The Democrats are effectively DOA.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mail5398

Senior member
Jul 9, 2001
400
0
0
I think what people seem to not understand is if 95 % percent of the people on the coasts hate bush and only 45% in the middle hate him. The republicans can still and will win. There is no way in heck a democrat will win in my state in the next election.

I take these national poll numbers and get a good chuckle. We live in a republic not a democracy.

 

sumyungai

Senior member
Dec 28, 2005
344
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
The Medicare prescription drug program is estimated to cost $1.2 Trillion:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6937855/

As for Kerry and tax cuts:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/20/news/economy/election_bigmo/
Kerry wants to roll back tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 per year. But he wants to keep the higher child tax credit, the lower marriage penalty and the new 10 percent tax bracket for lower-income families. He also calls for new tax credits for health care and college tuition.

Ok, you got me there buddy. Republicans are never good with domestic issues and Democrats are never good with foreign affairs. I wish we could have the best of both worlds, unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. For now, I believe we need someone who is strong in foreign affairs due to the threat of terrorism.
 

Pyrokinetic

Senior member
Dec 4, 2005
296
0
0
FYI to conjur: the media is so diversified now that claiming that Dems don't get enough 'air time' is a load of crap. You could give them all the air time in the world and put America to sleep. Their problem is not air time, it is ideas that are realistic and credible.

As for the Kerry healthcare plan, view it like a skeptic: I will not believe in any "projected cost" hocus pocus until I see the implemented final bill. Tossing out numbers does nothing to increase credibility in my view. Numbers can be manipulated to say whatever you want, especially "projected" ones.

Why the heck did the Dems nominate Kerry anyway? They have an entire roster of Dem governors with good executive track records and they pull some silver-spoon cheeseball from the Senate? What gives? Cynical as I am, I am a potential voter (independent) that can be persuaded by the right candidate.

Bush and Kerry: two ultra rich elites who have no clue to the identity of the average Joe.
 

m316foley

Senior member
Nov 19, 2001
247
0
0
Originally posted by: Pyrokinetic
FYI to conjur: the media is so diversified now that claiming that Dems don't get enough 'air time' is a load of crap. You could give them all the air time in the world and put America to sleep. Their problem is not air time, it is ideas that are realistic and credible.

As for the Kerry healthcare plan, view it like a skeptic: I will not believe in any "projected cost" hocus pocus until I see the implemented final bill. Tossing out numbers does nothing to increase credibility in my view. Numbers can be manipulated to say whatever you want, especially "projected" ones.

Why the heck did the Dems nominate Kerry anyway? They have an entire roster of Dem governors with good executive track records and they pull some silver-spoon cheeseball from the Senate? What gives? Cynical as I am, I am a potential voter (independent) that can be persuaded by the right candidate.

Bush and Kerry: two ultra rich elites who have no clue to the identity of the average Joe.

Oh yeah, name one channel that has any type of liberal bias (besides maybe the daily show). You won't find it. Now name a channel that has bias towards the right. I could name a few to say the least.

Kerry can at least to relate to some wartime. Whether people want to call him a hero or not/say what he did during that time, it doesn't matter. Bush on the other hand... well, we can't really say the same for him.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai

France have their own agendas and interests in Iraq. Didn't Iraq owe France money? Wasn't there an oil for food bribe scandal? Didn't France sell airplane parts and other weapons to Iraq? We needed a president who would look out for our own interest first rather than appease other beaurucrats' interests. Whether you support Bush all boils down to one's view of the source of terrorism. If one view the source of terrorism as an idealogy of hate, Islam, then one would support Bush and his decisions in invading Iraq. If one's view of terrorism as a result from American interference in the middle east, then one would think Bush is UNINTELLIGENT. It all depends on one's peronsal observations. :)

You aren't really trying to imply that we didn't have our own agenda in Iraq, are you? We trained and entrenched Saddam into the power role that he had. WE were heavily involved in the OFF scandal. WE were dealing under the table with Iraq. If you are seriously under the belief that France was in bed with Iraq and we weren't part of the orgy, you are delusional.

Here are some snippets from previous news stories for you:

Companies dealing with Iraq:

Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.

During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.

Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

Oil For Food Scandal:

US companies and individuals received from Saddam Hussein government vouchers, which let them buy Iraqi crude under the UN oil-for-food program.

The report said US companies Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil, as well as three US individuals, including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., were together allotted 111 million barrels of oil, according to the Times.

Spokesmen for the companies and for Wyatt said the transactions were legal, but confirmed they had received subpoenas from a federal grand jury that is investigating the transactions, the report said.

U.S. Selling Iraq (Saddam) Arms:

On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that pathogenic (meaning disease producing), toxigenic (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. [11]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program. See another list here, and another here.

843 companies has been listed as being involved in the arming of Iraq. [12] Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and materials to Baghdad [13].

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that made the report, said, "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs." He added, "the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," including West Nile virus, according to Riegle's investigators [14] [15].
 

sumyungai

Senior member
Dec 28, 2005
344
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sumyungai

France have their own agendas and interests in Iraq. Didn't Iraq owe France money? Wasn't there an oil for food bribe scandal? Didn't France sell airplane parts and other weapons to Iraq? We needed a president who would look out for our own interest first rather than appease other beaurucrats' interests. Whether you support Bush all boils down to one's view of the source of terrorism. If one view the source of terrorism as an idealogy of hate, Islam, then one would support Bush and his decisions in invading Iraq. If one's view of terrorism as a result from American interference in the middle east, then one would think Bush is UNINTELLIGENT. It all depends on one's peronsal observations. :)

You aren't really trying to imply that we didn't have our own agenda in Iraq, are you? We trained and entrenched Saddam into the power role that he had. WE were heavily involved in the OFF scandal. WE were dealing under the table with Iraq. If you are seriously under the belief that France was in bed with Iraq and we weren't part of the orgy, you are delusional.

Here are some snippets from previous news stories for you:

Companies dealing with Iraq:

Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.

During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.

Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

Do you actually believe the president invaded a country, put troops in harms way, put his presidency at stake just so that Haliburton could make some money? If thats the case, the one who's delusional is you. What if we gave these contracts in Iraq to say, Russia. Wouldn't some here say we invaded Iraq because we're in bed with Russia? But fact of the matter is, would you rather have a foreign country making some money here or our country?
Oil For Food Scandal:

US companies and individuals received from Saddam Hussein government vouchers, which let them buy Iraqi crude under the UN oil-for-food program.

The report said US companies Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil, as well as three US individuals, including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., were together allotted 111 million barrels of oil, according to the Times.

Spokesmen for the companies and for Wyatt said the transactions were legal, but confirmed they had received subpoenas from a federal grand jury that is investigating the transactions, the report said.

Yes, the Times are known for their unbias-ness. ;)

U.S. Selling Iraq (Saddam) Arms:

On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that pathogenic (meaning disease producing), toxigenic (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. [11]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program. See another list here, and another here.

843 companies has been listed as being involved in the arming of Iraq. [12] Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and materials to Baghdad [13].

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that made the report, said, "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs." He added, "the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," including West Nile virus, according to Riegle's investigators [14] [15].
What relevance do our dealings or interests with Iraq in 1994 or 1980 or 500 B.C., has anything to do with 2003? If we were currently profitting in Iraq under Saddam, then what reasons did we have to invade? Oh yeah, Haliburton. ;)
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: conjur
The Medicare prescription drug program is estimated to cost $1.2 Trillion:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6937855/

As for Kerry and tax cuts:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/20/news/economy/election_bigmo/
Kerry wants to roll back tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 per year. But he wants to keep the higher child tax credit, the lower marriage penalty and the new 10 percent tax bracket for lower-income families. He also calls for new tax credits for health care and college tuition.
Ok, you got me there buddy. Republicans are never good with domestic issues and Democrats are never good with foreign affairs. I wish we could have the best of both worlds, unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. For now, I believe we need someone who is strong in foreign affairs due to the threat of terrorism.
That's gotta be the sanest thing you've said yet up here! :beer:
 

marvdmartian

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2002
5,444
27
91
Originally posted by: techs
Just because Slate says so you believe it?
The Democrats will wipe the floor with the Republicans in November.
And the policies and plans that were in effect before the Bushies stole power will be re-enacted.
Deficits will turn to surpluses.
And we will get out of the quagmire in Iraq.

Wow.........do you believe in the Easter Bunny too?? :roll:
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Pyrokinetic
FYI to conjur: the media is so diversified now that claiming that Dems don't get enough 'air time' is a load of crap. You could give them all the air time in the world and put America to sleep. Their problem is not air time, it is ideas that are realistic and credible.
If It's Sunday, It's Conservative: An analysis of the Sunday talk show guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997 - 2005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

And when one considers the most frequent Democratic Senator guests are Biden (per that report) and Lieberman (from my own observations), then the left is hardly represented as they are both DLC-dandies.

As for the Kerry healthcare plan, view it like a skeptic: I will not believe in any "projected cost" hocus pocus until I see the implemented final bill. Tossing out numbers does nothing to increase credibility in my view. Numbers can be manipulated to say whatever you want, especially "projected" ones.
Agreed. But, independent analysis of his plan was bearing out his claims.

Why the heck did the Dems nominate Kerry anyway? They have an entire roster of Dem governors with good executive track records and they pull some silver-spoon cheeseball from the Senate? What gives? Cynical as I am, I am a potential voter (independent) that can be persuaded by the right candidate.
The distortion of Dean's scream really hurt him and Gen. Clark got too late of a start. The dilution of the primaries by others w/o a prayer in hell was also detrimental. The problem with the Democratic party is the split between the DNC and the DLC.

Bush and Kerry: two ultra rich elites who have no clue to the identity of the average Joe.
True. And if John Edwards didn't seem like such a used-car salesman, he might have stood a better chance.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sumyungai

France have their own agendas and interests in Iraq. Didn't Iraq owe France money? Wasn't there an oil for food bribe scandal? Didn't France sell airplane parts and other weapons to Iraq? We needed a president who would look out for our own interest first rather than appease other beaurucrats' interests. Whether you support Bush all boils down to one's view of the source of terrorism. If one view the source of terrorism as an idealogy of hate, Islam, then one would support Bush and his decisions in invading Iraq. If one's view of terrorism as a result from American interference in the middle east, then one would think Bush is UNINTELLIGENT. It all depends on one's peronsal observations. :)

You aren't really trying to imply that we didn't have our own agenda in Iraq, are you? We trained and entrenched Saddam into the power role that he had. WE were heavily involved in the OFF scandal. WE were dealing under the table with Iraq. If you are seriously under the belief that France was in bed with Iraq and we weren't part of the orgy, you are delusional.

Here are some snippets from previous news stories for you:

Companies dealing with Iraq:

Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.

During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.

Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

Do you actually believe the president invaded a country, put troops in harms way, put his presidency at stake just so that Haliburton could make some money? If thats the case, the one who's delusional is you. What if we gave these contracts in Iraq to say, Russia. Wouldn't some here say we invaded Iraq because we're in bed with Russia? But fact of the matter is, would you rather have a foreign country making some money here or our country?
Oil For Food Scandal:

US companies and individuals received from Saddam Hussein government vouchers, which let them buy Iraqi crude under the UN oil-for-food program.

The report said US companies Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil, as well as three US individuals, including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., were together allotted 111 million barrels of oil, according to the Times.

Spokesmen for the companies and for Wyatt said the transactions were legal, but confirmed they had received subpoenas from a federal grand jury that is investigating the transactions, the report said.

Yes, the Times are known for their unbias-ness. ;)

U.S. Selling Iraq (Saddam) Arms:

On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that pathogenic (meaning disease producing), toxigenic (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. [11]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program. See another list here, and another here.

843 companies has been listed as being involved in the arming of Iraq. [12] Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and materials to Baghdad [13].

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that made the report, said, "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs." He added, "the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," including West Nile virus, according to Riegle's investigators [14] [15].

What relevance do our dealings or interests with Iraq in 1994 or 1980 or 500 B.C., has anything to do with 2003? If we were currently profitting in Iraq under Saddam, then what reasons did we have to invade? Oh yeah, Haliburton. ;)

Do you always try to dismiss facts like this?

First off, Haliburton was dealing with Iraq in 2001 AND while Cheney was it's CEO. I would think that you would consider that relevant considering that one of the main people pushing the war was that same CEO that was taking their money two years prior. That same company got the "vast majority" of the rebuilding contracts and is STILL paying the big Dick himself residuals. Secondly, the Oil for Food scandal (which you so eagerly pinned on France) had US involvement also. But you ignore that because it blows your right-wing rheotoric/talking points out of the water about how France is "in bed with Iraq" while we are the ones getting the "reach around". Thirdly, how can you say that the US putting Saddam in power has nothing to do with Saddam being in power?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Let's see how well the M$M picks up on this:

Senate Dems to pursue new strategy on abortion
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040506/news2.html
...?The issue of abortion is very different from the issue of prevention, access to birth control and access to comprehensive sex education,? said Anna Greenberg, a pollster for Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner, which works for the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America. ?I think that Senator Reid?s prevention-first agenda is not just smart in policy terms but smart in political terms because there is overwhelming support in the public for access to birth control and comprehensive sex education. People want women to be able to prevent unwanted pregnancies.?....
 

sumyungai

Senior member
Dec 28, 2005
344
0
0
To 'RightIsWrong', the question still stands, would you rather give these contracts to a foreign country instead? What outcries do you think we would hear if we did so?

Ok, let's say the Times is right in that Exxon and other US oil companies were making money in the oil for food scandal. Wouldn't invading Iraq taking away all the profitting our oil companies had under Saddam?

Again, what relevance of us helping Saddam stay in power 10, 20, or a million years ago has anything to do him being a threat against us in 2003? Even if we helped him stay in power on December 31, 2002 and the next day he says, "I want to bomb the US." Does that mean we can't invade him because we helped him the day before?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
To 'RightIsWrong', the question still stands, would you rather give these contracts to a foreign country instead? What outcries do you think we would hear if we did so?

Ok, let's say the Times is right in that Exxon and other US oil companies were making money in the oil for food scandal. Wouldn't invading Iraq taking away all the profitting our oil companies had under Saddam?

Again, what relevance of us helping Saddam stay in power 10, 20, or a million years ago has anything to do him being a threat against us in 2003? Even if we helped him stay in power on December 31, 2002 and the next day he says, "I want to bomb the US." Does that mean we can't invade him because we helped him the day before?

I never claimed that the rebuilding should be done by a foreign company. I merely made the connection that US companies had business dealings with the Saddam-led government. You tried to pull the right-wing bull about France being tied to them economically without mention of major US companies being twisted in also. Essentially, a lie of omission. Also, had we done things the right way and been able to bring in other countries to assist with the overthrowing of Saddam, there wouldn't be anywhere near the strawman argument about how the public would have reacted. Unless you are talking about those that listen to right wing pundents misleading them on the topic.

As for you point at invading Iraq taking away the US oil companies' profits.....completely off the mark. It increases them by allowing them to deal with Iraqi companies out in the open instead of through subsidiaries on a smaller scale.

Once again, you are trying to argue that us putting Saddam in his position isn't relative to him holding that position which is astoundingly dumb. I know that you have also parroted the talking points over and over, but could you please bring forth any evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US up to and including the day that we invaded? I don't think that I am willing to take the word of Bush administration officials anymore so you will have to provide a little more evidence than soundbites from the administration that have been effectively debunked/proven to be wrong already.
 

sumyungai

Senior member
Dec 28, 2005
344
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sumyungai
To 'RightIsWrong', the question still stands, would you rather give these contracts to a foreign country instead? What outcries do you think we would hear if we did so?

Ok, let's say the Times is right in that Exxon and other US oil companies were making money in the oil for food scandal. Wouldn't invading Iraq taking away all the profitting our oil companies had under Saddam?

Again, what relevance of us helping Saddam stay in power 10, 20, or a million years ago has anything to do him being a threat against us in 2003? Even if we helped him stay in power on December 31, 2002 and the next day he says, "I want to bomb the US." Does that mean we can't invade him because we helped him the day before?

I never claimed that the rebuilding should be done by a foreign company. I merely made the connection that US companies had business dealings with the Saddam-led government. You tried to pull the right-wing bull about France being tied to them economically without mention of major US companies being twisted in also. Essentially, a lie of omission. Also, had we done things the right way and been able to bring in other countries to assist with the overthrowing of Saddam, there wouldn't be anywhere near the strawman argument about how the public would have reacted. Unless you are talking about those that listen to right wing pundents misleading them on the topic.

As for you point at invading Iraq taking away the US oil companies' profits.....completely off the mark. It increases them by allowing them to deal with Iraqi companies out in the open instead of through subsidiaries on a smaller scale.

Once again, you are trying to argue that us putting Saddam in his position isn't relative to him holding that position which is astoundingly dumb. I know that you have also parroted the talking points over and over, but could you please bring forth any evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US up to and including the day that we invaded? I don't think that I am willing to take the word of Bush administration officials anymore so you will have to provide a little more evidence than soundbites from the administration that have been effectively debunked/proven to be wrong already.

Let's do a little role playing, maybe it'll be easier to understand that way. Lets say you are the president of France for argument sake. And you have business dealings with Iraq and you are making a lot of money under Saddam's ruling. Then I jump in and say, "hey, your buddy Saddam is threatning me. What do you say me and you go over there and invade him?" You would have take money out of your pocket and pay your troops to remove someone who you are making money from. Would you do that? Now you understand why our coalition is so small. Why would other countries spend money on something that they don't see as their problem or even taking away their money maker?

Aren't you the one who said the Exxon and other US oil companies profitting in the Oil for Food Scandal? But thats besides the point since they don't call the shots on whether we invade a country or not.

I'm a little confused by your argument here. You believe we kept him in power in the past. I agree with you here. We see him as a threat years later. We removed him. What is your argument? We kept him in power in the past, therefore, we can't remove him?
 

Pyrokinetic

Senior member
Dec 4, 2005
296
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Let's see how well the M$M picks up on this:

Senate Dems to pursue new strategy on abortion
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040506/news2.html
...?The issue of abortion is very different from the issue of prevention, access to birth control and access to comprehensive sex education,? said Anna Greenberg, a pollster for Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner, which works for the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America. ?I think that Senator Reid?s prevention-first agenda is not just smart in policy terms but smart in political terms because there is overwhelming support in the public for access to birth control and comprehensive sex education. People want women to be able to prevent unwanted pregnancies.?....

Wow. Typical Reid. How best to blend into the wallpaper? Prevention is great as long as it is used, but what then? Conservative support of pregnant unwed mothers ends at birth and not to many are willing to actually practice adoption. When will they understand the difference between outlawing abortion (suppression of behavior) and abortion clinics going bust from lack of business (true elimination of behavior -- choice is preserved).
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
No, they're not. There are several Dems and potential candidates with good ideas but they aren't given a second of air time.

I have to agree with Conjur on this one...

I don't blame the press so much as the entrenched and almost impossible to get rid of....incumbent Old Democrats". If they would give up on trying to embarass the Republicans (who apparently don't embarass at all), they might get something of their own done to show the public. As it stands they (Democrats) are the party of "Against", and aren't actually FOR anything other than being against Bush.

The Republicans have lost any momentum that they ever had and the Democrats STILL got nothing to show us. That's sadder than sad for everyone.

A third party could never find a better time to find some cajones and get something done...and soon.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sumyungai
To 'RightIsWrong', the question still stands, would you rather give these contracts to a foreign country instead? What outcries do you think we would hear if we did so?

Ok, let's say the Times is right in that Exxon and other US oil companies were making money in the oil for food scandal. Wouldn't invading Iraq taking away all the profitting our oil companies had under Saddam?

Again, what relevance of us helping Saddam stay in power 10, 20, or a million years ago has anything to do him being a threat against us in 2003? Even if we helped him stay in power on December 31, 2002 and the next day he says, "I want to bomb the US." Does that mean we can't invade him because we helped him the day before?

I never claimed that the rebuilding should be done by a foreign company. I merely made the connection that US companies had business dealings with the Saddam-led government. You tried to pull the right-wing bull about France being tied to them economically without mention of major US companies being twisted in also. Essentially, a lie of omission. Also, had we done things the right way and been able to bring in other countries to assist with the overthrowing of Saddam, there wouldn't be anywhere near the strawman argument about how the public would have reacted. Unless you are talking about those that listen to right wing pundents misleading them on the topic.

As for you point at invading Iraq taking away the US oil companies' profits.....completely off the mark. It increases them by allowing them to deal with Iraqi companies out in the open instead of through subsidiaries on a smaller scale.

Once again, you are trying to argue that us putting Saddam in his position isn't relative to him holding that position which is astoundingly dumb. I know that you have also parroted the talking points over and over, but could you please bring forth any evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US up to and including the day that we invaded? I don't think that I am willing to take the word of Bush administration officials anymore so you will have to provide a little more evidence than soundbites from the administration that have been effectively debunked/proven to be wrong already.

Let's do a little role playing, maybe it'll be easier to understand that way. Lets say you are the president of France for argument sake. And you have business dealings with Iraq and you are making a lot of money under Saddam's ruling. Then I jump in and say, "hey, your buddy Saddam is threatning me. What do you say me and you go over there and invade him?" You would have take money out of your pocket and pay your troops to remove someone who you are making money from. Would you do that? Now you understand why our coalition is so small. Why would other countries spend money on something that they don't see as their problem or even taking away their money maker?

Aren't you the one who said the Exxon and other US oil companies profitting in the Oil for Food Scandal? But thats besides the point since they don't call the shots on whether we invade a country or not.

I'm a little confused by your argument here. You believe we kept him in power in the past. I agree with you here. We see him as a threat years later. We removed him. What is your argument? We kept him in power in the past, therefore, we can't remove him?

Let's continue with your role-play scenario. I am the president of France. You come to me saying that my business partner is threatening you. I ASK YOU TO SHOW ME PROOF. You can only come up with circumstancial evidence and hearsey from someone that has a "horse in the race" if we go to war. I tell you to get back to me with something a little more concrete. Say you actually DO come back with a stronger case. I now listen to you and then decide that you are right. I then procure a percentage of the rebuilding cash-ola before committing my people to fight your war. See, now you understand why our coalition was so small. There wasn't any concrete proof. The "evidence" was provided by people that directly benefitted from Saddam being gone (Chalabi) and countries were being essentially blackmailed/bribed over the rebuilding contracts.

As for "my argument", I am saying that there was never any proof that he "threatened" us and he was in complete compliance with the UN as far as letting inspectors into Iraq and allowing the access to just about everywhere they wanted/needed to go. There was no reason for an invasion in the first place. Bush did this purely for personal idiological reasons. Not for any made up threat to our national security as sold to us by this administration.
 

sumyungai

Senior member
Dec 28, 2005
344
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sumyungai
To 'RightIsWrong', the question still stands, would you rather give these contracts to a foreign country instead? What outcries do you think we would hear if we did so?

Ok, let's say the Times is right in that Exxon and other US oil companies were making money in the oil for food scandal. Wouldn't invading Iraq taking away all the profitting our oil companies had under Saddam?

Again, what relevance of us helping Saddam stay in power 10, 20, or a million years ago has anything to do him being a threat against us in 2003? Even if we helped him stay in power on December 31, 2002 and the next day he says, "I want to bomb the US." Does that mean we can't invade him because we helped him the day before?

I never claimed that the rebuilding should be done by a foreign company. I merely made the connection that US companies had business dealings with the Saddam-led government. You tried to pull the right-wing bull about France being tied to them economically without mention of major US companies being twisted in also. Essentially, a lie of omission. Also, had we done things the right way and been able to bring in other countries to assist with the overthrowing of Saddam, there wouldn't be anywhere near the strawman argument about how the public would have reacted. Unless you are talking about those that listen to right wing pundents misleading them on the topic.

As for you point at invading Iraq taking away the US oil companies' profits.....completely off the mark. It increases them by allowing them to deal with Iraqi companies out in the open instead of through subsidiaries on a smaller scale.

Once again, you are trying to argue that us putting Saddam in his position isn't relative to him holding that position which is astoundingly dumb. I know that you have also parroted the talking points over and over, but could you please bring forth any evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US up to and including the day that we invaded? I don't think that I am willing to take the word of Bush administration officials anymore so you will have to provide a little more evidence than soundbites from the administration that have been effectively debunked/proven to be wrong already.

Let's do a little role playing, maybe it'll be easier to understand that way. Lets say you are the president of France for argument sake. And you have business dealings with Iraq and you are making a lot of money under Saddam's ruling. Then I jump in and say, "hey, your buddy Saddam is threatning me. What do you say me and you go over there and invade him?" You would have take money out of your pocket and pay your troops to remove someone who you are making money from. Would you do that? Now you understand why our coalition is so small. Why would other countries spend money on something that they don't see as their problem or even taking away their money maker?

Aren't you the one who said the Exxon and other US oil companies profitting in the Oil for Food Scandal? But thats besides the point since they don't call the shots on whether we invade a country or not.

I'm a little confused by your argument here. You believe we kept him in power in the past. I agree with you here. We see him as a threat years later. We removed him. What is your argument? We kept him in power in the past, therefore, we can't remove him?

Let's continue with your role-play scenario. I am the president of France. You come to me saying that my business partner is threatening you. I ASK YOU TO SHOW ME PROOF. You can only come up with circumstancial evidence and hearsey from someone that has a "horse in the race" if we go to war. I tell you to get back to me with something a little more concrete. Say you actually DO come back with a stronger case. I now listen to you and then decide that you are right. I then procure a percentage of the rebuilding cash-ola before committing my people to fight your war. See, now you understand why our coalition was so small. There wasn't any concrete proof. The "evidence" was provided by people that directly benefitted from Saddam being gone (Chalabi) and countries were being essentially blackmailed/bribed over the rebuilding contracts.

As for "my argument", I am saying that there was never any proof that he "threatened" us and he was in complete compliance with the UN as far as letting inspectors into Iraq and allowing the access to just about everywhere they wanted/needed to go. There was no reason for an invasion in the first place. Bush did this purely for personal idiological reasons. Not for any made up threat to our national security as sold to us by this administration.

Your role playing would only work in a perfect world where politicians aren't out for number one. You ever heard of the UN? Full of corrupted politicians who's vote is easily bought with the right about of money. What makes you think the president of France is so benevolent, or the president of any other country for that matter? The only exception to this is Great Britain where they will always be by our side for better or worse and vice versa. Other than that, other countries will only stick their noses into our business to help only if their is something in it for them. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much proof you could show France and other countries like them, it won't make a shred of difference.

Your argument is very confusing to follow. At first, you blame us for helping him in the past and says that has something to do with how we should deal with him in the present. And that I was DUMB for not understanding that. Now your argument doesn't mention that past (helping Saddam stay in power) at all. Now who is dumb? Perhaps debating with you is a lost cause since by your login name alone tells me you are far too political to debate something rationally. Even more so with your blatantly false statement that Saddam completely cooporated with UN weapons inspectors.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Pyrokinetic
FYI to conjur: the media is so diversified now that claiming that Dems don't get enough 'air time' is a load of crap. You could give them all the air time in the world and put America to sleep. Their problem is not air time, it is ideas that are realistic and credible.

As for the Kerry healthcare plan, view it like a skeptic: I will not believe in any "projected cost" hocus pocus until I see the implemented final bill. Tossing out numbers does nothing to increase credibility in my view. Numbers can be manipulated to say whatever you want, especially "projected" ones.

Why the heck did the Dems nominate Kerry anyway? They have an entire roster of Dem governors with good executive track records and they pull some silver-spoon cheeseball from the Senate? What gives? Cynical as I am, I am a potential voter (independent) that can be persuaded by the right candidate.

Bush and Kerry: two ultra rich elites who have no clue to the identity of the average Joe.

You answered your own question. No way will you get even close to nomination if the estabishment does'nt favor what you'll do for them once you get there. You won't get money to run which excludes you from even being heard by 99% of electorate. The front money it critical!!! You won't get written up in thier magazines or profiled on thier television stations unless it's to call you a loon (e.g. ross perot, Pat B, and Dean scream over -dubbed and played ad nausum). The country doesn't have two major parties, it has just one: the money and war party who are part of an "access" process that provides corporations a chance to shape the details of legislation and even when and where to go to war. Legions of lobbiests stationed across the street from the capital can testify to the former and private groups with heavy coporate infiltration who advise the government where to attack like the defense policy board & AEI are examples of the later.

I doubt you'll ever see a populist/outsider presidency like Ronald Regan or Jimmy Carter and many before them ever again. All will have heavy links to North Eastern establishment. Clinton Sold out America every change he got and had 3 wars one totally unconstitutional when senate voted to deny sending troops to Serbia he did it anyway. Bush Continues that tradition. Kerry would have too. Mrs. Clinton will too shes already screming for invasion of Iran.

So Yeah you are correct. Democrats are dead but so are Republicans!
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Bullsh!t. I stand for honesty and integrity in government, not starting unnecessary wars, fair tax laws not favoring just the very wealthy, lowering the deficit and developing alternative energy sources to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil, to name a few things. I own a lot of extremely valuable real estate and have plenty of money and don't support "altruism". Nice try though.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sumyungai
To 'RightIsWrong', the question still stands, would you rather give these contracts to a foreign country instead? What outcries do you think we would hear if we did so?

Ok, let's say the Times is right in that Exxon and other US oil companies were making money in the oil for food scandal. Wouldn't invading Iraq taking away all the profitting our oil companies had under Saddam?

Again, what relevance of us helping Saddam stay in power 10, 20, or a million years ago has anything to do him being a threat against us in 2003? Even if we helped him stay in power on December 31, 2002 and the next day he says, "I want to bomb the US." Does that mean we can't invade him because we helped him the day before?

I never claimed that the rebuilding should be done by a foreign company. I merely made the connection that US companies had business dealings with the Saddam-led government. You tried to pull the right-wing bull about France being tied to them economically without mention of major US companies being twisted in also. Essentially, a lie of omission. Also, had we done things the right way and been able to bring in other countries to assist with the overthrowing of Saddam, there wouldn't be anywhere near the strawman argument about how the public would have reacted. Unless you are talking about those that listen to right wing pundents misleading them on the topic.

As for you point at invading Iraq taking away the US oil companies' profits.....completely off the mark. It increases them by allowing them to deal with Iraqi companies out in the open instead of through subsidiaries on a smaller scale.

Once again, you are trying to argue that us putting Saddam in his position isn't relative to him holding that position which is astoundingly dumb. I know that you have also parroted the talking points over and over, but could you please bring forth any evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US up to and including the day that we invaded? I don't think that I am willing to take the word of Bush administration officials anymore so you will have to provide a little more evidence than soundbites from the administration that have been effectively debunked/proven to be wrong already.

Let's do a little role playing, maybe it'll be easier to understand that way. Lets say you are the president of France for argument sake. And you have business dealings with Iraq and you are making a lot of money under Saddam's ruling. Then I jump in and say, "hey, your buddy Saddam is threatning me. What do you say me and you go over there and invade him?" You would have take money out of your pocket and pay your troops to remove someone who you are making money from. Would you do that? Now you understand why our coalition is so small. Why would other countries spend money on something that they don't see as their problem or even taking away their money maker?

Aren't you the one who said the Exxon and other US oil companies profitting in the Oil for Food Scandal? But thats besides the point since they don't call the shots on whether we invade a country or not.

I'm a little confused by your argument here. You believe we kept him in power in the past. I agree with you here. We see him as a threat years later. We removed him. What is your argument? We kept him in power in the past, therefore, we can't remove him?

Let's continue with your role-play scenario. I am the president of France. You come to me saying that my business partner is threatening you. I ASK YOU TO SHOW ME PROOF. You can only come up with circumstancial evidence and hearsey from someone that has a "horse in the race" if we go to war. I tell you to get back to me with something a little more concrete. Say you actually DO come back with a stronger case. I now listen to you and then decide that you are right. I then procure a percentage of the rebuilding cash-ola before committing my people to fight your war. See, now you understand why our coalition was so small. There wasn't any concrete proof. The "evidence" was provided by people that directly benefitted from Saddam being gone (Chalabi) and countries were being essentially blackmailed/bribed over the rebuilding contracts.

As for "my argument", I am saying that there was never any proof that he "threatened" us and he was in complete compliance with the UN as far as letting inspectors into Iraq and allowing the access to just about everywhere they wanted/needed to go. There was no reason for an invasion in the first place. Bush did this purely for personal idiological reasons. Not for any made up threat to our national security as sold to us by this administration.

Your role playing would only work in a perfect world where politicians aren't out for number one. You ever heard of the UN? Full of corrupted politicians who's vote is easily bought with the right about of money. What makes you think the president of France is so benevolent, or the president of any other country for that matter? The only exception to this is Great Britain where they will always be by our side for better or worse and vice versa. Other than that, other countries will only stick their noses into our business to help only if their is something in it for them. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much proof you could show France and other countries like them, it won't make a shred of difference.

Your argument is very confusing to follow. At first, you blame us for helping him in the past and says that has something to do with how we should deal with him in the present. And that I was DUMB for not understanding that. Now your argument doesn't mention that past (helping Saddam stay in power) at all. Now who is dumb? Perhaps debating with you is a lost cause since by your login name alone tells me you are far too political to debate something rationally. Even more so with your blatantly false statement that Saddam completely cooporated with UN weapons inspectors.

I'm guessing that you are including US officials in that statement about corrupt UN members? You are showing that you will back this administration and this country no matter what they do or how they go about doing it. I love my country, but you have to be willing to look at facts objectively and be willing to admit when mistakes are made and things are done for less than the right reasons. Britian following along blindly and in complete compliance with anything that we do says even less about them. If they are unable to stand up to the US in the face of aggregious error then they are in a worse state than you probably believe France to be. I agree with you that countries will do things more willingly when they are benefiting from it. However, ignoring the fact that they actually WOULD benefit from itfrom some of the rebuilding money and making the argument that they wouldn't is misleading.

I think that you also need to reread what I wrote. I never called you "DUMB". Here is the quote:

Once again, you are trying to argue that us putting Saddam in his position isn't relative to him holding that position which is astoundingly dumb.

You repeatedly argued that Kerry would try to "appease" France if he would have been elected and then when on this right wing talking point rant about it. I, at that point, joined the debate mentioning that WE (the US) had our own agendas in Iraq also and attempted to refute your implied argument that we were doing what is right for the world re:Iraq. Here is my first post regarding this that I still don't think that you get:

You aren't really trying to imply that we didn't have our own agenda in Iraq, are you? We trained and entrenched Saddam into the power role that he had. WE were heavily involved in the OFF scandal. WE were dealing under the table with Iraq. If you are seriously under the belief that France was in bed with Iraq and we weren't part of the orgy, you are delusional.

You tried to make the above statement and the subsequent quotes about just how much we were involved with arming Iraq and our companies dealing under the table with Saddam and their involvement in the Oil For Food scandal into a "Iraq isn't being fought for Haliburton" case, which it wasn't.

The last two statements of yours need only minor addressing. My s/n has nothing to do with my political beliefs. It deals with my philosophical belief that we are stupid to just take without questioning, what we know as "right" to be just that.

As for Saddam's cooperation with the UN weapon's inspectors, you need to turn off the AM radio and actually read up on things instead of taking the talking heads word for things. Here are the words of Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspection team addressing the security counsil in regards to Iraq's cooperation:

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.

Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002.


........

In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.

In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 (2002) - it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament - either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. While we were in Baghdad, we met a delegation from the Government of South Africa. It was there to explain how South Africa gained the confidence of the world in its dismantling of the nuclear weapons programme, by a wholehearted cooperation over two years with IAEA inspectors. I have just learned that Iraq has accepted an offer by South Africa to send a group of experts for further talks.

Sure looks like Blix thought that they were cooperating and someone (Bush) had to hurry up and rush in anyway to satisfy his hardon for the PNAC agenda. Peace through WAR!!!
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The Democrats stand for and are nothing, other than advocacy of emotional altruism.
QFT..

however, the Republicans are only one notch more respectable... in other words, both parties suck.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The Democrats stand for and are nothing, other than advocacy of emotional altruism.
QFT..

however, the Republicans are only one notch more respectable... in other words, both parties suck.

That excuse is bullshit. It didn't fly in 1994 when the Republicans took over congress, why should it fly now?

I read a piece in the local paper the other day by a former Reagan administration member who berated the Bush administration and the Republican Party. He made a good point. He said the Republicans have managed to achieve a level of corruption in only 12 years that it took the Democrats 40 years to reach.

Please explain to my why there is this double standard NOW? Where was the double standard in 1994?