Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Kerry Documentary

Recommended Posts

quote:

The issue is flip flopping right? I just want to be clear on that. So my response is two fold. First I must say that I think that Kerry's manipulation of his own words is disgraceful and shows a weak will. People do change their minds.

Yes, they do, but on every topic that's questioned, sometimes back and forth, multiple times?

quote:

1. Opposed the 9/11 commission. Now acts as if it was all his idea.

Even the Pearl Harbor Commission waited until WWII was over before reviewing what happened. If Bush was opposed to the 9/11 Commission, it was because of the leaked Senate Intelligence Committee memo from last year that told of a Democrat plan to use commissions and studies to "pull the Republicans along" until they could "pull the trigger" in 2004. Don't you remember that memo, written at the request of Vice-Chairman Jay Rockefeller? Can you blame Bush for not wanting to walk into a known Democrat trap?

quote:

3. Opposed making gay marriage a matter for the Federal government (go back to the debates). Proclaimed that it was a matter for the states to decide. Now he supports a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN IT.

I'd say that his hand was forced by a few activist judges in Massachusetts, and a rogue mayor in San Francisco. I don't recall the President changing his mind on this until other elected officials started to blatently flout the law and disregard their own state constitutions and/or ballot propositions.

quote:

4. Said that American Troops should not be used for the purposes of nation building. Now it is the ONLY REASON we went to Iraq.

I remember when Bush said that in the third debate against Al Gore (the townhall format). However, 9/11 happened, which was a big factor in this. For both Afghanistan and Iraq, when we bomb out the current regime, we have to replace it with another one that can keep the millions of people from starving to death. You can debate the merits of going into Iraq, but the fact still remains that we had to do something for the people once the overthrow was complete.

quote:

6. Negotiation with North Korea was a failure of the Clinton Administration. Whoops, he's negotiated with North Korea and continues to, currently offering them incentives to disarm.

The Clinton/Carter negotiations were a sham. They were duped by the North Koreans with sweet-talk in exchange for economic aid as a payoff for not developing a nuclear program. So, they double-crossed Clinton/Carter and pursued their program anyway. Now knowing that North Korea has a developed nuclear program despite the Clinton/Carter assurances to the contrary, what is Bush supposed to do?

quote:

8. Said he would not raid the SS trust fund. Immediately raided it.

There is no such thing as a social security trust fund. There never has been one. If we had one, why would Al Gore need a lockbox to store it in?

quote:

My finall observation, or thought is...I hve been listening to various arguments between Republicans and Democrats...why is it that a Republican will tell a Dem that they are stupid and have "no idea what you are talking about" yet a Democrat will continue to make the point without being outwardly rude?

Just curious... what channel do you watch on TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

The issue is flip flopping right? I just want to be clear on that. So my response is two fold. First I must say that I think that Kerry's manipulation of his own words is disgraceful and shows a weak will. People do change their minds.

Yes, they do, but on every topic that's questioned, sometimes back and forth, multiple times?

quote:

1. Opposed the 9/11 commission. Now acts as if it was all his idea.

Even the Pearl Harbor Commission waited until WWII was over before reviewing what happened. If Bush was opposed to the 9/11 Commission, it was because of the leaked Senate Intelligence Committee memo from last year that told of a Democrat plan to use commissions and studies to "pull the Republicans along" until they could "pull the trigger" in 2004. Don't you remember that memo, written at the request of Vice-Chairman Jay Rockefeller? Can you blame Bush for not wanting to walk into a known Democrat trap?

quote:

3. Opposed making gay marriage a matter for the Federal government (go back to the debates). Proclaimed that it was a matter for the states to decide. Now he supports a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN IT.

I'd say that his hand was forced by a few activist judges in Massachusetts, and a rogue mayor in San Francisco. I don't recall the President changing his mind on this until other elected officials started to blatently flout the law and disregard their own state constitutions and/or ballot propositions.

quote:

4. Said that American Troops should not be used for the purposes of nation building. Now it is the ONLY REASON we went to Iraq.

I remember when Bush said that in the third debate against Al Gore (the townhall format). However, 9/11 happened, which was a big factor in this. For both Afghanistan and Iraq, when we bomb out the current regime, we have to replace it with another one that can keep the millions of people from starving to death. You can debate the merits of going into Iraq, but the fact still remains that we had to do something for the people once the overthrow was complete.

quote:

6. Negotiation with North Korea was a failure of the Clinton Administration. Whoops, he's negotiated with North Korea and continues to, currently offering them incentives to disarm.

The Clinton/Carter negotiations were a sham. They were duped by the North Koreans with sweet-talk in exchange for economic aid as a payoff for not developing a nuclear program. So, they double-crossed Clinton/Carter and pursued their program anyway. Now knowing that North Korea has a developed nuclear program despite the Clinton/Carter assurances to the contrary, what is Bush supposed to do?

quote:

8. Said he would not raid the SS trust fund. Immediately raided it.

There is no such thing as a social security trust fund. There never has been one. If we had one, why would Al Gore need a lockbox to store it in?

quote:

My finall observation, or thought is...I hve been listening to various arguments between Republicans and Democrats...why is it that a Republican will tell a Dem that they are stupid and have "no idea what you are talking about" yet a Democrat will continue to make the point without being outwardly rude?

Just curious... what channel do you watch on TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

_______________________________________________

Just curious... what channel do you watch on TV?

_______________________________________________

When I am home during the week like today...NOGGIN.

I can't ansewer that question with certainty I surf big time. I usually don't pick one. Just as all my other news sources. I don't even choose on opionion or one show or one persons advise.

I am trying to remeber what I was watching when that thought originally popped into my head it may have been "Meet the Press" or MSNBC or CNN not sure. I know it was a Sunday. I can try and find a source to b/u my finding. Or is it you are goint to tell me the stations and broadcasts are "owned" by specific parties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

_______________________________________________

Just curious... what channel do you watch on TV?

_______________________________________________

When I am home during the week like today...NOGGIN.

I can't ansewer that question with certainty I surf big time. I usually don't pick one. Just as all my other news sources. I don't even choose on opionion or one show or one persons advise.

I am trying to remeber what I was watching when that thought originally popped into my head it may have been "Meet the Press" or MSNBC or CNN not sure. I know it was a Sunday. I can try and find a source to b/u my finding. Or is it you are goint to tell me the stations and broadcasts are "owned" by specific parties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Lost I answered your stupid challenge. I told you all, that I thought the waffling of ALL elected officials including Kerry was DISGRACEFUL. What you seem to want to say is that this phenomenon is squarely reserved for politicians with a D before or after their name.

As for saying that Americans should suck it up and work two and three jobs.. that is so ridiculous that I won't even bother to comment. Your occupation is listed as "Playing games" I suppose when you get out in the real world you might have an awakening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Lost I answered your stupid challenge. I told you all, that I thought the waffling of ALL elected officials including Kerry was DISGRACEFUL. What you seem to want to say is that this phenomenon is squarely reserved for politicians with a D before or after their name.

As for saying that Americans should suck it up and work two and three jobs.. that is so ridiculous that I won't even bother to comment. Your occupation is listed as "Playing games" I suppose when you get out in the real world you might have an awakening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Or is it you are goint to tell me the stations and broadcasts are "owned" by specific parties?

I don't do that. All news reporting is tainted these days.

I asked because it is my observation that on the Fox News Channel, they seem to try to balance out the guests 1 for 1, but on the other channels it's like 3 liberals to one conservative. Having 3:1 in your favor would make for a more cooperative conversation on your side of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Or is it you are goint to tell me the stations and broadcasts are "owned" by specific parties?

I don't do that. All news reporting is tainted these days.

I asked because it is my observation that on the Fox News Channel, they seem to try to balance out the guests 1 for 1, but on the other channels it's like 3 liberals to one conservative. Having 3:1 in your favor would make for a more cooperative conversation on your side of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUAHAHA! Oh my god! *Holds his side* BUAHAHAHAHAHAH! Look Echo if you want fair and balanced I suggest you get your news from several sources. Bouncing from channel to channel as you have been helps but you need to read the newspaper too. The newspaper has a lot more room to cover a story and to impart news in an indepth way. There are also many magazines that you can turn to, I like US News and World Report.

Just do me a favor and stay far away from Fox News and The New York Post. There is nothing UNBIASED or IMPARTIAL about Rupert Murdoch. Anyone that would even SUGGEST that the man doesn't have a stake and a hand in what his television station and newspaper reports is either deluded or a liar.

Regardless Echo, finding any "reporters" worthy of the title is a real chore. Nobody reports anything anymore, nobody investigates a damn thing. It's just another symptom of the decay of democracy that has occured over the last fifteen or so years. I guess in a way we deserve the press we have because the public has made it plain that they want to be spun. Anybody that listens to Rush Limbaugh is being spun. Likewise anyone that watches a Michael Moore movie is being spun. Rush Limbaugh is as much a truth detector as Michael Moore is a documentary film maker. You have to determine where the facts end and the spin begins. Rush doesn't always lie, Moore doesn't always lie but you can be certain of one thing, either of these guys is making sure that their side is being shown in the best possible light. Fox News is the same way, they get their mandate from Murdoch an arch conservative. They point fingers at CNN and call them liberal and then have the nerve to call themselves "Fair and Balanced" they've done studies and Fox is not Fair or Balanced. That isn't to say that CNN isn't liberal, I think they are... I am merely saying that you have to get your info from VARIED sources. Fox News is NOT varied and the suggestion that it is, well that's LAUGHABLE.

If you want to watch a show that at least makes an effort at balancing out the sides Crossfire is very good. You have heavy hitters and veterans that represent BOTH sides very well. Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak are no slouches and do not get steamrolled by Carville and Begala. It is honest HEATED debate. Unlike Fox and the smarmy Hannity who tramples Colmes and liberal guests with his big mouth and stupidity.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUAHAHA! Oh my god! *Holds his side* BUAHAHAHAHAHAH! Look Echo if you want fair and balanced I suggest you get your news from several sources. Bouncing from channel to channel as you have been helps but you need to read the newspaper too. The newspaper has a lot more room to cover a story and to impart news in an indepth way. There are also many magazines that you can turn to, I like US News and World Report.

Just do me a favor and stay far away from Fox News and The New York Post. There is nothing UNBIASED or IMPARTIAL about Rupert Murdoch. Anyone that would even SUGGEST that the man doesn't have a stake and a hand in what his television station and newspaper reports is either deluded or a liar.

Regardless Echo, finding any "reporters" worthy of the title is a real chore. Nobody reports anything anymore, nobody investigates a damn thing. It's just another symptom of the decay of democracy that has occured over the last fifteen or so years. I guess in a way we deserve the press we have because the public has made it plain that they want to be spun. Anybody that listens to Rush Limbaugh is being spun. Likewise anyone that watches a Michael Moore movie is being spun. Rush Limbaugh is as much a truth detector as Michael Moore is a documentary film maker. You have to determine where the facts end and the spin begins. Rush doesn't always lie, Moore doesn't always lie but you can be certain of one thing, either of these guys is making sure that their side is being shown in the best possible light. Fox News is the same way, they get their mandate from Murdoch an arch conservative. They point fingers at CNN and call them liberal and then have the nerve to call themselves "Fair and Balanced" they've done studies and Fox is not Fair or Balanced. That isn't to say that CNN isn't liberal, I think they are... I am merely saying that you have to get your info from VARIED sources. Fox News is NOT varied and the suggestion that it is, well that's LAUGHABLE.

If you want to watch a show that at least makes an effort at balancing out the sides Crossfire is very good. You have heavy hitters and veterans that represent BOTH sides very well. Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak are no slouches and do not get steamrolled by Carville and Begala. It is honest HEATED debate. Unlike Fox and the smarmy Hannity who tramples Colmes and liberal guests with his big mouth and stupidity.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

1: *snip* What you seem to want to say is that this phenomenon is squarely reserved for politicians with a D before or after their name.

2: As for saying that Americans should suck it up and work two and three jobs.. that is so ridiculous that I won't even bother to comment. Your occupation is listed as "Playing games" I suppose when you get out in the real world you might have an awakening.

1: Well if it walks like a (D)uck and talks like a (D)uck, it's a (D)uck.

2: Well there's something unique (sarcasm). A liberal who can't tell the difference between a joke and a serious statement. Typical.

Listen where is it written that it's your birthright that you will get a job? You're born, you die everthing in between is a risk. No one is beholden to any one else to give anyone a job that my friend is call socialism. To expect anyone to give you a $15-$20 an hour job just because you're a single parent (male or female) with kids and don't wanna work two-three jobs to support "your" family is no one's problem but yours. If you can find a $15-$20 an hour job that's great, if not, you gotta do what you gotta do. Simple as that. This may sound cold and heartless but life is like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

1: *snip* What you seem to want to say is that this phenomenon is squarely reserved for politicians with a D before or after their name.

2: As for saying that Americans should suck it up and work two and three jobs.. that is so ridiculous that I won't even bother to comment. Your occupation is listed as "Playing games" I suppose when you get out in the real world you might have an awakening.

1: Well if it walks like a (D)uck and talks like a (D)uck, it's a (D)uck.

2: Well there's something unique (sarcasm). A liberal who can't tell the difference between a joke and a serious statement. Typical.

Listen where is it written that it's your birthright that you will get a job? You're born, you die everthing in between is a risk. No one is beholden to any one else to give anyone a job that my friend is call socialism. To expect anyone to give you a $15-$20 an hour job just because you're a single parent (male or female) with kids and don't wanna work two-three jobs to support "your" family is no one's problem but yours. If you can find a $15-$20 an hour job that's great, if not, you gotta do what you gotta do. Simple as that. This may sound cold and heartless but life is like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

finding any "reporters" worthy of the title is a real chore. Nobody reports anything anymore, nobody investigates a damn thing. It's just another symptom of the decay of democracy that has occured over the last fifteen or so years. I guess in a way we deserve the press we have because the public has made it plain that they want to be spun.

I have to agree with Takvah here. The media does not do its job anymore. They selectively report when it serves their agenda, and they give passes to their favorites when others get the full media treatment for doing essentially the same things.

The media is the only non-government occupation mentioned in the Constitution. The reason we were given a free press was to be the watchdog over the government for the people. However, politics today has gotten so polarized, probably largely do to the fact that with only one worldwide superpower the office of the presidet of the United States is the most powerful position in the world, that the watchdog element of reporting is no longer the agenda all by itself. What I see is a media that is apologist when their favorites are caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, and attack dogs when their disfavorites are caught.

Further on the watchdog aspect, the Congress was supposed to exercise an oversight role on the presidency, but the Congress has lapsed into more of a reactive mode, using oversight to blame and point fingers after the fact, instead of using oversight proactively to ensure that good practices are being followed as they are occuring. Reporters aren't holding Congress to blame for their lack of proactive oversight either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

finding any "reporters" worthy of the title is a real chore. Nobody reports anything anymore, nobody investigates a damn thing. It's just another symptom of the decay of democracy that has occured over the last fifteen or so years. I guess in a way we deserve the press we have because the public has made it plain that they want to be spun.

I have to agree with Takvah here. The media does not do its job anymore. They selectively report when it serves their agenda, and they give passes to their favorites when others get the full media treatment for doing essentially the same things.

The media is the only non-government occupation mentioned in the Constitution. The reason we were given a free press was to be the watchdog over the government for the people. However, politics today has gotten so polarized, probably largely do to the fact that with only one worldwide superpower the office of the presidet of the United States is the most powerful position in the world, that the watchdog element of reporting is no longer the agenda all by itself. What I see is a media that is apologist when their favorites are caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, and attack dogs when their disfavorites are caught.

Further on the watchdog aspect, the Congress was supposed to exercise an oversight role on the presidency, but the Congress has lapsed into more of a reactive mode, using oversight to blame and point fingers after the fact, instead of using oversight proactively to ensure that good practices are being followed as they are occuring. Reporters aren't holding Congress to blame for their lack of proactive oversight either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

Perhaps Kerry might be less quick to send American jobs overseas than your boy Bush.

Tying all of the nation's economic woes to outsourcing is simplistic. Many economists estimate that only about 1 in 100 layoffs are caused by outsourcing. By contrast, the bulk of job losses stem from domestic factors

--------------------------------------------------

That's not all. Campaign finance reports reviewed by the Congressional publication, The Hill, reveal that executives at 25 companies identified by CNN's Lou Dobbs as prime outsourcers have contributed more than $370,000 to Kerry's presidential campaign. Among them are executives of Citigroup (who contributed $68,250 to Kerry), Morgan Stanley (gave $38,000) and Goldman Sachs (gave $50,300).

Direct investments and trusts controlled by Kerry list assets of $124,026 to $636,000 in companies that outsource jobs, according to his financial disclosures. Trusts held by Teresa Heinz Kerry hold at least $8.5 million in outsourcing companies. Among them are General Electric, IBM and AIG which have big operations in India and China .

All this has led analysts to believe that Kerry's anti-outsourcing stand is just election season posturing. "Our view is that this is just a lot of political talk. Restrictive legislation will be limited, and the outsourcing trend will continue to be robust," Lehman Brothers analyst Louis Miscioscia wrote in a recent research note to investors.

Ashish Thadhani, an analyst with Brean Murray & Co in New York who tracks Indian outsourcing companies has also given a thumbs-up to firms such as Infosys, Wipro, and Cognizant, saying they are good bets for investors if their horizon looks beyond the current political debate.

Meanwhile, domestic critics have excoriated Kerry for his duplicity and doubletalk. If Kerry is true to his word, he would be bringing back Heinz operations to the US and create American jobs. By the same token, the nearly seven million US workers who are employed by foreign companies such as BMW, Toyota and Honda would also lose their jobs if these firms pulled out.

"I don't think Kerry should shut down the Heinz 57, but he might drop the rhetoric and talk about trade responsibly," says free market maven James Glassman, who has taken a public stand against the anti-outsourcers. "He should support not trade's contraction but its expansion, like George W Bush, Bill Clinton and every president since Herbert Hoover." It looks unlikely though that Kerry will pay attention to such advice till after the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

Perhaps Kerry might be less quick to send American jobs overseas than your boy Bush.

Tying all of the nation's economic woes to outsourcing is simplistic. Many economists estimate that only about 1 in 100 layoffs are caused by outsourcing. By contrast, the bulk of job losses stem from domestic factors

--------------------------------------------------

That's not all. Campaign finance reports reviewed by the Congressional publication, The Hill, reveal that executives at 25 companies identified by CNN's Lou Dobbs as prime outsourcers have contributed more than $370,000 to Kerry's presidential campaign. Among them are executives of Citigroup (who contributed $68,250 to Kerry), Morgan Stanley (gave $38,000) and Goldman Sachs (gave $50,300).

Direct investments and trusts controlled by Kerry list assets of $124,026 to $636,000 in companies that outsource jobs, according to his financial disclosures. Trusts held by Teresa Heinz Kerry hold at least $8.5 million in outsourcing companies. Among them are General Electric, IBM and AIG which have big operations in India and China .

All this has led analysts to believe that Kerry's anti-outsourcing stand is just election season posturing. "Our view is that this is just a lot of political talk. Restrictive legislation will be limited, and the outsourcing trend will continue to be robust," Lehman Brothers analyst Louis Miscioscia wrote in a recent research note to investors.

Ashish Thadhani, an analyst with Brean Murray & Co in New York who tracks Indian outsourcing companies has also given a thumbs-up to firms such as Infosys, Wipro, and Cognizant, saying they are good bets for investors if their horizon looks beyond the current political debate.

Meanwhile, domestic critics have excoriated Kerry for his duplicity and doubletalk. If Kerry is true to his word, he would be bringing back Heinz operations to the US and create American jobs. By the same token, the nearly seven million US workers who are employed by foreign companies such as BMW, Toyota and Honda would also lose their jobs if these firms pulled out.

"I don't think Kerry should shut down the Heinz 57, but he might drop the rhetoric and talk about trade responsibly," says free market maven James Glassman, who has taken a public stand against the anti-outsourcers. "He should support not trade's contraction but its expansion, like George W Bush, Bill Clinton and every president since Herbert Hoover." It looks unlikely though that Kerry will pay attention to such advice till after the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race

Bush is not to blame for the job going over sea's stop listening to the baised media

The reason job's are going over sea's is because of the government, not BUSH, the government. They raise taxes to a point where the company's aren't able to make enough to pay them, so it's only natural that they go over sea's

Stop listening to senseless biased media and do some research, it's RIGHT THERE in the Wall Street Journal, READ IT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race

Bush is not to blame for the job going over sea's stop listening to the baised media

The reason job's are going over sea's is because of the government, not BUSH, the government. They raise taxes to a point where the company's aren't able to make enough to pay them, so it's only natural that they go over sea's

Stop listening to senseless biased media and do some research, it's RIGHT THERE in the Wall Street Journal, READ IT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Whenever Kerry is asked about his SPECIFIC plans to do something, he ALWAYS says.

"I am not going to tell you until after I am elected President."

WTF is that crap?

If a Republican candidate did that, the media would be all over him like flies on Crap.

Let me give you a translation of what Kerry's statement ACTUALLY means.

He hasn't a fricking clue about what he would do, except continue with what Bush is doing, and the other plans he has, if he shared them would be torn to little shreds and he wouldn't be elected because of his lies, duplicity, and lack of imagination.

The man hasn't had an original thought in his life, and he flip flops so much, I am amazed he hasn't thrown his back out.

He won't tell us until he is elected president, what a crock of crap............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Whenever Kerry is asked about his SPECIFIC plans to do something, he ALWAYS says.

"I am not going to tell you until after I am elected President."

WTF is that crap?

If a Republican candidate did that, the media would be all over him like flies on Crap.

Let me give you a translation of what Kerry's statement ACTUALLY means.

He hasn't a fricking clue about what he would do, except continue with what Bush is doing, and the other plans he has, if he shared them would be torn to little shreds and he wouldn't be elected because of his lies, duplicity, and lack of imagination.

The man hasn't had an original thought in his life, and he flip flops so much, I am amazed he hasn't thrown his back out.

He won't tell us until he is elected president, what a crock of crap............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Further on the watchdog aspect, the Congress was supposed to exercise an oversight role on the presidency, but the Congress has lapsed into more of a reactive mode, using oversight to blame and point fingers after the fact, instead of using oversight proactively to ensure that good practices are being followed as they are occuring. Reporters aren't holding Congress to blame for their lack of proactive oversight either. [/QB]

EXACTLY and that's exactly why this nation needs a Democrat in the White House. When that happens we'll get back the watchdog element in the Congress. THANK YOU! Thank you Steve, you are SO RIGHT! Just because there is a Republican in the White House it seems that every Republican in the Congress has decided to ROLL OVER. That's WRONG. Where is the ambition in the Republican Congress? It used to be that even along party lines you would have Senators and Representatives at least SHARING the power. Now it seems that they just go along with the President and don't see themselves as sharing in the power. They are simply Yes men. If I was a Democrat or a Republican in the Congress I would make it very plain to the President that nothing they wanted would get done with my support unless it was just and righteous. I don't see Frist of Hastert doing that. Instead you have Pelosi who is a LUNATIC and Daschle who is Droopy the Dog and a weakened Democratic Party being STEAMROLLED by Bush's willing accomplices.

Now you know why Bush isn't getting my vote. He is a man that has been given a free ride to affect the changes WE all wanted and all he has done is LIE, CHEAT and STEAL. I'm sorry but I won't be an accomplice to his crimes.

Great points though Steve... I always appreciate debate with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Further on the watchdog aspect, the Congress was supposed to exercise an oversight role on the presidency, but the Congress has lapsed into more of a reactive mode, using oversight to blame and point fingers after the fact, instead of using oversight proactively to ensure that good practices are being followed as they are occuring. Reporters aren't holding Congress to blame for their lack of proactive oversight either. [/QB]

EXACTLY and that's exactly why this nation needs a Democrat in the White House. When that happens we'll get back the watchdog element in the Congress. THANK YOU! Thank you Steve, you are SO RIGHT! Just because there is a Republican in the White House it seems that every Republican in the Congress has decided to ROLL OVER. That's WRONG. Where is the ambition in the Republican Congress? It used to be that even along party lines you would have Senators and Representatives at least SHARING the power. Now it seems that they just go along with the President and don't see themselves as sharing in the power. They are simply Yes men. If I was a Democrat or a Republican in the Congress I would make it very plain to the President that nothing they wanted would get done with my support unless it was just and righteous. I don't see Frist of Hastert doing that. Instead you have Pelosi who is a LUNATIC and Daschle who is Droopy the Dog and a weakened Democratic Party being STEAMROLLED by Bush's willing accomplices.

Now you know why Bush isn't getting my vote. He is a man that has been given a free ride to affect the changes WE all wanted and all he has done is LIE, CHEAT and STEAL. I'm sorry but I won't be an accomplice to his crimes.

Great points though Steve... I always appreciate debate with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

To expect anyone to give you a $15-$20 an hour job just because you're a single parent (male or female) with kids and don't wanna work two-three jobs to support "your" family is no one's problem but yours. If you can find a $15-$20 an hour job that's great, if not, you gotta do what you gotta do. Simple as that.

_________________________________________________

You are missing the point. I would work 10 jobs for my kids, what I find is unfair is people losing high paying jobs only to replace them with 3 low paying and then hear people boast that emoployment is up. Also the fact that you need a $20 + dollar an hour job to raise two kids and have a home.

As far as the whole single parent comment is concerned, it is happening to happily married men and women too, be careful not to generalize, it may make you sound like a jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

To expect anyone to give you a $15-$20 an hour job just because you're a single parent (male or female) with kids and don't wanna work two-three jobs to support "your" family is no one's problem but yours. If you can find a $15-$20 an hour job that's great, if not, you gotta do what you gotta do. Simple as that.

_________________________________________________

You are missing the point. I would work 10 jobs for my kids, what I find is unfair is people losing high paying jobs only to replace them with 3 low paying and then hear people boast that emoployment is up. Also the fact that you need a $20 + dollar an hour job to raise two kids and have a home.

As far as the whole single parent comment is concerned, it is happening to happily married men and women too, be careful not to generalize, it may make you sound like a jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

EXACTLY and that's exactly why this nation needs a Democrat in the White House. When that happens we'll get back the watchdog element in the Congress. THANK YOU! Thank you Steve, you are SO RIGHT!

I think we agree on the points, but differ on the conclusions.

You appear to feel that the reason to have a Democrat in the White House is that the press favors the Democrat and government would operate more smoothly with a Democrat due to the press going back to doing their job with a Democrat.

I feel that the press's favoritism is compromising their ability to do their jobs either way. The press also shifted away from traditional watchdog roles during the Clinton Administration because he kept inviting them to all the lavish state dinners that he threw. The press started cozying up to Clinton (and the Democrats by extension) because they wanted access to the White House and felt that if they were too critical they would lose that access to a competitor (plus lose access to the good parties).

One of the first criticisms of the DC elite after Bush was elected was how the nightlife died. Bush goes to bed early and there aren't the lavish parties that Clinton used to throw.

I think another reason that you might think that Congress would go back to traditional oversight with a Democrat is that Democrats feel that the positions of power are rightfully theirs, and that the Republican control is an aberration. This is why they are stalling on everything, hoping to delay judges until a Democrat regains control, and now hoping to delay confirming a new CIA chief until Democrats regain control. I feel that it is wrong to give into a Democrat just because the Democrats are obstructing the normal flow of operations and that electing a Democrat would stop the obstructing. That's almost extortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×