doesn't defend israel - he would lose a big money making block for the Democratic Party - i don't see that happening.  he would become a big money contributors lapdog (just like any other politician).

see, this is my main objection to the obama campaign of being different, not subserviant to the establishment of Washington - it's all great soundbite material, but at the end of the day - he's just a typical, expedient politician, heck - maybe even a pretty corrupt one.

here's what i want - a guy that will say "i'm going to take the next 4 years and steal blindly with all my access to power and inside info - but in the meantime, i'll lower your taxes, go after the insurance companies, try and make America business/job friendly - and you guys can judge whether or not i held up my end of the deal come the next election"...  i mean, just be honest about it.

why do people spend millions for a $400K a year job?  its gotta have pretty good perks...
Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Democrats or Republicans its all the same game... « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools