Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    Ah ok, enough said about the loss of billions through incompetence in Iraq. Of course, I understand.
    Apparently you don't understand . . . your very own MSNBC article states the following:

    "They pointed to numerous instances in which Defense and State department officials condoned or otherwise allowed . . ."


    The incompetence has nothing to do with Iraq; it has everything to do with a bloated government.

    Let me somewhat digress here to address this (as well as Barye’s mention of Katrina):

    No one doubts that Katrina was a disaster as well as the incompetence that flowed from government—ALL government, not just Federal. In the aftermath people were fooled into thinking that somehow Bush simply didn’t care (this being one of the marks of his “unsuccessful” presidency) about the poor and/or the black.

    Noted linguist John McWhorter points an interesting fact out.


    To say “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” means that one honestly believes that if it were the poor whites of Louisiana who happened to live closest to the levees, hardly anyone would have gotten wet.
    Skipping some text for purposes of brevity, he goes on to say the following:

    What previous example is this scenario based on? Surely people who level so trenchant a claim have some precedent in mind. For example, what about the hurricane that Katrina has just displaced as the third strongest on record to hit America? Ground zero for Hurricane Andrew, which left 250,000 people homeless, was Homestead, Fla., where whites were a strong majority. So was help pouring in as soon as the rain stopped?

    Not exactly. Few people remember Kate Hale, who had her 15 minutes of fame as the Dade County emergency-management director who asked on national television, “Where in the hell is the cavalry on this one?” People went without electricity or food and dealt with looters for, as it happens, five days - just as in New Orleans. FEMA was raked over the coals for the same bureaucratic incompetence that is making headlines now.
    The point here being that over and over we see not Bush’s incompetence, but GOVERNMENT’S incompetence. Yet people (you and others) still play to partisan politics with a priori bias and level claims at whomever you happen to dislike.

    You're proposing leaving the children to fix it on their own?
    Seriously, I hope you are sarcastically asking this. If not, just let me know you aren’t worth any more of my time as that is hardly what I said.

    Because no one else is doing it.
    There. You’ve single-handedly identified the problem.

    Condescending sighs aside, its 4 million children who want to sleep better at night, not me.
    Are you done using emotional leverage yet?

    They will not get the chance for better health care unless someone takes the initiative, which neither you nor our president seems willing to do.
    Again, you are wrong. Please address the following (from your Time Magazine article):

    A major point of contention with the White House was Bush's demand that nearly all poor children eligible for the program be found and enrolled before any in slightly higher-income families could be covered. He originally proposed adding $5 billion to the program over five years but later said he was willing to go higher as long as his conditions were met.
    Seems to me like your charge of no initiative is patently false.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    The point here being that over and over we see not Bush’s incompetence, but GOVERNMENT’S incompetence. Yet people (you and others) still play to partisan politics with a priori bias and level claims at whomever you happen to dislike.
    You mentioned hurricane Andrew in trying to make your point. I may be wrong, but wasn't there a Bush in the White House at that time too? So using your example.....is it just a family of incompetents or is it Republicans that are incompetent?
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Seems to me like your charge of no initiative is patently false.
    I have three comments:
    1) The counter offer by Bonyer adopted by the President only came late in the process, after initial attempts by the GOP to do nothing on SCHIP had politically backfired.
    2) If the democrats in congress had not brought it up, then I believe the issue of uninsured children would never have been raised.
    3) I do fault congress for not passing the counter offer, as it would have been better than nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    just let me know you aren’t worth any more of my time
    As far as your time, please do with it what seems most valuable to you. There must be many posts you still need to respond to here and as for me, my time is probably not as valuable as yours, my friend.
  4. #24  
    Before he died, Pultizer Prize winning presidential historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote an article which examined how other US presidents would have viewed the Bush presidency. What I found most interesting in this article was the parallels drawn between the rationale for the Mexican war, which Lincoln strongly condemned and the events leading up to the Iraq war.

    How would Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest, if not the greatest US president, have viewed Bush's invasion of Iraq? Hard to know for sure, but I list the original source of Lincoln quote here for interest:

    "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--"I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

    The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

    http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/...ok-page-18.asp

    By the way, if you have not had a chance to directly read Lincoln's other writings, I highly recommend it and this site is quite good.
  5.    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    ...Abraham Lincoln...

    "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--"I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

    The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."...
    interesting and relevant cite.

    Polk -- President at the time of the Mexican war -- is sometimes compared to junior.

    That war, and its many after effects -- deserves much better understanding and awareness. (even by BARYE.)

    Some would see Lincoln's brave opposition to that war (as a minor congressman from Illinois) made against a tidal wave of patriotic fervor -- as a parallel to Obama.

    Others will argue that while the war's cause was both unjust and dishonest -- the result, and the ends -- justified the means.

    One of the motivations for the Mexican War, btw -- was the expansion of slave holding southern territories.

    The Mexican war was also in part, a rehearsal for The Civil War -- with most of the leaders in Civil War heavily involved in that conflict:

    Among them: Army Lieutenant William Tecumseh Sherman, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, George Meade, Winfield Scott, Ulysses S. Grant, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.


    From worthwhile Wikipedia article:

    President Ulysses S. Grant, who as a young army officer had served in Mexico under General Taylor, recalled in his Memoirs, published in 1885, that:

    "Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

    Grant also expressed the view that the war against Mexico had brought God's punishment on the United States in the form of the American Civil War:

    "The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

    In 1879, while in China during his post presidential world tour, Grant told John Russell Young: "I had very strong opinions on the subject. I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico. I had a horror of the Mexican War, and I have always believed that it was on our part most unjust. The wickedness was not in the way our soldiers conducted it, but in the conduct of our government in declaring was. We had no claim on Mexico. Texas had no claim beyond the Nueces River, and yet we pushed on to the Rio Grande and crossed it. I am always ashamed of my country when I think of that invasion"...

    ...The casualty rate was thus easily over 25% for the 17 months of the war; the total casualties may have reached 35–40% if later injury- and disease-related deaths are added. In this respect, the war was proportionately the most deadly in American military history...

    ...As late as 1880, the "Republican Campaign Textbook" by the Republican Congressional Committee described the war as "Feculent, reeking Corruption" and "one of the darkest scenes in our history - a war forced upon our and the Mexican people by the high-handed usurpations of Pres't Polk in pursuit of territorial aggrandizement of the slave oligarchy".
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/29/2008 at 12:35 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #26  
    Thank you for the historical references, Barye.

    Its also worth pointing out that Lincoln and Grant's views are shared by those of their contemporary Henry Thoreau whose essay, Civil Disobedience, arising out of opposition to the Mexican war, is generally regarded as one of the most influential political tracts ever written.
    Last edited by electronique; 04/29/2008 at 02:12 PM.
  7.    #27  
    When junior is discussed as amongst the worst Presidents in history -- if not THE worst -- people usually think of the contrived war in Iraq, an economy more devastated than anytime since the Great Depression, his savaging of regulations that protected the environment, his unwillingness to pursue efforts to both lessen america's contribution to global warming or to lessen the country's dependence on foreign fossil fuels...

    What is regretably less thought about is the destructively caustic effect his presidency has had on the courts, civil liberties, and the sanctity of the constitution.

    The way he's casually used "signing statements" to deliberately subvert the intent and meaning of the laws he was ostensibly signing. The way he has flagrantly issued executive orders that subverted constituitionally protected rights, and overturned congressionally passed laws and regulations.

    The NYTimes article below describes how he has appointed legions of ultra conservative judges that have served to transform much of the judicial opinion that interprets the constitution.

    Not only had he appointed people on the furthest right of the legal spectrum -- but he consciously chose them also for their youth.

    One of the least appreciated aspects of his "presidency" is how he has used his power to appoint judges in a way that will warp justice in america for generations.


    October 29, 2008
    Conservatives Have Reshaped Appeals Courts
    By CHARLIE SAVAGE NY Times

    WASHINGTON — After a group of doctors challenged a South Dakota law forcing them to inform women that abortions “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being” — using exactly that language — President Bush’s appointees to the federal appeals courts took control.

    A federal trial judge, stating that whether a fetus is human life is a matter of debate, had blocked the state from enforcing the 2005 law as a likely violation of doctors’ First Amendment rights. And an appeals court panel had upheld the injunction.

    But this past June, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7 to 4 to overrule those decisions and allow the statute to take immediate effect. The majority argued that it is objectively true that human life begins at conception, and that the state can force doctors to say so.

    Mr. Bush had appointed six of the seven judges in the conservative majority. His administration has transformed the nation’s federal appeals courts, advancing a conservative legal revolution that began nearly three decades ago under President Ronald Reagan.

    On Oct. 6, Mr. Bush pointed with pride to his record at a conference sponsored by the Cincinnati chapter of the Federalist Society, the elite network for the conservative legal movement. He noted that he had appointed more than a third of the federal judiciary expected to be serving when he leaves office, a lifetime-tenured force that will influence society for decades and that represents one of his most enduring accomplishments. While a two-term president typically leaves his stamp on the appeals courts — Bill Clinton appointed 65 judges, Mr. Bush 61 — Mr. Bush’s judges were among the youngest ever nominated and are poised to have an unusually strong impact.

    ...the appeals courts, which decide tens of thousands of cases a year, are increasingly getting the last word. While the Supreme Court gets far more attention, in recent terms it has reviewed only about 75 cases a year — half what it considered a generation ago...

    Republican-appointed judges, most of them conservatives, are projected to make up about 62 percent of the bench next Inauguration Day, up from 50 percent when Mr. Bush took office. They control 10 of the 13 circuits, while judges appointed by Democrats have a dwindling majority on just one circuit...

    In the case of the 2005 South Dakota abortion law, the dissenters — including two Democratic appointees, a Reagan appointee, and a Bush appointee — portrayed the court’s decision as a sharp change in direction.

    The majority, they contended, had not only bypassed “important principles of constitutional law laid down by the Supreme Court” but also violated the appeals court’s established standards for issuing preliminary injunctions.

    The Eighth Circuit...has the appeals courts’ highest proportion of judges appointed by Republicans — 9 of its 11 judges...

    ...judges appointed by Republican presidents since Reagan have ruled for conservative outcomes more often than have their peers.

    They have been more likely than their colleagues to favor corporations over regulators and people alleging discrimination, and to favor government over people who claim rights violations. They have also been more likely to throw out cases on technical grounds, like rejecting plaintiffs’ standing to sue...

    ...Mr. Bush had “packed the courts” with “extremists” who share an agenda of hostility to regulations and the rights of women, minorities and workers.

    “George W. Bush has made great strides in cementing the ultraconservative hold on the federal courts which began with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, when he set out to impose his agenda on the country through his court appointments,”...

    Mr. Bush’s commitment to moving the courts rightward has been important not only to elite conservative thinkers, but also to the social conservatives who have been his base of support...

    ...Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has promised to appoint judges in the same ideological mold as Mr. Bush did...

    ...if Mr. McCain wins, Republicans could achieve commanding majorities on all 13 circuits...

    ...when Reagan came to power. His administration scrapped the ad hoc, patronage-style process previous presidents had used and began vetting potential nominees to find those who shared its philosophy. After the first George Bush became president in 1989, his legal team continued that approach.

    His son’s 2000 victory revived those vetting practices and — with the participation of Mr. Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove — escalated them.

    The White House ended the American Bar Association’s traditional role in evaluating potential nominees’ qualifications. But the administration had other help: the Federalist Society, whose size and influence has rapidly grown since the 1980s.

    The society does not formally suggest or vet nominees. Rather, through its conferences and publications, it enables lawyers to identify themselves as committed to a conservative judicial ideology...

    ...46 percent of Mr. Bush’s appeals court judges are Federalist Society associates...

    ...judges appointed by Republicans beginning with the Reagan administration are, as the Federalist Society’s president, Eugene Meyer, put it, “a very different type of judge.”

    ...as a group the appellate judges appointed by Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon and Gerald Ford voted for a conservative outcome in 52 percent of their cases. Mr. Clinton’s judges had an identical record.

    By contrast, the appeals court judges appointed by Reagan and the two Presidents Bush took the conservative position in 62 percent of cases. And that number was larger in certain ideologically charged areas, like abortion, affirmative action, environmental protection
    and whether states have sovereign immunity from federal lawsuits...

    Another new conservative anchor is Jeffrey S. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. Before his appointment, Mr. Sutton, as state solicitor for Ohio, was a leading voice in the push to revive states’ rights. He has continued that approach as a judge.

    For example, Judge Sutton has opposed federal interference with death sentences imposed by state courts. Last summer, he called into question a ruling that ordered Ohio not to execute a mentally retarded man. A colleague, noting that the Supreme Court had outlawed the execution of retarded criminals, accused Judge Sutton of “efforts to stir controversy where none exists.”

    Still, Judge Sutton’s support for states’ rights is not without challenge. He led the 10-to-6 majority — which included seven appointees of Mr. Bush — that sided with the Republican Party this month after it sued Ohio’s secretary of state, asking for a federal order changing the state’s policy on verifying new voter registrations. The Supreme Court quickly reversed their ruling...
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/29/2008 at 10:41 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #28  
    So really, would we rather have our laws changed via the legislative system, by people who are elected to represent us, or through radical courts populated by radical jurists doing whatever floats their boat and fits their agenda.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    So really, would we rather have our laws changed via the legislative system, by people who are elected to represent us, or through radical courts populated by radical jurists doing whatever floats their boat and fits their agenda.
    But that is the problem with Bush's appointees... They are radical right-wing youths that will be there for a LONG time doing whatever they want...
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    But that is the problem with Bush's appointees... They are radical right-wing youths that will be there for a LONG time doing whatever they want...
    Exactly. when it is the radical right wing, whether it be right wing judges, right wing appointees, right wing justice department firing people and lying about the reasons, or the VP holding secret meetings with oil company execs to create energy policy that's apparently ok with some.
  11. #31  
    At least they are not creating new legislation, a thing that the liberal left does all the time. If it is not there, they put it there. The same cannot be said of a strict constitutional judge. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document subject to change at a whim.
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    At least they are not creating new legislation, a thing that the liberal left does all the time. If it is not there, they put it there. The same cannot be said of a strict constitutional judge. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document subject to change at a whim.
    never has the constitution been more violated and less respected than it has been these past 8 years.

    The Patriot Act, the contrived war in iraq, "signing statement" legislation revisioning, spying on americans -- Where is the outrage among conservatives who supposedly worship the constitution ??

    (or is it only the second amendment that they care about ???)
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/29/2008 at 10:56 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    At least they are not creating new legislation, a thing that the liberal left does all the time. If it is not there, they put it there. The same cannot be said of a strict constitutional judge. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document subject to change at a whim.
    Um the Republicans, and especially the Bush administration has created more legislation from outsid the legislature and more strange interpretation of the constitution than any Democrats have.
  14. #34  
    Bayre, we are at war, don't you know? If there were not some sort of constraints placed and some effort to protect the country and its citizens (you), you and others of your species would be most irate and upset with the lack of action taken, much as everyone will be when Obama does nothing at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    never has the constitution been more violated and less respected than it has been these past 8 years.

    The Patriot Act, the contrived war in iraq, "signing statement" legislation revisioning, spying on americans -- Where is the outrage among conservatives who supposedly worship the constitution ??

    (or it only the second amendment that they care about ???)
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Bayre, we are at war, don't you know? If there were not some sort of constraints placed and some effort to protect the country and its citizens (you), you and others of your species would be most irate and upset with the lack of action taken, much as everyone will be when Obama does nothing at all.
    Absurd, by this definition we have been at war our entire history even when not legally at war (like now). War on Drugs, Cold War, War on Terror. When has the United States not been at war then?

    It is funny, but no constitutional strict construction would say we are at war!
  16. #36  
    Jr. is history. The important thing to do now is vote next week. I don't think this or any past president can do much with such an inept 535 members of Congress that continually run for re-election instead of doing what's best for the country and the people that put them there. I don't care who gets elected Top Dog; it's the damn pack of rats that bother me the most.
  17. #37  
    Aero, do you know of anyone affected by the Patriot Act? Have you been affected by the Patriot Act? Has your cell phone been bugged due to the Patriot Act? Have you done anything to place yourself under a light in regards to the Patriot Act?

    Really now, we are at war - what would you describe it at - our soldiers are getting shot at, killed, defending your right to say whatever floats your boat.


    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Absurd, by this definition we have been at war our entire history even when not legally at war (like now). War on Drugs, Cold War, War on Terror. When has the United States not been at war then?

    It is funny, but no constitutional strict construction would say we are at war!
  18. #38  
    Congress - Nancy and her cronies, Harry and his cronies - they really are winners.

    Quote Originally Posted by aximtreo View Post
    Jr. is history. The important thing to do now is vote next week. I don't think this or any past president can do much with such an inept 535 members of Congress that continually run for re-election instead of doing what's best for the country and the people that put them there. I don't care who gets elected Top Dog; it's the damn pack of rats that bother me the most.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Aero, do you know of anyone affected by the Patriot Act?
    If you don't know the answer to that, then you don't understand the full meaning and ability of the patriot act.

    Again, your lack of reading, or lack of reading and understanding is amusing. Sad, but amusing.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Aero, do you know of anyone affected by the Patriot Act? Have you been affected by the Patriot Act? Has your cell phone been bugged due to the Patriot Act? Have you done anything to place yourself under a light in regards to the Patriot Act?
    Really now, we are at war - what would you describe it at - our soldiers are getting shot at, killed, defending your right to say whatever floats your boat.
    Really, that is a strange response.
    It is the exact response support the KGB, the Stasi and the Gestapo?

    In answer to the direct question. Yes, I used to share my lunch in 8th grade with a kid whose (middle) name was David. This makes me both a socialist, and someone who cavorts with people with violent scary Middle Eastern roots.

    I don't understand what you mean by we are at war. When have we not been?
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions