• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Signs of declining economic security

TheNextEra said:
Yes, but then Congress (you know the house that controls the purse and is GOP dominate) could defund ObamaCare if they REALLY wanted to. They don't. What does that say about the GOP?
Click to expand...

How could the house do that?
 
Boo Radley said:
You really have no idea what happened, do you? Bush had to used doubted intel, doubted by the CIA, to lead us to war. You really need to read up as it is quite far down the road for someone to not know this.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Nobody can have their head stuck so far in the sand that they didn't know about this. Including you.
George Tenet (CIA Chief) to President Bush about two weeks before the start of the war-"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk" (on weapons of mass destruction).

Doesn't sound very doubted by the CIA to me, being George Tenet ran the place. But to a liberal, I understand. Facts or truth don't mean anything.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL.

Nobody can have their head stuck so far in the sand that they didn't know about this. Including you.
George Tenet (CIA Chief) to President Bush about two weeks before the start of the war-"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk" (on weapons of mass destruction).

Doesn't sound very doubted by the CIA to me, being George Tenet ran the place. But to a liberal, I understand. Facts or truth don't mean anything.
Click to expand...

Read Tenets book. Even he says the slam dunk comment was about what the public would buy and not the intel. Read imperial hubris. Read up on how the torqued al Libi was doubted by the CIA, but his intel used by the president. Read how the CIA doubted everything from Chalibi and his heroes in error, but it was used by the president. Read up on however hone was warned concerning Curveball, but still he was used. Remove those three, and there is no invasion. And the CIA doubted them.

Now, I've been specific. Try to give a reasoned rebuttal.
 
Boo Radley said:
Read Tenets book. Even he says the slam dunk comment was about what the public would buy and not the intel. Read imperial hubris. Read up on how the torqued al Libi was doubted by the CIA, but his intel used by the president. Read how the CIA doubted everything from Chalibi and his heroes in error, but it was used by the president. Read up on however hone was warned concerning Curveball, but still he was used. Remove those three, and there is no invasion. And the CIA doubted them.

Now, I've been specific. Try to give a reasoned rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Lets see, when a wars at stake, "it's a slam dunk". When things get tough, well, "what the public would buy". Nope. No sell. His agency, his responsibility. He got it wrong. But you know what? Given the same circumstances, the same conditions I'd be willing to bet you and I would both make the same mistake he did. Where I would differ, after it was all said and done, I wouldn't make BS excuses about making the mistake. Telling the truth is the only acceptable way to respond to such an error. Not quibbling.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Lets see, when a wars at stake, "it's a slam dunk". When things get tough, well, "what the public would buy". Nope. No sell. His agency, his responsibility. He got it wrong. But you know what? Given the same circumstances, the same conditions I'd be willing to bet you and I would both make the same mistake he did. Where I would differ, after it was all said and done, I wouldn't make BS excuses about making the mistake. Telling the truth is the only acceptable way to respond to such an error. Not quibbling.
Click to expand...
So, you accept what you want to hear, but don't care to examine it further.

And no, I didn't want a needless war. If like Bush, I said "that's all you got!" I've have paused, re looked at what we had. I would not have been willing to overlook the doubts concerning the intel. And after Chalibis betrayal under Bush I, I'd have never let him play any role ever again.

So no. You're just making excuses.
 
Boo Radley said:
All politicians have lied, but that's not the point here. Here we know he did not lie about he'd do. He said he'd oppose Bush if he went outside the UN, and he did. This is merely a fact.
Click to expand...

What he did was vote in favor of authorizing the President to go to war. I'm not sure if the UN was part of his political sideshow after the fact or not because I don't think we were going through the UN for war approval to begin with and I'm to lazy to look it up.
Either way, just more Kerry nonsense. Bottom line, he voted yes. Then told lie after lie after lie about why he voted yes.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
What he did was vote in favor of authorizing the President to go to war. I'm not sure if the UN was part of his political sideshow after the fact or not because I don't think we were going through the UN for war approval to begin with and I'm to lazy to look it up.
Either way, just more Kerry nonsense. Bottom line, he voted yes. Then told lie after lie after lie about why he voted yes.
Click to expand...

He said it before he voted, made his intent clear, and did exactly what he sad he'd do. So, dance all you want, but in this narrow point, it is what it is.
 
minnie616 said:
yeah right...I mean wrong...there were no WMDs as reliable intelligence said there were none.

And even when the UN failed to find any WMDs President G W Bush dropped bombs on Iraq anyway as his personal vendetta.
Click to expand...

Even before 9/11 President GW Bush wanted control of Iraq and Iraq's oil fields.

Iraq: A War of Aggression. No WMDs, No Connection to Al Qaeda

<SNIP>
The March to War


Unable to find any WMD or connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, Bush never wavered in his march toward war. "From the very beginning," former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said on 60 Minutes, "there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'"


On September 15, 2001, in a meeting at Camp David, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested an attack on Iraq because he was deeply worried about the availability of "good targets in Afghanistan."

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz argued that war against Iraq might be "easier than against Afghanistan."

The 9-11 Commission Report noted that as early as September 20, 2001, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith suggested attacking Iraq in response to the 9/11 attacks. In late November 2001,

Bush instructed Rumsfeld to develop an Iraq war plan. "What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?," Bush asked. "What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret."


In his January 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush declared that countries like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea "constitute an axis of evil . . . These regimes pose a grave and growing danger . . . I will not wait on events, while dangers gather." As early as February 2002, the Bush administration took concrete steps to deploy military troops and assets into Iraq without advising Congress or seeking its approval.

By late March, Dick Cheney told his fellow Republicans that a decision had been made to invade Iraq. The same month, Bush poked his head into Condoleezza Rice’s office and said, “**** Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

<SNIP>
Click to expand...



Read more:

Iraq: A War of Aggression. No WMDs, No Connection to Al Qaeda | Global Research
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you accept what you want to hear, but don't care to examine it further.

And no, I didn't want a needless war. If like Bush, I said "that's all you got!" I've have paused, re looked at what we had. I would not have been willing to overlook the doubts concerning the intel. And after Chalibis betrayal under Bush I, I'd have never let him play any role ever again.

So no. You're just making excuses.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to reexamine when hard dates are involved. The clock stops for nothing. Tenet using what he had at the time, got it wrong. I have no doubt had he use of an accurate crystal ball he would have told Bush something else. Maybe the next time it looks like we might go to war, you will let our President use yours.
 
j-mac said:
Was this the change you liberal progressives were waiting for? Was this the plan? All this talk, and excuse making for a failed liberal agenda of bringing all boats down in the name of "fairness" is bull****! We are NOT better off with Obama in office! We are NOT recovering under his administration, because that was never the plan. We are in decline, ushered in, and sped up by this progressive trash in the WH for the purpose of bringing this country down, because he can't stand what our place in the world was.

Don't agree with me? I couldn't care less! IF all you want to do is attack, then do us all a favor and don't post in this thread. If you want to discuss the conclusion of the AP report, then I am listening.
Click to expand...

As I have posted elsewhere, the article linked in the OP is misleading. The lede isn't about current economic conditions, it's talking about what 4 out of 5 people face "at some point in their lives". So if they ever went without a job for a week or so they'd fall into this category.

Their claim of declining economic security isn't supported by the facts presented. Is it unusual that 4 out of 5 people faced economic insecurity at some point in their lives? I doubt it.

The poverty level is at 15% and falling. Since 1959 it has been above 11% and has been as high as 15% on a regular basis.

The middle class is shrinking, but they appear to be going to the upper class (defined as family income > $75,000), not declining into the lower class. This is probably partly due to demographics, the population has grown relatively older and more wealthy. Meanwhile, the proportion of families in the lower class category (< $25,000 family income) has not changed.

Pretty much in spite of government policy the economy is slowly improving.
 
Boo Radley said:
He said it before he voted, made his intent clear, and did exactly what he sad he'd do. So, dance all you want, but in this narrow point, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

No dance from me.

Kerry- War or No War?

War!
 
ItAin'tFree said:
There is nothing to reexamine when hard dates are involved. The clock stops for nothing. Tenet using what he had at the time, got it wrong. I have no doubt had he use of an accurate crystal ball he would have told Bush something else. Maybe the next time it looks like we might go to war, you will let our President use yours.
Click to expand...

No reason for a hard date. There was no imminent threat. You show yourself a fool for having hard dates to begin with. And no, Tenet didn't use anything. Bush did. Most of what was wrong came through Fieth, who according to the AG Inappropriately used intel. Again, the CIA doubted the big three I mentioned. Bush is the one who used the doubted intel. Not Tenet.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
No dance from me.

Kerry- War or No War?

War!
Click to expand...

Not the issue we're debating. ANd that was what they voted on. They voted on whether Bush could decide or not. There was no declaration of war.
 
Boo Radley said:
No reason for a hard date. There was no imminent threat. You show yourself a fool for having hard dates to begin with. And no, Tenet didn't use anything. Bush did. Most of what was wrong came through Fieth, who according to the AG Inappropriately used intel. Again, the CIA doubted the big three I mentioned. Bush is the one who used the doubted intel. Not Tenet.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how Tenet is not CIA?

Common sense says he was CIA. His title says he was CIA. His pay stub said CIA. The media says he was CIA. He said he was CIA. Congress said he was CIA.

But you don't seem to want to include him as CIA. I guess it makes the fairy tale you want told sound better.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not the issue we're debating. ANd that was what they voted on. They voted on whether Bush could decide or not. There was no declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Bush could decide or not decide what? That's right, War. Kerry voted for War. A no vote would have been against War.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Explain to me how Tenet is not CIA?

Common sense says he was CIA. His title says he was CIA. His pay stub said CIA. The media says he was CIA. He said he was CIA. Congress said he was CIA.

But you don't seem to want to include him as CIA. I guess it makes the fairy tale you want told sound better.
Click to expand...

Actually, he is not the intelligence personal, no. And he isn't the one who stood up for the doubted intel. That would be Feith. Absent the three I mentioned, there was no case.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Bush could decide or not decide what? That's right, War. Kerry voted for War. A no vote would have been against War.
Click to expand...

No. It was not a vote on war. That would require a declaration of war. The just voted to shirk their responsibility. Once it left them, it was all up to the decider. Criticize them for doing not doing their job, and I'm with you. But pretending they voted for war is just dishonest.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, he is not the intelligence personal, no. And he isn't the one who stood up for the doubted intel. That would be Feith. Absent the three I mentioned, there was no case.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference. Tenet was in charge of the CIA. He saw a lot of intel from a lot of people. He made the call as people at the top are required to do. He presented the case to the president as cut and dried. It may be fair to say he overstated his case. But regardless Bush acted on, as all presidents do, what their department heads tell them. Now if you want to fault Bush for being dumb enough to keep anyone on board that Clinton appointed, you'd have a solid point to make.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. It was not a vote on war. That would require a declaration of war. The just voted to shirk their responsibility. Once it left them, it was all up to the decider. Criticize them for doing not doing their job, and I'm with you. But pretending they voted for war is just dishonest.
Click to expand...

Nope. Bush couldn't do it without their approval. They gave it.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Makes no difference. Tenet was in charge of the CIA. He saw a lot of intel from a lot of people. He made the call as people at the top are required to do. He presented the case to the president as cut and dried. It may be fair to say he overstated his case. But regardless Bush acted on, as all presidents do, what their department heads tell them. Now if you want to fault Bush for being dumb enough to keep anyone on board that Clinton appointed, you'd have a solid point to make.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. Bush made the call.
 
TheNextEra said:
He also inherited Iraq, Guantanemo, Afghanistan, the job loss due to MANY reason, etc.

I like how you left those things out and Bush IS responsible for BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan as it was HIS choice for all of them as well as the spending and government increases. He also wasted time on flag burning amendments and anti-gay marriage amendments instead of focusing on the housing market as you claim. Sorry, but you cannot ignore those factors no matter how you want to spin everything on Clinton.

Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama have been lousy presidents. At least I can admit that, you cannot fathom anything being Bush's fault.
Click to expand...


All Presidents inherit some mass drama or economic fallout from the prior administration.

The constant blaming and lack of responsibility coming from this administration and those who support it is something that HASN'T happened. Not to this scale.

Now I'll lay blame where it's appropriate but you haven't made the case with your generic Bush blame.

We've ( me and other highly intelligent posters ) have already proven that the " WMD Lie " and " blood for oil " nonsense was a constructed false narrative with no factual basis.

AND we've ( me and other highly intelligent posters ) proven that the recession Obama inherited was due to Democrat policies, executive orders and corruption in the 90's.

You're rebut of what is basically just you saying " Nu-uuuhh" isn't enough to counter our facts.
 
j-mac said:
Was this the change you liberal progressives were waiting for? Was this the plan? All this talk, and excuse making for a failed liberal agenda of bringing all boats down in the name of "fairness" is bull****! We are NOT better off with Obama in office! We are NOT recovering under his administration, because that was never the plan. We are in decline, ushered in, and sped up by this progressive trash in the WH for the purpose of bringing this country down, because he can't stand what our place in the world was.

Don't agree with me? I couldn't care less! IF all you want to do is attack, then do us all a favor and don't post in this thread. If you want to discuss the conclusion of the AP report, then I am listening.
Click to expand...

Yes it was the plan.

If we cant all be middle class, upper middle class or rich then we can all be poor. It's only "fair" right?

What these progressives are doing is attempting to dictate the economy, hence the standard of living, hence the individual.

Progressives are evil, they're nightmares, they're the monsters you see in horror movies - I'm not just saying that either - I don't even view them as humans.

They should be used as lab rats for experimental drugs - oh yeah they are - they love that flu vaccine....
 
Fenton said:
We've ( me and other highly intelligent posters ) have already proven that the " WMD Lie " and " blood for oil " nonsense was a constructed false narrative with no factual basis.
Click to expand...

Not really. Heck, you're not even close. Hindsight has shown that there was considerable action taken by members of the Bush Administration (VP Cheney, Scooter Libby for example) to make it much more likely than the facts indicated that Iraq had nuclear weapons. I'm not really interested in arguing their intentions for doing so, but time has shown we went into Iraq for non-existent weapons, and we did so because administration members manipulated the truth.

Fenton said:
AND we've ( me and other highly intelligent posters ) proven that the recession Obama inherited was due to Democrat policies, executive orders and corruption in the 90's.
Click to expand...

First, no one political group created the situation that resulted in the Great Recession. The entire system allowed the free market to create the situation by removing key regulations. If you want to argue the fictitious point that because the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Presidency, they somehow overruled the Republican House to pass this regulation that was fought tooth by the GOP and therefore the Democrats are responsible, go right on ahead, but I'd advise against doing so.

Fenton said:
You're rebut of what is basically just you saying " Nu-uuuhh" isn't enough to counter our facts.
Click to expand...

I'm going to hold you to this when you respond to my post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom