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 29, 2008, 8:14 am CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: baeiouy

We never do have the "luxury of hundsight" when we need it, do we? However, if  the best that can be said is that President Bush et al. believed what turned out to be inaccurate or false information, should there not still be some accountability here?

 

So what you want is every time someone makes a poor decision that is in the course of the official duty is to impeach them?  Let's not look at that when this was decided by the President and the Congress they believed it was correct and the best thing to do for the USA.  All you care about is that it turned out to be wrong, hence impeach?  Wow, there is going to be a lot of impeaching going on then because things always turn out different then what is originally planned.

 

Sigh. What a long way we have come from "The Buck Stops Here."

 

You are right it has been a long way from that.  Seeing that people want to impeach elected officials.  Isnt that why we elect people, 2, 4 or 6 years?  That if they do something that we (as citizens of the US) dont agree with, we will elect someone else.  But, screw what has worked for years, I dont like you or what you think, so I want to impeach.  Brilliant plan.

Correct me if I am wrong, but were a lot of Congresspeople who voted in favor of the war not turned out of office in 2006? Haven't many of those who were the architects of this thing (Rumsfeld, eg), no longer serving? So from that standpoint, there already HAS been some accountabilty there -- our system works.

 

There are "poor decisions" based on bad data that "turn out different than what was originally planned" and "poor decisions" based on bad data wherein the "different turnout" is soldiers (and who really knows how many civilians) killed and wounded, a country that in many respects is WORSE off now than before, and an utter loss of credibility among our friends and allies.

 

The "Chief Decider" is still in office, is he not?  The day of reckoning for the executive branch may well come in November.

 

BTW, I actually said that impeaching at this stage was NOT workable. The other difficulty with impeachment is that it would have to be PROVEN that the President knowingly lied, that he KNEW the statements he was making were false. Your argument "All you care about...hence impeach." and "I don't like you ar what you think, so I want to impeach" would be better directed at the original poster.

 

Prof

 
January 29, 2008, 9:03 am CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: profmaryann

Correct me if I am wrong, but were a lot of Congresspeople who voted in favor of the war not turned out of office in 2006? Haven't many of those who were the architects of this thing (Rumsfeld, eg), no longer serving? So from that standpoint, there already HAS been some accountabilty there -- our system works.

 

There are "poor decisions" based on bad data that "turn out different than what was originally planned" and "poor decisions" based on bad data wherein the "different turnout" is soldiers (and who really knows how many civilians) killed and wounded, a country that in many respects is WORSE off now than before, and an utter loss of credibility among our friends and allies.

 

The "Chief Decider" is still in office, is he not?  The day of reckoning for the executive branch may well come in November.

 

BTW, I actually said that impeaching at this stage was NOT workable. The other difficulty with impeachment is that it would have to be PROVEN that the President knowingly lied, that he KNEW the statements he was making were false. Your argument "All you care about...hence impeach." and "I don't like you ar what you think, so I want to impeach" would be better directed at the original poster.

 

Prof

Correct me if I am wrong, but were a lot of Congresspeople who voted in favor of the war not turned out of office in 2006? Haven't many of those who were the architects of this thing (Rumsfeld, eg), no longer serving? So from that standpoint, there already HAS been some accountabilty there -- our system works.

 

Well no, most people in Congress that voted are still currently serving, seeing that only 1/3 of the Senate is up for an election at a time.  My point is that everyone at that time believed this was the correct thing to do, whether it is or not, it truly is beside the point.  Everyone saw the exact same data and believed it was true.  People dont just vote on something and not know what they are voting for, especially something as large and important as this.

 

There are "poor decisions" based on bad data that "turn out different than what was originally planned" and "poor decisions" based on bad data wherein the "different turnout" is soldiers (and who really knows how many civilians) killed and wounded, a country that in many respects is WORSE off now than before, and an utter loss of credibility among our friends and allies.

 

Once again you want to impeach because you dont like him and you dont like what he has done?  He has not done anything illegal, poor decisions yes, illegal not so much. 

 

Do you know anyone from Iraq?  Do you know anyone that has been over to Iraq?  It sounds like you are getting your information from the newspaper and not actually people that have been over there.  

 

BTW, I actually said that impeaching at this stage was NOT workable. The other difficulty with impeachment is that it would have to be PROVEN that the President knowingly lied, that he KNEW the statements he was making were false. Your argument "All you care about...hence impeach." and "I don't like you ar what you think, so I want to impeach" would be better directed at the original poster.

 

Okay, but impeaching or even talking about impeaching is truly ridiculous.

 

 
January 29, 2008, 9:45 am CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: baeiouy

Correct me if I am wrong, but were a lot of Congresspeople who voted in favor of the war not turned out of office in 2006? Haven't many of those who were the architects of this thing (Rumsfeld, eg), no longer serving? So from that standpoint, there already HAS been some accountabilty there -- our system works.

 

Well no, most people in Congress that voted are still currently serving, seeing that only 1/3 of the Senate is up for an election at a time.  My point is that everyone at that time believed this was the correct thing to do, whether it is or not, it truly is beside the point.  Everyone saw the exact same data and believed it was true.  People dont just vote on something and not know what they are voting for, especially something as large and important as this.

 

There are "poor decisions" based on bad data that "turn out different than what was originally planned" and "poor decisions" based on bad data wherein the "different turnout" is soldiers (and who really knows how many civilians) killed and wounded, a country that in many respects is WORSE off now than before, and an utter loss of credibility among our friends and allies.

 

Once again you want to impeach because you dont like him and you dont like what he has done?  He has not done anything illegal, poor decisions yes, illegal not so much. 

 

Do you know anyone from Iraq?  Do you know anyone that has been over to Iraq?  It sounds like you are getting your information from the newspaper and not actually people that have been over there.  

 

BTW, I actually said that impeaching at this stage was NOT workable. The other difficulty with impeachment is that it would have to be PROVEN that the President knowingly lied, that he KNEW the statements he was making were false. Your argument "All you care about...hence impeach." and "I don't like you ar what you think, so I want to impeach" would be better directed at the original poster.

 

Okay, but impeaching or even talking about impeaching is truly ridiculous.

 

"Well no, most people in Congress that voted are still currently serving, seeing that only 1/3 of the Senate is up for an election at a time."

 

Actually, all 435 members of the House were up for re-election, and that's where the shift occurred.

 

"People dont just vote on something and not know what they are voting for, especially something as large and important as this."

 

They most certainly do. It is called the "Federal Budget."

 

"Once again you want to impeach because you dont like him and you dont like what he has done?  He has not done anything illegal, poor decisions yes, illegal not so much." ...impeaching or even talking about impeaching is truly ridiculous."

 

Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

Do I like him? No. Do I like the mess that he has put this country in and he is, ultimately, responsible for? No. Has he made some gross (IMO) misjudgments? Absolutely. I just got through saying what criteria would have to be met for an impeachment to even be workable -- I am not enough of a legal expert (and neither are you, I daresay) to know whether that is the case. Somehow, "illegal not so much" isn't the sort of analysis that gives one confidence.

 

And no, that is NOT "ridiculous." Had the info in loretta24's original post come to light, say, a year earlier, wanna bet that a Democratic-controlled Congress would be wanting to rumble, if you will?

 

Prof

 

 
January 29, 2008, 10:14 am CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: profmaryann

"Well no, most people in Congress that voted are still currently serving, seeing that only 1/3 of the Senate is up for an election at a time."

 

Actually, all 435 members of the House were up for re-election, and that's where the shift occurred.

 

"People dont just vote on something and not know what they are voting for, especially something as large and important as this."

 

They most certainly do. It is called the "Federal Budget."

 

"Once again you want to impeach because you dont like him and you dont like what he has done?  He has not done anything illegal, poor decisions yes, illegal not so much." ...impeaching or even talking about impeaching is truly ridiculous."

 

Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

Do I like him? No. Do I like the mess that he has put this country in and he is, ultimately, responsible for? No. Has he made some gross (IMO) misjudgments? Absolutely. I just got through saying what criteria would have to be met for an impeachment to even be workable -- I am not enough of a legal expert (and neither are you, I daresay) to know whether that is the case. Somehow, "illegal not so much" isn't the sort of analysis that gives one confidence.

 

And no, that is NOT "ridiculous." Had the info in loretta24's original post come to light, say, a year earlier, wanna bet that a Democratic-controlled Congress would be wanting to rumble, if you will?

 

Prof

 

Actually, all 435 members of the House were up for re-election, and that's where the shift occurred.

 

Not all 435 have been replaced.  Quite a few are still in office.  Heck Nancy Pelosi has been in office since 1987.  There hasnt been a shift, the congressmen are just playing politics as usual in order to stay in office.

 

They most certainly do. It is called the "Federal Budget."

 

Well seeing that my agency doesnt have a budget yet for this fiscal year, which started in October, I would have to say that they pay attention to what is going on.  They also have a large staff that looks at things.  It is like saying that the Supreme Court Justices write all of their opinions.

 

Do I like him? No. Do I like the mess that he has put this country in and he is, ultimately, responsible for? No. Has he made some gross (IMO) misjudgments? Absolutely. I just got through saying what criteria would have to be met for an impeachment to even be workable -- I am not enough of a legal expert (and neither are you, I daresay) to know whether that is the case. Somehow, "illegal not so much" isn't the sort of analysis that gives one confidence.

 

You dont impeach because you dont like someone, which honestly is what it sounds like.  That is why only 2 presidents have ever been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and only 16 Federal Officers.  It is not easy nor something to take lightly.

 
January 29, 2008, 11:47 am CST

Oh for Pete's sake

Quote From: baeiouy

Actually, all 435 members of the House were up for re-election, and that's where the shift occurred.

 

Not all 435 have been replaced.  Quite a few are still in office.  Heck Nancy Pelosi has been in office since 1987.  There hasnt been a shift, the congressmen are just playing politics as usual in order to stay in office.

 

They most certainly do. It is called the "Federal Budget."

 

Well seeing that my agency doesnt have a budget yet for this fiscal year, which started in October, I would have to say that they pay attention to what is going on.  They also have a large staff that looks at things.  It is like saying that the Supreme Court Justices write all of their opinions.

 

Do I like him? No. Do I like the mess that he has put this country in and he is, ultimately, responsible for? No. Has he made some gross (IMO) misjudgments? Absolutely. I just got through saying what criteria would have to be met for an impeachment to even be workable -- I am not enough of a legal expert (and neither are you, I daresay) to know whether that is the case. Somehow, "illegal not so much" isn't the sort of analysis that gives one confidence.

 

You dont impeach because you dont like someone, which honestly is what it sounds like.  That is why only 2 presidents have ever been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and only 16 Federal Officers.  It is not easy nor something to take lightly.

IMPEACHMENT:   In my initial post I commented on impeachment and followed with a statement that I was just ranting.  Prof followed up and stated not enough time etc, I responded and indicated that I thought it would not be in the best interest of our country and made a comment about war crimes.  It is my belief that this administration has committed immoral if not illegal actions.

 

IMO, Bush and some of his administration were planning to go to war with Iraq prior to 9/11.  I am not the only person with this point of view, much has been written and researched.   Nothing can most likely ever be proved so the architects of the disaster called Iraq will never be held accountable for their actions.  I do not believe that Bush had faulty information, I believe he (or others in his administration) knowingly LIED to Congress and our country.  Again, this is opinion, mine and many others. 

 

Should Congress be held accountable?  Well I know that when I went to the polls I helped to vote my representative out.

 

I don't dislike Bush personally, don't know him personally.  I think that he has done a miserable job as president, I do believe that he knowingly and intentionally mislead and lied to the American people and yes, that really angers me.

 

And not that you asked me but yes I do know someone who not only served in Afghanistan but Iraq as well.  He stated to me that he understood and believed in what we were doing in Afghanistan but Iraq was just a bunch of political bull!@##.

 
January 29, 2008, 5:46 pm CST

Penny

Quote From: jahluvs

War on Scientology Link:

 

http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology

 

dang...they are serious!

Here is a link to some anons talking about the raid in London

 

http://digg.com/world_news/Raid_on_London_Scientology_HQ_planned_for_feb_10

 
January 29, 2008, 5:49 pm CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: jahluvs

Here is a link to some anons talking about the raid in London

 

http://digg.com/world_news/Raid_on_London_Scientology_HQ_planned_for_feb_10

You'll probably have to hit the "reply with quote" to copy the entire URL. The whole thing doesn't show up otherwise.
 
January 31, 2008, 8:43 am CST

News, Politics and Current Events

For those who feel that environmental/global warning issues are important when considering who to vote for here is a link to a chart on where the candidates stand.  My primary is coming up and I'm still one of those pesky "undecideds".   

 

Anyway here is the link:

www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html?source=liveearth 

 
January 31, 2008, 9:19 am CST

News, Politics and Current Events

I was wondering what are peoples main issues when they are looking at a candidate?

 

I have to say mine is illegal immigration.  It is truly scary that lack of knowledge people have on the subject and how poorly it is being covered by the newspapers.  I can not tell you how tired I am reading about how we dont want immigrants in the USA.  There is a huge difference between someone who comes here legally and ones that dont.

 

It also amazes me that lack of coverage on how much having illegals in the US cost the citizens/ LPRs of this country.  On average we are looking at between 2-5 billion dollars a year.  If we actually fix one issue, such as this, can you imagine how much money we could actually save and other issues can be helped too.

 

Not to mention how scary that we dont know who actually is in the US.  I was recently home and my mom was telling me about how this woman from Afghanistan came over to the US, became an overstay (hence illegal), ended up paying someone to marry her, to be legal in the US.  She was highly seek-ed out by both the FBI and CIA because of where she was from.  What happened is that she actually was sending secrets back to Afghanistan.  She of course is going to trial and most likely will be convicted.  Also, one of the people that flew into the Trade Towers started out as an illegal and then got a student visa. 

 

It is really scary that people just dont care about this issue.

 

 
January 31, 2008, 1:29 pm CST

News, Politics and Current Events

Quote From: baeiouy

I was wondering what are peoples main issues when they are looking at a candidate?

 

I have to say mine is illegal immigration.  It is truly scary that lack of knowledge people have on the subject and how poorly it is being covered by the newspapers.  I can not tell you how tired I am reading about how we dont want immigrants in the USA.  There is a huge difference between someone who comes here legally and ones that dont.

 

It also amazes me that lack of coverage on how much having illegals in the US cost the citizens/ LPRs of this country.  On average we are looking at between 2-5 billion dollars a year.  If we actually fix one issue, such as this, can you imagine how much money we could actually save and other issues can be helped too.

 

Not to mention how scary that we dont know who actually is in the US.  I was recently home and my mom was telling me about how this woman from Afghanistan came over to the US, became an overstay (hence illegal), ended up paying someone to marry her, to be legal in the US.  She was highly seek-ed out by both the FBI and CIA because of where she was from.  What happened is that she actually was sending secrets back to Afghanistan.  She of course is going to trial and most likely will be convicted.  Also, one of the people that flew into the Trade Towers started out as an illegal and then got a student visa. 

 

It is really scary that people just dont care about this issue.

 

Main issues?  I'm not sure I can point to any one issue but big ones for me are the environment, cleaning up the mess in Iraq (I don't how at this point we can pull out completely immediately), the economy and getting back on track financially (huge deficit needs to be cleaned up).

 

I wonder if immigration issues are covered more in border states.  I don't live in one but you are right, we hear very little in the press.  Our current situation needs to be fixed in my opinion.  If we allow those who are here illegally to become citizens it seems to be a huge slap in the face of those who have been going about it the right way.  I'm am not anti-immigrant but do feel that rules need to be followed and to award citizenship to those who went about it illegally is wrong.  Maybe the rules need to be changed, maybe not.  If you have any links to articles which address this issue I would be interested in reading.

 

We are a country of immigrants, at one time or another (unless you are a Native American) a member of our family tree was an immigrant.  I believe that they are important to our country but we do need much better control of our borders.

 

I'm not sure that people don't care about the issue as much as the fact that the press would rather make issue about really important stuff like Hillary tearing up and how Rudy's Florida strategy (heavy on the sarcasm).  I personally want to know more about the issues and less about the petty crap that goes on.   

 

 
First | Prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next | Last