Inauguration of our President

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    Classic.  Dem POTUS, its congress.  GOP POTUS, its POTUS.  Nyah nyah!

      Right. It's all Obama's fault when House Republicans have the power to block a bill if they want.It's all Obama's fault that House Republicans refuse to pass a bill that extends the payroll tax cut

    Just another lying dumb@ss conservative (.....who thinks he's funny even though he's the only one laughing at his jokes?)   Sad sad sad.  

    Seriously. Stick to other things. Cat juggling has wiped out far too many brain cells.

     



    Just like it's repubs fault when they have sent numerous budget bills to the senate and the senate has yet to do anything towards a budget the last 4 years??

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    I think jmel somehow utterly missed the boat.


    All these politicians making statements about WMDs in Iraq? They're making these because the administration is telling them that based on what the agencies were telling the administration.


    If I'm a congressman, and the President says "I have proof Iraq has WMDs," I couldn't dial up the CIA and get all the intelligence even if I wanted to.

     

    The fact that Democrats voted for the war is completely f**king irrelevant if their vote was bought with sh!tty intelligence.

    It was a war of choice, fought for the wrong reasons, and f**ked up so massively by the administration that it's just downright pathetic watching you try to blame Dems.

     



     

    1.     "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    Quoted on CNN

    2.     "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    Quoted on CNN

    3.     Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio — from USIA

    4.     "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

    Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio — From USIA

    5.     "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

    See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others

    6.     "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi — House of Representatives website

    "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

     

    I've always said BOTH sides are to blame. 

     




     

     

    Clinton was wrong also. Iraq wasn't a national security threat to us or our allies.

    Rather, Saddam was a threat to his people and surrounding arab countries. Iraq was a multi-faceted seat of genocide and attempted genocide run by a meglomaniac mass murderer. I would have far fewer gripes with the war if:

    1. It was argued and its merits were judged on what they were: A humanitarian mission. An intervention. (Nevermind that we were far too late for the Kurds, by and large); more importantly

    2. If it wasn't f**ked up so massively by the complete failure to consider the need to provide basic security in a country whose  entire governmental apparatus just vanished. Starting with not dissolving the entire Iraqi army and turning 400,000+ pissed off people with weapons loose.

    3. We didn't cut taxes then launch a war of choice. Taxes should have been raised before such a war of choice.

     

    Instead, votes were bought with the WMD line, which proved to be false. Saddam used to have WMDs, yes, but we were two decades too late to stop his use of them.

    And, as noted, the Bush administration utterly blew it from the get-go.

     



    Nice revisionist history.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    No, there are a lot of important issues; but without a vibrant economy the other issues play second fiddle because government can't afford them.  Unless you can pay the bill you can't do it.

     



    Re: the environment...the government cannot afford NOT to pursue alternative energy strategies.  Point of fact, they are already doing this on the military side.  They're not waiting.  And concerning our outdated, inefficient grid, that bill will come due sooner or later - the longer we wait, the more it will cost.

    Re: immigration...same freakin' thing.  The current system is way too inefficient and arbitrary and puts too many good, hard-working people at risk.  A stable workforce will contribute to a stable economy.

    It's still not clear what you want congress or potus to do about jobs.  A service/consumer economy like ours is based upon demand for services and products.  Without demand, these businesses can't grow.  Environmental/energy and immigration issues create demand for products people will need.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

    No, there are a lot of important issues; but without a vibrant economy the other issues play second fiddle because government can't afford them.  Unless you can pay the bill you can't do it.

     

     



    Re: the environment...the government cannot afford NOT to pursue alternative energy strategies.  Point of fact, they are already doing this on the military side.  They're not waiting.  And concerning our outdated, inefficient grid, that bill will come due sooner or later - the longer we wait, the more it will cost.

     

    Re: immigration...same freakin' thing.  The current system is way too inefficient and arbitrary and puts too many good, hard-working people at risk.  A stable workforce will contribute to a stable economy.

    It's still not clear what you want congress or potus to do about jobs.  A service/consumer economy like ours is based upon demand for services and products.  Without demand, these businesses can't grow.  Environmental/energy and immigration issues create demand for products people will need.

     



    Yes for our defense we need relaible energy sources but then for defense the overriding issue isn't the cost its the reliability of operation and logistical control of supply.  This development will bleed over into our daily life when its cost effective; but we can't rush it with subsidies we can't afford.  It makes no sense to provide tax incentives for general consumption of electric cars like those subsiidies offered on the Volt and others.

    Immigration needs to be fixed and the second issue behind boarder control is work visa's for in demand skills, followed by severe penalties for employing undocumented workers.  Oh and no amnesty; if they get out and get back in line I wouldn't hold their prior illegal stay agaisnt them but no in country path to citizenship.

    For the eonomy; how about policies that support entreprenuership like tax policies that don't change all the time and then let's look at government over regulation.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    how about policies that support entreprenuership like tax policies that don't change all the time



    Well, if we had let tax rates just sit at the Clinton rates.....

     

     



    Clinton had the luxury of the peace tax; underfunded our military and left us unprepared for 911 and the dotcom play money growth was just that a funny money anomally that we paid for in 2001.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    Yes for our defense we need relaible energy sources but then for defense the overriding issue isn't the cost its the reliability of operation and logistical control of supply.  This development will bleed over into our daily life when its cost effective; but we can't rush it with subsidies we can't afford.  It makes no sense to provide tax incentives for general consumption of electric cars like those subsiidies offered on the Volt and others.

    Immigration needs to be fixed and the second issue behind boarder control is work visa's for in demand skills, followed by severe penalties for employing undocumented workers.  Oh and no amnesty; if they get out and get back in line I wouldn't hold their prior illegal stay agaisnt them but no in country path to citizenship.

    For the eonomy; how about policies that support entreprenuership like tax policies that don't change all the time and then let's look at government over regulation.

     


    Not sure what you mean about defense.  The military is going off the grid to save money by ignoring the retail utility market.  We've been handing out subsidies for oil and oil exploration for decades.  Renewables are a fraction of that, as are incentives for electric cars, which make sense from a carbon footprint perspective, because more electric cars on the road means less pollution which means healthier people and lower health costs.

    Do you know what "in-demand skills" are?  Sometimes it's picking fruit, cleaning hotels and babysitting rich brats.  The problem with visas is the process for getting them is so fraught with danger and bureaucracy.  Need to streamline the process NOW; give children of immigrants the path to citizenship, college and a better life; open up citizenship to competitive bidding...we'll let them in with paid admission at the door.

    Sorry, the "over-regulation" theme is a myth.  Businesses need customers and demand for their products.  What changing "tax policies" are you talking about?  Can you be just a tad more specific...?  

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Sorry, the "over-regulation" theme is a myth.  Businesses need customers and demand for their products.  What changing "tax policies" are you talking about?  Can you be just a tad more specific...?  

     [/QUOTE]

    Only seems like a myth if, you are not living it!

    http://www.sensibleregulations.org/resources/stop-the-tidal-wave-regulations/

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

    Yes for our defense we need relaible energy sources but then for defense the overriding issue isn't the cost its the reliability of operation and logistical control of supply.  This development will bleed over into our daily life when its cost effective; but we can't rush it with subsidies we can't afford.  It makes no sense to provide tax incentives for general consumption of electric cars like those subsiidies offered on the Volt and others.

    Immigration needs to be fixed and the second issue behind boarder control is work visa's for in demand skills, followed by severe penalties for employing undocumented workers.  Oh and no amnesty; if they get out and get back in line I wouldn't hold their prior illegal stay agaisnt them but no in country path to citizenship.

    For the eonomy; how about policies that support entreprenuership like tax policies that don't change all the time and then let's look at government over regulation.

     

     


    Not sure what you mean about defense.  The military is going off the grid to save money by ignoring the retail utility market.  We've been handing out subsidies for oil and oil exploration for decades.  Renewables are a fraction of that, as are incentives for electric cars, which make sense from a carbon footprint perspective, because more electric cars on the road means less pollution which means healthier people and lower health costs.

    Do you know what "in-demand skills" are?  Sometimes it's picking fruit, cleaning hotels and babysitting rich brats.  The problem with visas is the process for getting them is so fraught with danger and bureaucracy.  Need to streamline the process NOW; give children of immigrants the path to citizenship, college and a better life; open up citizenship to competitive bidding...we'll let them in with paid admission at the door.

    Sorry, the "over-regulation" theme is a myth.  Businesses need customers and demand for their products.  What changing "tax policies" are you talking about?  Can you be just a tad more specific...?  

     



    Do you know what "in-demand skills" are?  Sometimes it's picking fruit, cleaning hotels and babysitting rich brats.

    http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/01/22/nanny-pleads-not-guilty-charges-she-caused-death-year-old-her-care/Qkf9gLQXUJ6TqkGIFfs2iI/story.html

    Well there is one laocal family that wishes immigration laws were enforced.

     

    MEDFORD — A 34-year-old woman was accused today of fatally injuring a girl in her care on the child’s first birthday, but was defended by her attorney as a caring nanny who played no role in the “unspeakable tragedy’’ of the death of an innocent child.

     

    Aisling McCarthy Brady pleaded not guilty in Cambridge District Court to a charge of assault and battery, a charge that is expected to be upgraded to murder when the state medical examiner’s office completes its autopsy of the baby girl, according to Middlesex Assistant District Attorney Katherine Folger.

     

    Brady, who was in the prisoner’s dock in court today but hid herself from public view, was ordered held on $500,000 cash bail.

    This afternoon, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said Brady entered the United States from Dublin on Aug. 11, 2002, under an international agreement that allows visitors to stay in the United States for 90 days without a visa or other immigration documentation.

    Brady never left the United States since then, according to ICE. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    The same people protecting the low tax rate on capital gains are the same people whining about paying higher taxes.  Someone's got to pay and if you are going to protect the income of the idle rich, then you should expect to pay a higher income tax.

    Too funny JMEL.  Obama and the Dems are responsible for the bad economy and yet the Repubs and W hold no responsibility for invading Iraq.  Must be nice to live in a world where blame can always be assigned to someone else.



    More class warfare, and a complete i misunderstanding of who pays capital gains.  Some time spent understanding finances and economics would be beneficial to you.  In particular, focUs on what you need to do in order to have the privilege of paying 20% tax on your invesliked, annoying things like having to earn the money in the first place, then putting it at risk for between one and two years.  Heck, in that time you might lose your entire investment.

    but, let's focus on your "idle rich" class warfare.  Really meaningful.  Sigh.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Inauguration of our President

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Well there is one laocal family that wishes immigration laws were enforced.



     

    Man, you guys can sure go low.

     

    I mean...WOW

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ok then, let's see:

    Obama didn't order the feds to spend trillions of dollars to conduct a background check on all 300,000,000 persons in America, arrest all here illegally, build new jails to hold all 7-10 million of them, appoint lawyers to represent the ones who couldn't afford one (7-10 million), feed all 7-10 million of them/etc - all jail expenses, from initiation of immigration proceedings to resolution of appeal of federal circuit courts and denial of certiorari.


    And yes, if you add up the numbers, it would cost trillions.


    Should Obama have spend several trillion more to do this, thereby ensuring that this tragedy would not be available for conservatives to rape for political points on BDC?



    Don't get all high an mighty on me.

     

    The other story tied to the first.  So why was she still here?  She goes to court why wasn't here non legal status established then?  The ohter wowen involved in the altercation was illegal too, what is there a bar just for them?

    I know its not illegal to be illegal in Mass, too bad for the medford family that it wasn't.

    http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/01/22/nanny-expected-face-charges-baby-death-had-previous-legal-troubles/4yQZ7oKJfU5WSmANhZ8qHI/story.html

    Nanny expected to face charges in baby’s death had previous legal troubles

    The 34-year-old nanny who is expected to be charged with murder in the death of a baby in her care has had legal troubles before. Aisling McCarthy Brady has faced assault and battery charges and been the subject of two restraining orders, according to court documents.

    Brady allegedly assaulted Rehma Sabir, a 1-year-old from Cambridge who died last week. She was arraigned today on charges of assaulting the baby and ordered held on $500,000 cash bail. A prosecutor said she is expected to face a charge of murder once an autopsy is completed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share