Bush to veto pay raise for the troops. Merry Christmas!

[TheTalkingAsshole]

Whoa!!!! Lawyers support Dems over Repugs? Sources man, sources.

And the fact is, your president bush seems to disagree with you, that Saddam was not involved with 9/11. Don't you watch the news, or read the papers? WMD? Terrorist nation? All Bush lies.

If you want to post, at least get your act together on facts.

Before you jump all over someone's facts because he doesn't provide a source for every utterance, you might want to make sure he's wrong. In this case Gent is correct. This source should pretty much say it all.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=K01

A $391 MILLION advantage to Democrats in fund raising from lawyers since 1990, or 72% of giving to Dems. Any more questions about that?

And, it's kind of interesting that in your second paragraph you say "fact is" about something but don't provide a cite...since you were criticizing Gent for that very thing.

 

[naked gent]

Thanks for the support TA.

LaloGS while you're correct that after 9-11 Bush did suggest that Saddam had a hand in it he no longer makes that claim and has admitted in answer to a direct question that Saddam had no role.

As for the lawyers in addition to the link TA has so kindly provided while the republicans were in control of congress they pushed through tort reform which the lawyers were against.

You might consider that the party of big business might not look fondly on lawyers who enjoy nothing more than taking large corporations with their deep pockets into court and forcing them to defend their business practices.

My question for you is do you really think the current goverment in Iraq should be held responsible for the sins of Saddam?

 

[LaloGS]

Before you jump all over someone's facts because he doesn't provide a source for every utterance, you might want to make sure he's wrong. In this case Gent is correct. This source should pretty much say it all.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=K01

A $391 MILLION advantage to Democrats in fund raising from lawyers since 1990, or 72% of giving to Dems. Any more questions about that?

And, it's kind of interesting that in your second paragraph you say "fact is" about something but don't provide a cite...since you were criticizing Gent for that very thing.

There are thousands of sources regarding Bush's POV regarding Iraq. Probably some available every day on TV and newspapers. Bush is still saying that Iraq was a terrorist supporting state, and obviously still pushes this idea to protect his own butt. Too many sources to choose from, since the world knows Bush believes his own shit.

And, I didn't jump all over him, I merely thought it was a wild statement that Lawyers are more supportive of Dems, with no source. I think you'll see I only asked for sources. Thank you for the link, maybe lawyers give more money to Dems, because they see which way the Repugs are taking the country, and would like to see it come back under the rule of law instead of what we have since Bush took office.

 

[LaloGS]

Thanks for the support TA.

LaloGS while you're correct that after 9-11 Bush did suggest that Saddam had a hand in it he no longer makes that claim and has admitted in answer to a direct question that Saddam had no role.

As for the lawyers in addition to the link TA has so kindly provided while the republicans were in control of congress they pushed through tort reform which the lawyers were against.

You might consider that the party of big business might not look fondly on lawyers who enjoy nothing more than taking large corporations with their deep pockets into court and forcing them to defend their business practices.

My question for you is do you really think the current goverment in Iraq should be held responsible for the sins of Saddam?

Yeah, the Repugs took away our right to sue when we have been wronged to protect big business from law suits. Another blow against the people sponsored by Repugs. While I agree, there have been some stupid lawsuits against big corporations, I feel an intelligent judge or jury would see through them, and deal with them accordingly, but to take away the right to sue, from the people is just more corporate criminality as far as I'm concerned.

RE Iraq being responsible for crimes against anyone: Yes, I do believe they should be held responsible for those crimes. As I also believe Bush and company need to be held responsible for their crimes.

And I said above in the other post, this veto will only serve the purpose of further keeping the truth from the American people and the world. There are many ways this can be handled, but a pocket veto is not one of them.

The problem with Repugs is they are the party of big business, and not the party of the people. They are about eliteism, and money, they don't support the ideals outlined in the Constitution, and should be banned from political activity until they can prove they are for the people. We don't elect people to the White House to suck corporate tits. We elect them to serve the people. It's simple. Do the right thing, and the country will support you. Do the kind of crap Bush /Cheney have done, and there will be backlash, because most Americans are good decent people who have some sense of right and wrong. Bush/Cheney do not have any idea about right and wrong. They proceed from greed.

Maybe this is why Lawyers donate more money to Dems, because the want to see the rule of law restored in America.

 

[LaloGS]

OK. It wouldn't be the holidays without a "bash Bush" thread, so here ya' go ...

How'm I doin' Snapcat? I got out my big mallet today.

 

[snapcat]

How'm I doin' Snapcat? I got out my big mallet today.

You're doing just fine.

But I am surprised that you didn't know about lawyers leaning towards the Dems. Can we say John Edwards anyone?

 

[naked gent]

RE Iraq being responsible for crimes against anyone: Yes, I do believe they should be held responsible for those crimes. As I also believe Bush and company need to be held responsible for their crimes.

I don't have any objection to holding Bush responsible for his actions. I do have a problem with holding the current goverment in Baghdad responsible for the crimes of those that came before them. If the hanging of Saddam is not sufficient justice for his victims and a little gold will make it all OK then I can't say I hold a high opinion of them.

I don't wish to be held responsible for the actions of others (truth be told I don't much like being held responsible for my actions) so I'm not likely to punish others for that which they did not do.

We don't elect people to the White House to suck corporate tits. We elect them to serve the people.

I stopped trying to figure out why we elect people to the While House after the 04 election. Obviously the reason is over my head.

Maybe this is why Lawyers donate more money to Dems, because the want to see the rule of law restored in America.

When a particular line in a bill primarily benefits a single group in a financial manner I'm not likely to think their motives are patriotic.

What can I say I'm cursed with cynicism.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

There are thousands of sources regarding Bush's POV regarding Iraq. Probably some available every day on TV and newspapers. Bush is still saying that Iraq was a terrorist supporting state, and obviously still pushes this idea to protect his own butt. Too many sources to choose from, since the world knows Bush believes his own shit.

If there are so many damn sources it should be pretty easy to cite one. That's the lamest argument I've seen on here, and I've seen some lame ones, even made a few myself. You can't have it both ways when it comes to citing sources. Or could it be that you realize that you're wrong, and Bush's position has changed since '03 as was pointed out previously?

And, I didn't jump all over him, I merely thought it was a wild statement that Lawyers are more supportive of Dems, with no source. I think you'll see I only asked for sources.

You didn't jump all over him? You said: "Whoa!!!! Lawyers support Dems over Repugs? Sources man, sources....If you want to post, at least get your act together on facts." Sounds like jumping on him to me...and you were wrong. If you didn't know that Dems overwhelmingly receive lawyer's contributions then perhaps you should do a bit more research. And not only do they give more to Dems, but they are the biggest donors as a group to anyone. That's in my citation as well.

How'm I doin' Snapcat? I got out my big mallet today.

Oh yeah, you're doing swell. Took out that big mallet and proceeded to hit yourself with it. But you do a good job of highlighting "pugs" in your posts. You should be proud of that.

maybe lawyers give more money to Dems, because they see which way the Repugs are taking the country, and would like to see it come back under the rule of law instead of what we have since Bush took office.

When a particular line in a bill primarily benefits a single group in a financial manner I'm not likely to think their motives are patriotic.

What can I say I'm cursed with cynicism.

Yeah, Maybe that's why lawyers give to Dems. Follow the money. Goes for either party who gets a vast majority of the money from one industry/group.

 

[Yuki Sohma]

Does anyone think its a good idea to withdraw our troops and then send the lawyers in?

Me, me, me, me....................get our troops home today, right now, immediately------------& without fail-------------this war is not worth one more American's life.................heck, I am not even going to take time out to run spell check on this posting-------------there's no time to waste----pull every last American soldier, sailor, marine, airman, coastguardsman out

I wrote it bigggggggggg so maybe the folks in DC can see it..............Oh forget it I might as well be talking to DC comics, probably get more results


Yuki

 

[NickCole]

And could someone explain to me WTF Senator Lautenberg is talking about when he says the provision would allow "american victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable--plain and simple"

its neither plain nor simple.......what american victims is he talking about and which perpetrators have escaped the noose to be sued?

Sure. I can explain it to you.

It's about torture.

In the 1990s a group of 17 American POWs sued Saddam Hussein's regime for violating the Geneva Convention with their brutal treatment after they were captured during Bush I's Gulf War. Our POWs prevailed and a judged awarded them nearly a billion dollars. But that judgement came after Bush & Co invaded Iraq, Bush & Co opposed it and convinced a U.S. appeals court to throw out the verdict. When the American POWs tried to appeal that decision, the Supreme Court refused to hear their case. Some military and vets groups have been fighting for this for several years now, starting long before 9/11.

This is not about 9/11. This is about torture and the "sovereign immunity" of foreign countries and their leaders.

 

[LaloGS]

If there are so many damn sources it should be pretty easy to cite one. That's the lamest argument I've seen on here, and I've seen some lame ones, even made a few myself. You can't have it both ways when it comes to citing sources. Or could it be that you realize that you're wrong, and Bush's position has changed since '03 as was pointed out previously?



You didn't jump all over him? You said: "Whoa!!!! Lawyers support Dems over Repugs? Sources man, sources....If you want to post, at least get your act together on facts." Sounds like jumping on him to me...and you were wrong.Whoa, to clarify, simply means slow down, you've made a wild statement and haven't backed it up. I didn't say he was wrong, and after you posted your link, I recognized I was wrong in my thinking. The reason I was wrong, is this. I used to live and work in New York. I had a job in which I came into personal contact with a lot of Lawyers and some of them in high office. I found that most if not all of them were Pugs.. If you didn't know that Dems overwhelmingly receive lawyer's contributions then perhaps you should do a bit more research. And not only do they give more to Dems, but they are the biggest donors as a group to anyone. That's in my citation as well.Maybe they give because they have a lot of money and like to spread it around. I just wonder if the statement is true since Bush raised millions upon millions for his campaigns. Find a graph showing how corporate America and super rich CEOs supported Bush with money, and maybe we could see where the balance lies.

Well, I'd cite with video clips of the horse's ass spouting his lies, but I can't figure out how to post a video. You can't tell me you haven't seen them. And as far as him having changed his mind in 2003, if that's the case, then why hasn't he withdrawn the troops. People are dying hourly in Iraq. The man destroyed the country's infrastructure, its leader, and government and has tried to replace it with a government of people who obviously hate each other, and don't trust us as far as they could throw us. He's failed to reconstruct the destroyed infrastructure, he's failed to stop the internal violence except by saturation occupation (I have friends working in Iraq, and they tell me the safe areas are only safe as long there are troops present and often not even then). He's failed to secure any oil which is why he went into Iraq in the first place, (Remember Wolfewitz telling Congress that Iraqi oil would pay for the war? Well it hasn't, and the cost is coming out of your and my pockets along with every other tax paying American) and he most likely never will secure it, because he has unleashed a terrorist resistance to anything the US ever wants in the region, that will never end.


Oh yeah, you're doing swell. Took out that big mallet and proceeded to hit yourself with it. But you do a good job of highlighting "pugs" in your posts. You should be proud of that.

Yeah, because Pugs that still support him and the Neocon policies are anti American and dangerous people.


Yeah, Maybe that's why lawyers give to Dems. Follow the money. Goes for either party who gets a vast majority of the money from one industry/group.

Seems I remember Bush raised more money for both of his campaigns than any Democrat did. Where did all that cash come from? Enron fuckers and people like them. Yeah, poor Bushie's criminal supporters. No wonder lawyers give more to Dems.

And I don't live in my country anymore, because I can't stand the idea of living in a police state. You may not know it, but I live in Colombia now and have for several years since Bush stole the office. I believe there are bad Dems as well, not the least of who were already in office in 2000 who didn't bother to speak up over Florida, New Mexico, and Ohio voting problems. The same kind of shit happened in 2004, and no Dems in power spoke up, so yeah, there are a lot of those assholes that should go and quickly.

Since I don't get complete newspapers and only get selected stories via the internet or TV, yeah, I have to admit I don't see every poll that's done. I just don't see everything out there pro or con. What I do see from this distance, is that Bush/Cheney have fucked over the countries of Afghanistan, Iraq, and America and it's beginning to look like Pakistan as well. Why there hasn't been impeachment charges brought is unbelievable. I blame the Dems for that as well. These people in the Bush administration have lied (WMDs, Terrorist state, etc.) stolen, (Non competitive contracts for massive amounts of money to Halliburton) and have repeatedly ignored the will of the people even in the face of more than 2/3 of the country wishing they were gone, and yet, they are still in office, doing severe damage to America's international reputation and moral standing.

Further, this administration has spent and borrowed the country into a massive debt because of Bush/Cheney policies, and yet they remain in office without challenge except for the people's growing concerns. Washington exists in a frozen place in time and space. All of our political leaders seem incapable of leading.

And the economy is beginning to suffer with people losing their homes, and jobs, and the cost of living has been impacted by the collapsing dollar so yeah, this is a great president, just like Ronald Reagan with his trickle down economy It shows exactly how concerned about the average American family these Neocon assholes are.

 

[Yuki Sohma]

they are still in office, doing severe damage to America's international reputation and moral standing.

& that is a shame...............

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

And I don't live in my country anymore, because I can't stand the idea of living in a police state. You may not know it, but I live in Colombia now and have for several years since Bush stole the office. I believe there are bad Dems as well, not the least of who were already in office in 2000 who didn't bother to speak up over Florida, New Mexico, and Ohio voting problems. The same kind of shit happened in 2004, and no Dems in power spoke up, so yeah, there are a lot of those assholes that should go and quickly.

Well, I for one am glad that you're gone, because you have no understanding of American politics and certainly no understanding of our government. No Democrats bothered to speak up over Florida? Are you serious? Were you here at the time? Not only did everyone speak up about it, but the courts got involved, including the Supreme Court. And you wanted them to speak up over New Mexico...where GORE won, by around 500 votes? He may have lost NM with a recount. As for Ohio, it was decided by 117K votes, or more than 3%, so it wasn't even an issue.

Since I don't get complete newspapers and only get selected stories via the internet or TV, yeah, I have to admit I don't see every poll that's done. I just don't see everything out there pro or con. What I do see from this distance, is that Bush/Cheney have fucked over the countries of Afghanistan, Iraq, and America and it's beginning to look like Pakistan as well. Why there hasn't been impeachment charges brought is unbelievable. I blame the Dems for that as well. These people in the Bush administration have lied (WMDs, Terrorist state, etc.) stolen, (Non competitive contracts for massive amounts of money to Halliburton) and have repeatedly ignored the will of the people even in the face of more than 2/3 of the country wishing they were gone, and yet, they are still in office, doing severe damage to America's international reputation and moral standing.

How has Bush "fucked over" Afghanistan as you so eloquently put it? You do realize what the government of Afghanistan was like before 2001, don't you?
The Taliban was in the midst of destroying any non Muslim artifacts though it's dictatorial rule and overt support of al qaeda.

And how does it "look like Pakistan as well"? You do realize that Pakistan existed before 2001, right? Musharraf was President before Bush took office. Bhutto was deposed twice before Bush took office and her father was executed before Reagan was President. They have had a long standing conflict with India over Kashmir and they were under British rule until the 1940s. So, as much as Americans (and supposedly ex patriot Americans) have no long term memory in international and domestic affairs, the fact is that Pakistan has long faced internal and external problems.

 

[LaloGS]

Yes, yes, and yes again. I do try to follow US politics closely. I also try to follow world politics just as closely. And I'd bet I have better news sources here in Colombia than you do in the US. We get cable news channels from America, Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Colombia, Argentina, South Africa, and Singapore, and there is a lot of divided opinion around the world about what we see being broadcast in the US. Since most of these news sources are supposed to be America's allies, one would think they would just agree with everything Bush/Cheney does, but surprisingly they don't, because they often talk about how things in America have gone off track. The Bush/Cheney concept of democracy is flawed, and reads more like Adolf Hitler's than Thomas Jefferson's. So even if they could instil democratic principals in Iraq and Afghanistan it would not be recognizable to an American as democracy.

And what is happening in Pakistan is directly related to this administration's meddling in internal politics of that country. Karzi in Afghanistan, is a Bush Puppet, and was appointed essentially by Cheney with whom he worked at Halliburton. There is a sick and evil plan being implemented by this administration and Pakistan is at the effect of it as I type. History will bear me out when the story of this time period is written.

I vote an absentee ballot in every election. And I don't think I'm blinded by party agendas for either party. I do admit I've come to mistrust the lying Repugs, and their agenda for police state control of the US population. I'm also not enthralled with their handling of anything remotely considered a threat or disaster. Their incompetence is staggering.

And not every Democrat running is saying or willing to do the right things either, but even the lowest candidate in the Democratic party is speaking more truth than any of the GOP candidates. The GOP and the party controllers, the Neocons, want status quo, but they aren't going to get it hopefully, because status quo will place America on the ropes.

So if you think more of same for the next 5 years is good, then I pity you. If we give the Neocons more of same, our freedoms will be totally gone by the end of that time. The FBI is spending a billion dollars creating a biodatabase on everybody in the country. This is leading up to a national ID card with GPS tracking ability according to their own documents (I posted about this in another thread here with source.) If you think even for a minute this is being done to protect you and your lifestyle, you'd better think again. Neonazis are among us, and they have an agenda that you should be afraid of as a gay man. How can you support an agenda that does nothing but take away more and more of your human rights, and deny you a place in the society as a first class citizen?
What have you and I done to deserve that?

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

Since I don't get complete newspapers and only get selected stories via the internet or TV, yeah, I have to admit I don't see every poll that's done. I just don't see everything out there pro or con.

I'd bet I have better news sources here in Colombia than you do in the US.

Make up your mind. At least if you're going to totally contradict yourself do it in entirely separate threads instead of back to back posts. Since I can't believe/trust anything you have to say I just stopped reading at that point. I'm pretty much at the point of being done with you. There are many others on here who I disagree with, but most of them make coherent points, which make for interesting reading. I can't say that in your case.

 

[LaloGS]

Make up your mind. At least if you're going to totally contradict yourself do it in entirely separate threads instead of back to back posts. Since I can't believe/trust anything you have to say I just stopped reading at that point. I'm pretty much at the point of being done with you. There are many others on here who I disagree with, but most of them make coherent points, which make for interesting reading. I can't say that in your case.

Yeah you would. It's the mark of Repug followers to look for reasons to disagree. Since my POV doesn't impress you, we might as well call it quits.

As to your two extrapolations from my previous post, can you explain how they are contradictory to me? I don't see it. What I said was I don't see US newspapers down here, but I do get a lot of world news from cable TV programs from around the world. Which having lived in the US for most of my 63 years, I know for a fact that you don't. In order to see and hear the news I do, you'd have to be searching the Internet constantly to see and hear what I see on a daily basis. News media in the US is extremely limited. You know it and I know it.

I also admitted that this may preclude me from seeing every little tidbit story published in US media. Sorry I confused you.

BTW, who asked you to believe me? The stuff I write is just my POV. I don't ask or even think that anyone should believe me. Since I learned a long time ago that we all tend to believe what we choose to believe, and it is an extremely rare occurrence that one POV can change anther POV.
Good luck with your POV.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

As to your two extrapolations from my previous post, can you explain how they are contradictory to me? I don't see it. What I said was I don't see US newspapers down here, but I do get a lot of world news from cable TV programs from around the world. Which having lived in the US for most of my 63 years, I know for a fact that you don't. In order to see and hear the news I do, you'd have to be searching the Internet constantly to see and hear what I see on a daily basis. News media in the US is extremely limited. You know it and I know it.

I also admitted that this may preclude me from seeing every little tidbit story published in US media. Sorry I confused you.

No, you said:

Since I don't get complete newspapers and only get selected stories via the internet or TV, yeah, I have to admit I don't see every poll that's done. I just don't see everything out there pro or con.

You didn't say that only about US papers. In a later post you said you get a lot of cable channels from elsewhere. I know consistency is not your strong suit, so I'll help you out from time to time. And...you're 63? My god, I would have thought it would be about 16, considering your use of "Repug" and the highlighting thereof. The must get you all giddy every time you get to do that. Well, whatever makes an old man feel good, and relevent.

BTW, who asked you to believe me? The stuff I write is just my POV. I don't ask or even think that anyone should believe me. Since I learned a long time ago that we all tend to believe what we choose to believe, and it is an extremely rare occurrence that one POV can change anther POV.
Good luck with your POV.

Right, it's your opinion, so don't make demands of others saying "sources, man, sources" and then provide none yourself. Don't say "fact is" and provide no facts. Or at least don't do it but at the same time expect others to do it. I would think that after 63 years you would have learned some of these things, but we in the younger generations don't mind pointing the errors of your ways.

 

[smelter]

I would think that after 63 years you would have learned some of these things, but we in the younger generations don't mind pointing the errors of your ways.

Don't Blink TTA! I'm also 63 and life goes a lot faster than you might think!

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

I wasn't trying to disparage all of the elderly on here, just thought I'd try that as an excuse for him, rather than the less flattering, more likely scenarios.

 

[Kulindahr]

1. The veto was stupid.

2. The White House has people who keep watch on legislation; they should have caught this sooner.

3. The real problem with the bill is COLAs. As they've been practiced since the start, they're a corrupt practice that rewards the high-income folks and barely help the lower-income ones.

4. As far as the line-item veto, Congress could take care of it from their end, if they wanted: both houses have the authority to set the rules for how they do business, and all they have to do is require that spending bills be on a single topic.