2012 U.S. Elections - Page 2

I never claimed they were there. I was merely listings reasons for war.


That is horse shit.


Right sammi...public domain.


WTF does that have to do with anything?


Now hold on...are you saying that he would not tolerate terrorism of ANY kind? I never said he's hand it off to AQ, sammi. The point is we saw the risk after 9/11 occurred.


Yes, the big, bad US bombed poor Iraq for 12 years. We just couldn't stop attacking them! You should hear yourself.


Clearly UN resolutions are only supposed to apply to the US and Israel. And clearly those resolutions are the same as the ones applied to Iraq and Iran.


Let me know where I can find that.


Prove it. Prove it with something other than "Cheney said 9/11 in the same sentence with Iraq!"

Ah, plausible deniability. The staple of the right wing mindset. Yum.

After the "sensitive' documents were obtained by Cambridge University researcher Glen Rangwala on February 26, 2003, detailing the history of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear program, it certainly was public domain. I read it myself a few days after it was published. Much of this report was centered around the testimony of the late Iraqi defector Kamal Hussein (Saddam's son in law), who was in charge of Iraq's weapons programs and infrastructure.

K. Hussein's testimony was quoted by the Bush Administration as the main source of intelligence that Iraq still possessed WMDs. Unfortunately for the US and the rest of the world, the Bush Administration cherry-picked K. Hussein's testimony, in that they only quoted the estimated quantities of chemical and biological agents that Iraq had in stock in 1990/1991, prior to and shortly after the Gulf War... and told the American people and the rest of the world that these weapons still existed in Iraq.

What Bush Corp ignored, was that their star witness, K. Hussein categorically stated that Iraq had also destroyed all of its stocks of chemical and biological weapons. The UNSCOM inspection team had repeatedly searched every site specified in intelligence reports, and found nothing, in the weeks running up to the invasion.

Considering that
(1) Iraq at one point *did* possess huge stocks of WMDs, but never used any, even as a last resort, while being invaded and overwhelmed by a huge coalition in 1991....
(2) US troops participating in the 2003 were not issued protection against chemical and biological agents by the Pentagon
(3) the US military failed utterly to make secure the numerous Iraqi weapons dumps in the immediate wake of the invasion...

.... it also appears that the Pentagon's brass, including Defense Sec. Rumsfeld, were also aware that there were no WMDs, or certainly usable ones, that remained in Iraq.

And then consider... if the goal was to "disarm Iraq of its biological and chemical weapons", then the most insane way of going about it was to undertake a military invasion, incorporating a "shock and awe" bombing campaign, and a lengthy series of air assaults using smart and dumb bombs, while at the same time, there were over 150,000 US troops, and 10s of thousands of coalition forces on the ground, without any protection against against gas and/or bacterial agents, or nuclear radiation and fall out.

If there really had been WMDs in Iraq, then one would have logically thought that those at most risk were other mid east nations surrounding that country... such as Iran, Syria, Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.... NOT the United States, 10,000 miles away. And logically, the only way of finding them would have been to allow the inspectors to finish their job... which the Bush Administration denied to them, in their haste to drop bombs.

BushCorp was full of sh¡t. Fabricating evidence, or cherry-picking the convenient stuff is as bad as lying.

Obama campaign reverses stance, urging donations to super PAC:

Wait...I note that saying "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same sentence doesn't show an intent to link the two, and you say it's "plausible deniability?" The burden of proof here is on you. You are the one claiming that the admin deliberately tried to confuse people into believing Iraq was responsible for 9/11. You're going to need a little more than the above to show that.

Obama to hold press conference on Super Tuesday

Nice to see PO functioning as always! I peek in from time to time but have my full of politics over here in Japan, where we are coming up on the one year mark since the quake and tsunami. Things are different here and the main national broadcaster, NHK, carries lots of live broadcasts of the diet proceedings on regular channels without need for a subscription. Yep, anybody with a TV can watch the politicians in their tragic/comedy! What a show! Can only imagine that some C-SPAN programming has been interesting recently. Was the all-male discussion of religious freedom and contraception broadcast? Half the church-going population is female but they were not represented. What a hoot!

Then there was Rush, brought to an apology by a... a... a... woman!

Just wondering if you guys think there will be fallout from the Rush's most recent, yet ever more interesting, foot-in-mouth outbreak last week? Did he manage to turn lots of women away from the GOP?

How does Romney relate to Rush? Bain Capital holds a lot of interest in the radio station, doesn't it? Did George Will get it right? Or Frum?

I've mostly ignored it because it is nothing more than a well designed wedge issue aimed at firing up single, and largely dependent women about an emotional issue. Anyone with half a brain can see that if a right is fundamental, it ought to be provided directly by the government itself and not by the Catholic Church or any other employer. There have been newspaper articles that note Walmart provides a full month of birth control for $9 a month and many county clinics provide those along with condoms at minimal cost. Basically unless you are willing to knock on their door and hand it to them for free, you are at war with someone's vagina or uterus.

That said, there is massive hypocrisy that is also easy to expose. Bill Maher, the man who just gave Barack Obama's super-Pac a million dollar donation has called Sarah Palin both a tw*t and a c*nt. Those words are far more offensive and amazingly enough, the left isn't interested in a protest, apology or advertise boycott.

Intersting don't you think so?

The appropriate first question is whether it (free birth control products) is a "right" or not. This point must not be conceded without appropriate debate. This debate has been end-run. The left has jumped to the end and is begging the question on this point. I realize it is in the realm of heresy these days to say that you don't just get to declare something to be a right and then start demanding that everyone else fulfill that right to you...but that's the truth.

I agree with you completely. However first they have to stop marching on churches demanding their condoms and morning after pills. After they are marching on government buildings, then they can perhaps begin to question the appropriate role of government. Right now they aren't even in the right playing field.

Fair point.

Step one: Come in off the ledge.

Step two: Let's talk like adult human-beings...which begins with you not self-righteously and unilaterally declaring things rights and demanding I pay for them for you.

A nice article:

http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/05/men...-main-mostpop2

I'm really hoping that perhaps the Republicans can help themselves a bit by grabbing one of the non-Romney's for VP. Newt would clearly be a great asset and choice for that bulldog role.

WashingtonTimes.com


Why is no one else in the field hitting incredibly concise homerun's like this?

What powers does the President have that you disapprove of?

As for VP, I don't think Newt is a good idea, but for other reasons. The GOP has an image problem, particularly with younger voters and hispanics. The best choice would be Rubio. He'd pick off some of the hispanics, younger voters and staunch conservatives. I also wouldn't mind seeing Paul Ryan. Santorum is a nut job, and I don't think Paul would accept.

Oh dear God. We don't have enough time or space. Let's just say WAY TOO MANY. The federal government has commandeered WAY TOO MANY powers for itself and the president has become way too powerful over time.

I don't need a comprehensive list. I'm just asking for some "big ones" that you don't like. I agree the feds have too much power...I'm just asking about the President.

Top of the list would be the power to wage war apparently at will now. Next on the list is the newly claimed power to order the murder or US citizens (or really anyone for that matter). I'd also add the executive orders get greatly abused and probably should be curtailed. Signing statements are also bad.

That's why we have the War Powers Resolution, though Obama apparently doesn't care much about that. For long operations, a congressional resolution is just as good as a declaration of war.


Yeah, that's one I'm not sure about. There are arguments for and against.


Examples?


That I agree with completely (as in they are bad).

Not sure about?!?! Oh dear.


How about this one: Should the President of the United States have the power to use the military to stop a state from seceding from the union?

The GOP has an image problem because they have an articulation problem. The very type of voters most Hispanics happen to be are CATHOLIC voters. Newt as a converted Catholic understands this. Santorum is Catholic as well (no real WASPs in this race and that should and would be news if it were Democrats.)

I understand that Rubio hits both those points, and certainly wouldn't be opposed to him being on the ticket. However the point remains that no one out there is making these arguments and counter-arguments clear like Newt does. Santorum's stuck talking about his emotional reactions to speeches and various people for goodness sakes. Newt hit the contraception issue, knew what it was exactly about in the actual debate when ol George was teeing this bit up. He countered it perfectly then and the point is why the hell hasn't it still been properly addressed by everyone else who should be on the same page but can't seem to wrap their heads around it when Newt killed it dead on day one.


True but the first thing someone needs to be able to do is sign the orders to open up use and then they can begin reversing problems and issues. Newt talks about this stuff as day one executive orders. Basically using the pen to tell the government to stand down in dozens of ways. Then when people can get the boots off their necks, they can stand up and help demand their rights back.

Adding supply to an oil addiction is the opposite of progress, and history shows that it does nothing to reduce retail fuel prices. We need to get off oil. We need to do it now.

And "addiction to oil?" And "history shows" what you claim? How does history show that? Show us.



Because you say so?


There's nothing wrong with this wonderful, amazing, life-saving resource called oil...and we should continue using it and trying to find more of it.

Geez.

Supply and demand are just made up Republican bullshit when we can post empty platitudes and think in bumper sticker slogans.

You're kidding right? There's plenty wrong with it. Causes deadly pollution. Limited supply. Bad economy.

And yes, every time supply has increased, prices have gone down? Has this ever happened? If you think that increasing the supply will reduce prices, you really haven't been paying attention.

OK. Maybe not nothing wrong. But the good far outweighs the bad. If you can't see this, I'm not sure what I can do to convince you.



Ummm...oh geez. I can't believe...really...is your analysis this simplistic?

There are two sides of the pricing equation: Supply AND Demand. You do realize this right? OK. Assuming you do. If supply goes up and prices don't go down (which, BTW, I'm granting you since you have not shown this), what is a possible explanation for this phenomena?

Please tell me in modern history, when have prices for oil ever gone down significantly due to added supply.

Retail prices for oil are controlled. Add supply, and it just increases the oil companies' profits. You and I don't see any of it.

I would suggest you look at the prices of natural gas as a very contemporary example. As for the price of oil being controlled. It is controlled by many things including federal refusal to allow transportation of it, drilling for it, and exploration and use of it.

Newt is a non-starter. He's an old, pudgy white guy who has high personal negatives, low support among women and minorities, etc. Being smart and making great arguments just isn't enough.

This is a gross misunderstanding of the oil market. Supply is the answer to lower prices. You asked for an example...fair enough. A number of years ago, gas was in the $1.30 range. We went into the winter months expecting normal demand for things like heating oil. However, the winter was very mild, reducing demand and causing a glut of supply. Gasoline/oil prices dropped to by 30-40 percent. Over-supply was the reason.

Retail prices are controlled by what the oil companies expect to pay for oil in the future. Rising and falling crude oil prices have a dramatic effect. For example: Big Oil, Inc buys X number of barrels at $80 per. The price starts going up, causing them to raise gas prices. So, they now are selling $80 oil for $100, which is results in more profit. However, when the price is falling, they are lowering their prices. This means they are selling that $80 oil for $70 or less. This is why the price doesn't come down as quickly as it goes up...they'd lose their shirts if it did.

Either way, supply is the answer. Conservation...while an important component...simply doesn't work alone.

SDW2001, now he's got you doing his home work.

He made the claim (prices haven't ever gone down when supply has increased), make him back it up.

Furthermore, he's completely ignoring demand.

He's ignorant (willful or otherwise) of basic economics. The extent of his economic understanding appears to be that if he thinks something is true, it is; or if he wishes something to be so, it will be so.

Probably true. He just claimed in another thread that most of Obama's $5 Trillion debt was "Bush's credit card bill."

We all know that since the repubs took centre stage Obama's job approval rating have in effect skyrocketed. Gallup had Obama at approve 38% and disapprove 55%. But with Cain's 999 plan, Perry's Palinesque nervous fumbling and forgetfulness and an all out hate fest since, Obama has clearly benefited. His job approval now stands at, approve 48% and disapprove just 45%. Yes, he's creating jobs and rejuvenating the economy the way many expect of Democratic presidents, but clearly his rivals are inadvertently helping him too.

If that wasn't good enough for Obama, it turns out the fight Romney is engaged in is so expensive, he's having to close shop all across America. Meanwhile Obama expands and brings it on like never before.

From the Guardian- (I highly recommend reading this article whichever side of the fence your from)

"A Guardian survey of the activities of the Obama re-election campaign, based on data posted to BarackObama.com, reveals 4,200 election events between now and June. Such an aggressive launch of a presidential election campaign so early in the cycle is unprecedented and threatens to leave the eventual Republican nominee far behind in terms of its grassroots organisation.

The problem that Romney faces as the Republican nomination drags on is underlined in Florida. The sunshine state is considered by many political analysts to be the ultimate battleground state, with 29 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

Here, the Obama re-election campaign already has 22 offices firing on all cylinders. Some opened as long ago as early 2009, four as recently as last Saturday. Between them, they claim to have put together 6,500 training sessions, planning sessions, house parties and phone banks. Events are being staged across Florida at a rate of up to 30 a day.

Romney until recently had three offices in Florida, all directed to his primary battle against Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. Yet despite the fact that no Republican has won the White House while losing Florida since Calvin Coolidge in 1924, Romney closed all three offices after the January 31 primary.

Calls to the main number of Romney's Florida headquarters are sent to voicemail; the mailbox is full and will not accept further messages."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ember-election

You actually believe that don't you.

I've posted here before some of the reasons why this happens. In brief now I'll simply state the main underlying principle that enables it. The dems get prosperity to the masses, the repubs extract prosperity from the masses and concentrate it more heavily in the hands of a few. That wealth gets spent in the hands of a typical American. In the hands of the typical wealthy elite it gets tucked away in some stock. The dems effectively use our wealth to create jobs, not numbers on a piece of paper.

Here's the history-

Annual
Job
Growth………Party……………President
8.8%………….Democratic…….Roosevelt (1939-war)
3.5%…………..Democratic…….Johnson
3.3%…………..Democratic…….Carter
2.6%…………..Democratic…….Clinton
2.6%…………..Democratic…….Roosevelt (wartime)
2.4%…………..Democratic…….Truman
2.3%…………..Republican.…….Reagan
2.1%…………..Republican……..Nixon
2.1% …………..Democratic…….Kennedy
0.8%…………..Republican…….Ford
0.5%…………..Republican…….Eisenhower
0.4%…………..Republican…….Bush II
0.4%…………..Republican…….Bush I
~ http://www.laprogressive.com/who-cre...presidents-do/