Message Boards

Topic : News, Politics and Current Events

Number of Replies: 10264
New Messages This Week: 0
Last Reply On:
Created on : Wednesday, November 28, 2007, 05:18:57 pm
Author : pennylane_78
Please join us on the new News, Politics and Current Events message board: Click here

As of January, 2009, this message board will become "Read Only" and will be closed to further posting. Please join the NEW Dr. Phil Community to continue your discussions, personalize your message board experience, start a blog and meet new friends.

January 3, 2008, 6:21 pm CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: julie1418

Yeah...maybe I should be more concerned. I remember after W was elected the SECOND time, the British newspaper had a headline like "how could 60 million Americans be SO stupid?" That is exactly how I felt. I love how they sneered at Kerry's intellectualism as if that is a BAD quality to have in a leader!! Ugh!
Oh crap, Huckabee just won the Iowa Causus.
 
January 6, 2008, 7:27 am CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Last night was the first debate that I actually watched.  Now that the field is starting to shrink I figured that it was time for me to consider where to place my pretty insignificant primary vote.  I didn't bother to watch much of the Republicans argue with each other.  As a registered Democrat I don't get any say in who they put on the ballot.  Here's my analysis: 

 

I want to like Hillary, I really do.  The reasons, well first I would love to see a woman president.  I think that it is way past time in our supposedly advanced nation for a woman to lead.  I also think Hillary is an extremely intelligent person.  I think that she would do an amazing job leading this country.  And then last night she did it, the one thing that I can no longer stomach is the nasty, bitchy attack political BS that has been going on for too damn long.  She tried to attack Obama and lo and behold Edwards came and pushed her back down. 

 

Obama has a great platform, is well spoken and is another brilliant politician.  I like him, alot, but does he have enough foreign policy experience to deal with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. 

 

Then there is Edwards who wants to take on the big business machine and get corporate lobbyist's money out of Washington.  Great idea but is it possible?  Personally I think that the drug and insurance companies are much too involved in the back room deals but they won't go willingly.  Will Edwards be able to handle the foreign policy issues?  Does he have enough experience?

 

Richardson, the underdog last night.  I think that he and Hillary are the two candidates with the needed foreign policy experience but he is not going to make the cut.  Too bad because I think that he might have made a good president.  I like the fact that he stated last night his cabinet would be comprised of Dems and Reps.  I also liked the fact that he stated last night that he was glad Gore was not in the race.  He made me laugh which these days when listening to politicians rarely happens.

 

So who gets my vote?  Wish I knew.  Not happy that Hillary went on attack, bad move IMO.  Not happy that Obama and Edwards do not have more foreign policy experience.  Richardson, well, I don't see him prevailing in this race.  What I am really unhappy about is that Al Gore is not running.  He (IMO) won the presidency once before and I wonder how much better the world would be if were not for hanging chads.

 
January 6, 2008, 5:14 pm CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: loretta24

Last night was the first debate that I actually watched.  Now that the field is starting to shrink I figured that it was time for me to consider where to place my pretty insignificant primary vote.  I didn't bother to watch much of the Republicans argue with each other.  As a registered Democrat I don't get any say in who they put on the ballot.  Here's my analysis: 

 

I want to like Hillary, I really do.  The reasons, well first I would love to see a woman president.  I think that it is way past time in our supposedly advanced nation for a woman to lead.  I also think Hillary is an extremely intelligent person.  I think that she would do an amazing job leading this country.  And then last night she did it, the one thing that I can no longer stomach is the nasty, bitchy attack political BS that has been going on for too damn long.  She tried to attack Obama and lo and behold Edwards came and pushed her back down. 

 

Obama has a great platform, is well spoken and is another brilliant politician.  I like him, alot, but does he have enough foreign policy experience to deal with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. 

 

Then there is Edwards who wants to take on the big business machine and get corporate lobbyist's money out of Washington.  Great idea but is it possible?  Personally I think that the drug and insurance companies are much too involved in the back room deals but they won't go willingly.  Will Edwards be able to handle the foreign policy issues?  Does he have enough experience?

 

Richardson, the underdog last night.  I think that he and Hillary are the two candidates with the needed foreign policy experience but he is not going to make the cut.  Too bad because I think that he might have made a good president.  I like the fact that he stated last night his cabinet would be comprised of Dems and Reps.  I also liked the fact that he stated last night that he was glad Gore was not in the race.  He made me laugh which these days when listening to politicians rarely happens.

 

So who gets my vote?  Wish I knew.  Not happy that Hillary went on attack, bad move IMO.  Not happy that Obama and Edwards do not have more foreign policy experience.  Richardson, well, I don't see him prevailing in this race.  What I am really unhappy about is that Al Gore is not running.  He (IMO) won the presidency once before and I wonder how much better the world would be if were not for hanging chads.

Hi, Loretta!

 

Missed all the fa-la last night, as I was driving somewhere in peninsular FL during that time. LOL

 

I have the opposite problem. Worse, I can't stomach any of the Republican candidates worth a darn. I will likely find myself holding my nose as a cast my ballot on the 29th, regardless of whether it really counts come convention time. Ron Paul is this year's Perot within the Republican party, Huckabee scares the bejeebers outta me, who knows what Romney & McCain really stand for, and there's something about Guiliani's running essentially on 9-11 and simultaneous total lack of foreign policy knowledge/diplomacy that is unsettling.

 

Prof

 
January 7, 2008, 10:44 am CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: profmaryann

Hi, Loretta!

 

Missed all the fa-la last night, as I was driving somewhere in peninsular FL during that time. LOL

 

I have the opposite problem. Worse, I can't stomach any of the Republican candidates worth a darn. I will likely find myself holding my nose as a cast my ballot on the 29th, regardless of whether it really counts come convention time. Ron Paul is this year's Perot within the Republican party, Huckabee scares the bejeebers outta me, who knows what Romney & McCain really stand for, and there's something about Guiliani's running essentially on 9-11 and simultaneous total lack of foreign policy knowledge/diplomacy that is unsettling.

 

Prof

Unfortunately the Republican party (IMO) has drifted from what they used to stand for to the "Christian" party.  It used to be that you could count on the Dems to tax and spend and you could count on the Reps to cut taxes and social programs.  Now under Bush they cut taxes and spend and it seems that my grandkids will have to pay the price somewhere in the distant future.  My husband, a life long Rep. changed his affiliation in response to the Bush administration pandering to the religious right.

 

Anyway here are some of my feelings on what the Republicans have to offer.

 

Huckabee, run, do not walk from this man.  You should be scared, I should be scared, actually we should all be down right terrified about a future with another leader who feels that his religious beliefs belong in the White House. 

 

Romney, I am not as afraid of Mitt.  Maybe because he is a fellow New Englander, maybe because I think deep inside that he is one of the more liberal Republicans who sometimes changes his mind???  Don't think he could win because it seems that many evangelicals are afraid of Mormons.  Maybe that is why I'm not afraid because the extreme right wing is????

 

McCain, used to like him enough that if he had won the primary way back in 2000 he may of had my vote.  He has lost me because of his strong support of the whole Iraq mess.  Even with that though I think I would be okay with McCain.  He doesn't scare me and that might be a good sign.

 

Now dear Rudy, during his tenure in City Hall I was living not too far outside NYC.  Had a steady diet of all their news and before 9/11 he was not as popular as he would like to think.  To his credit he did a good job cleaning up the city but he was very heavy handed about it.  I would be concerned that he would use a similar approach to foreign policy and then we would really be in trouble.  Diplomacy is most likely not his strong point.  He did a great job leading the city during the aftermath of 9/11, he didn't sit it out in a safe bunker that is for sure.  But hopefully our country will not need a crisis leader which is what I think he would be good at.  Besides I really don't like the man's personality, gets on my nerves.

 

As for Ron Paul, I know absolutely nothing about the guy.  He has not received much press coverage which would led me to believe that he is the best candidate that they have. 

 

The other night my husband, a fiscal conservative and I, a social liberal, were discussing the upcoming election.  He told me that if the Republicans wage another religious war election that he wants to sell it all and move far away because this country will have strayed so far from what it stands for that it may be beyond hope.  While the likely hood of me ever agreeing to that is pretty slim I have to admit that he is right.

 
January 9, 2008, 11:35 am CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: loretta24

Unfortunately the Republican party (IMO) has drifted from what they used to stand for to the "Christian" party.  It used to be that you could count on the Dems to tax and spend and you could count on the Reps to cut taxes and social programs.  Now under Bush they cut taxes and spend and it seems that my grandkids will have to pay the price somewhere in the distant future.  My husband, a life long Rep. changed his affiliation in response to the Bush administration pandering to the religious right.

 

Anyway here are some of my feelings on what the Republicans have to offer.

 

Huckabee, run, do not walk from this man.  You should be scared, I should be scared, actually we should all be down right terrified about a future with another leader who feels that his religious beliefs belong in the White House. 

 

Romney, I am not as afraid of Mitt.  Maybe because he is a fellow New Englander, maybe because I think deep inside that he is one of the more liberal Republicans who sometimes changes his mind???  Don't think he could win because it seems that many evangelicals are afraid of Mormons.  Maybe that is why I'm not afraid because the extreme right wing is????

 

McCain, used to like him enough that if he had won the primary way back in 2000 he may of had my vote.  He has lost me because of his strong support of the whole Iraq mess.  Even with that though I think I would be okay with McCain.  He doesn't scare me and that might be a good sign.

 

Now dear Rudy, during his tenure in City Hall I was living not too far outside NYC.  Had a steady diet of all their news and before 9/11 he was not as popular as he would like to think.  To his credit he did a good job cleaning up the city but he was very heavy handed about it.  I would be concerned that he would use a similar approach to foreign policy and then we would really be in trouble.  Diplomacy is most likely not his strong point.  He did a great job leading the city during the aftermath of 9/11, he didn't sit it out in a safe bunker that is for sure.  But hopefully our country will not need a crisis leader which is what I think he would be good at.  Besides I really don't like the man's personality, gets on my nerves.

 

As for Ron Paul, I know absolutely nothing about the guy.  He has not received much press coverage which would led me to believe that he is the best candidate that they have. 

 

The other night my husband, a fiscal conservative and I, a social liberal, were discussing the upcoming election.  He told me that if the Republicans wage another religious war election that he wants to sell it all and move far away because this country will have strayed so far from what it stands for that it may be beyond hope.  While the likely hood of me ever agreeing to that is pretty slim I have to admit that he is right.

NOBODY saw the NH primary going the way it did, on either side.

 

So much for the media pundits trying to call this horse race too soon. hee-hee.

 

So now on the R side, Romney is back in the pack, having gone 0-for-2 so far. Huckabee will prob do well in SC & other Bible Belt states (NOT FL, though); Guiliani ahould pick up FL & a couple of the biggies. Mr. Paul seems to be going the "grass-roots organization" route (the national press hasn't given him the time of day); lots of his signs are around N FL. Although he claims to be closer to libertarian than straight Republican, he is VERY adamantly "pro-life," which is HARDLY consistent with most libertarian thinking. I think his website is www.ronpaul.com , if you want more info.

 

Again, another Falwell-Robertson sellout SCARES me -- if I wanted a theocracy, I'd live in Iran. Alas, IMO, the Rs may be setting up to do just what you (a social liberal) and I ( a fiscal conservative & social moderate) utterly dread -- wage another "holy war" election.

 

I now have less than 3 weeks to make up my mind. I'd better get that clothespin ready. LOL

 

Prof

 
January 10, 2008, 6:46 pm CST

Cool link

"Find your Candidate," courtesy of Minnesota Public Radio.

 

This brief questionnaire asks you your opinion on several key "hot-button" issues and askes you to rate how important each issue is to you. Based on those answers and their data, it will score how closely your positions match with those of the candidates. It isn't "fool-proof" -- it needs to take out those candidates who have withdrawn from the race, for instance. But still a "jumping-off" point to get more detailed info about the candidates.

 

 http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

 

Prof

 
January 11, 2008, 12:21 pm CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: profmaryann

See, mine surprised me in that I didn't have any that scored all that high -- Biden, Obama, H. Clinton, Richardson, & Dodd were all in the low-to-mid 30s, and Huckabee & McCain were under 20.

 

Go figure.

 

Prof

I wonder how they score it, my results were

 

all the Dems scored in the low to mid 40s

 

the only Reps that got out of the single digits were Guiliani (29), Paul (18) and Romney (13)

Huckabee came in at a whooping 4 with Thompson at 1!!!

 

I guess I know who I am not voting for, like they had a chance with me before!!!

 
January 11, 2008, 12:42 pm CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: loretta24

I wonder how they score it, my results were

 

all the Dems scored in the low to mid 40s

 

the only Reps that got out of the single digits were Guiliani (29), Paul (18) and Romney (13)

Huckabee came in at a whooping 4 with Thompson at 1!!!

 

I guess I know who I am not voting for, like they had a chance with me before!!!

Suuure they had a chance! NOT! LOL

 

I dare say it has something to do with how you rated the importance of certain issues. For me, none of the stuff listed is a "Make or break" issue, so nothing went all that high.

 

And our primary is the 29th. YIkes.

 

Prof

 
January 23, 2008, 3:26 pm CST

News, Politics and Current Events

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

WMD, al-Qaida links debunked
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

Media 'validation'
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/?GT1=10755

 

 

So I read this today and I must say I am soooo very pissed off.  Of course I knew this but it is about damn time that someone did a "study".  I would love to see a special prosecutor do a "special study" as well.  Our government held impeachment hearings against Clinton (who was an idiot to do what he did) but Bush can make "false statements" (when my kids do it I call it a lie) and get away with it!!!  Not only do I think that he should have been impeached long ago, I would think that if you attack another country unprovoked, being tried for war crimes might be appropriate.  Okay I am ranting but this just so ticks me off.

 
January 23, 2008, 6:56 pm CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: loretta24

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

WMD, al-Qaida links debunked
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

Media 'validation'
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists indeed, even some entire news organizations have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/?GT1=10755

 

 

So I read this today and I must say I am soooo very pissed off.  Of course I knew this but it is about damn time that someone did a "study".  I would love to see a special prosecutor do a "special study" as well.  Our government held impeachment hearings against Clinton (who was an idiot to do what he did) but Bush can make "false statements" (when my kids do it I call it a lie) and get away with it!!!  Not only do I think that he should have been impeached long ago, I would think that if you attack another country unprovoked, being tried for war crimes might be appropriate.  Okay I am ranting but this just so ticks me off.

This falls under the "Why am I NOT surprised??" category. They're not "lies," they're merely "false statements," "misstatements of fact," or some such.

 

If you get the current Newsweek (the one w/GWB on the cover), there's an excellent article about the "Decline and Fall of the Bush Presidency," the foreign policy "versions," and so on.

 

Trouble is, even if all the "special" everything could be assembled, it's doubtful that an impeachment could be held before Jan. '09. 

 

I trust you have your day-to-day countdown calendar. Loretta? LOL

 

Prof

 
First | Prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next | Last