• 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

No one disagrees with the notion congress could have stopped. Hey could have. No me is claiming they made a stand or even did their job. But the vote was not for war. It was to let Bush decide. There comments when they voted, as I tried to point out with Kerry made clear their reservations. So, while congress deserves contempt for cowardice, the decision was Bush's. give him credit and blame for his decision. Quit trying to water it down.

The vote was for an approval of force (e.g. military). You can paint a situation in many ways, but you can't change reality...
 
The vote was for an approval of force (e.g. military). You can paint a situation in many ways, but you can't change reality...

So, when they say, as Kerry did, not to invade outside the UN, this doesn't show intend?

No, they explained a lot that hey wanted to put muscle behind his threat, but did not to invade outside the UN. If we care at all about being accurate, we take it all in.
 
So, when they say, as Kerry did, not to invade outside the UN, this doesn't show intend?

No, they explained a lot that hey wanted to put muscle behind his threat, but did not to invade outside the UN. If we care at all about being accurate, we take it all in.

You would need to read the resolution as it specifically authorized the use of force, and subsequently, Congress funded each and every decision...
 
You would need to read the resolution as it specifically authorized the use of force, and subsequently, Congress funded each and every decision...

It was at least a second attempt. Because of the problems, many tried to speak plainly about what they thought was proper. This is the problem with not having congress declare war. They leave it the the president. He and he alone made the final decision. Don't short change him.
 
It was at least a second attempt. Because of the problems, many tried to speak plainly about what they thought was proper. This is the problem with not having congress declare war. They leave it the the president. He and he alone made the final decision. Don't short change him.

Congress has not had the balls to declare war since WWII...
 
Again this was mentioned, however, this has been the trend for decades. This didn't just pop up in 2008 when Obama became president. This is the result of hiring overseas, global economy, etc.

My question is why did the GOP (you know the people you seem to worship) do NOTHING about this? They have had the reigns as well. Funny how you blame "progressives" yet have nothing to say about the GOP that have stood by and let this happen as well.

BTW, this isn't due to "progressive" ideas alone. This has also been done by greed, outsourcing, and the worship of the almighty dollar.

My parents remember a time when companies didn't care JUST about profit, but also what was good for America and the American worker. Those times are long gone and what we are left with is the wake of greed. Greed isn't exclusive to one party or political ideology.

You can disagree with me all you want, but that is the truth and it seems most conservatives and liberals alike want to blame the other without looking in the mirror.

Great post, everyone should read it again.
 
I'll take that as a concession from your part that indeed Bush made the
decision to go into Iraq thank you.



What's laughable is watching you and others try to dance around the FACT that Bush made the call to go into Iraq. Why do you hate the FACT that Bush made the decision to go into Iraq?

Bush with the Democrats support of-course.

The " war for oil" and "lies about WMDs" was your party's manufactured narrative.

A false premise that I don't buy into.

Its good to know that History is slowly doing away with the idiots contentions.

History won't be so kind to Obama, thanks to people like me being intent on seeing that through.

The difference between me and you is I won't have to tell one lie or have to rely on warmed over manufactured narratives to accomplish my goal.

All I have to do is simply, tell the truth.
 
Bush with the Democrats support of-course.

The " war for oil" and "lies about WMDs" was your party's manufactured narrative.

A false premise that I don't buy into.

Its good to know that History is slowly doing away with the idiots contentions.

History won't be so kind to Obama, thanks to people like me being intent on seeing that through.

The difference between me and you is I won't have to tell one lie or have to rely on warmed over manufactured narratives to accomplish my goal.

All I have to do is simply, tell the truth.

Don't promote the oil one myself, but in the words of Straffor, Bush told the wrong lie when he made the WMD claim, as it was too easily shown to be a lie.
 
Great post, everyone should read it again.

No it's not, it's drek.

Here's some GOOD ADVICE and I urge you and Extra to consider it.

First there is THIS truth. The only thing Consistent in this World is Change.

Now the advice,

Instead of whining, living in the past or worse, relying on a corrupt Government entity to force " equity" amongst their citizens, or to pass STUPID policies that drive out Private Markets, ADAPT with the changes.

Detroit's an excellent example. With a OBVIOUS change in markets and economies going on around them, they dug in and put the economic policies of the 50s, 60s and 70s on a continuous loop.

Puting their trust in Government and Unions.
 
No it's not, it's drek.

Here's some GOOD ADVICE and I urge you and Extra to consider it.

First there is THIS truth. The only thing Consistent in this World is Change.

Now the advice,

Instead of whining, living in the past or worse, relying on a corrupt Government entity to force " equity" amongst their citizens, or to pass STUPID policies that drive out Private Markets, ADAPT with the changes.

Detroit's an excellent example. With a OBVIOUS change in markets and economies going on around them, they dug in and put the economic policies of the 50s, 60s and 70s on a continuous loop.

Puting their trust in Government and Unions.

No, it's really good. Like the opposite of the assumptions you just made about what I believe.
 
No it's not, it's drek.

Here's some GOOD ADVICE and I urge you and Extra to consider it.

First there is THIS truth. The only thing Consistent in this World is Change.

Now the advice,

Instead of whining, living in the past or worse, relying on a corrupt Government entity to force " equity" amongst their citizens, or to pass STUPID policies that drive out Private Markets, ADAPT with the changes.

Detroit's an excellent example. With a OBVIOUS change in markets and economies going on around them, they dug in and put the economic policies of the 50s, 60s and 70s on a continuous loop.

Puting their trust in Government and Unions.

View attachment 67151603
 
No it wasn't. You should learn the facts before posting

Title of the bill as passed:

Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Note to all mentally challenged: The title of the bill should make it clear that congress authorized the President to go to war with Iraq. Without such authorization, there was no war.
 
Don't promote the oil one myself, but in the words of
Straffor, Bush told the wrong lie when he made the WMD claim, as it was too easily shown to be a lie.

Oh Bull Sh**.

You guys manufactured a narrative built of false pretenses.

Right after multiple Democrats admitted to Saddams WMD iniatives.

Quotes youve SEEN !

There were no lies, just enough time for Saddam to move what ever he could into Syria, and hide the rest.

The people who still believe " he lied" are the people that still support a failure of a President in Obama.

People are starting to consider the source, lets put it that way.
 
Oh Bull Sh**.

You guys manufactured a narrative built of false pretenses.

Right after multiple Democrats admitted to Saddams WMD iniatives.

Quotes youve SEEN !

There were no lies, just enough time for Saddam to move what ever he could into Syria, and hide the rest.

The people who still believe " he lied" are the people that still support a failure of a President in Obama.

People are starting to consider the source, lets put it that way.

You believe a claim not proven. That says it all.
 
No, it's really good. Like the opposite of the assumptions you just made
about what I believe.

No, it's generic one dimensional nonsense. It's the. "anti-corporate greed runs the world" knee jerk narrative that only appeals to the young and weak minded partisans who rely on the simplistic evaluations of complex issues because a more in depth and accurate analysis hurts " their litte pointy heads ".

Corporations want to make profit ?

NO SH** ?!

Here's a concept, improve your marketabillty, improve yourself to the point that you're a asset to those " EEEBIL CORPORATIONS "...

Then, " like Magic" the rewards will follow. If your job or posotion OR SKILLS become redundant, Retrain, go back to school, continue to improve yourself and your condition.

If your'e just too stupid to accomplish any of that, or too lazy, so what, lifes a bitch and no its not fair.

Thinking that a Government Entity should be the arbiter of whats fair, or " equal", or should mandate policies that enact some type of arbitrary economic or social justice is absolute folly.

FFS, that's what created the Sub-Prime Collapse. THAT'S what poisoned international markets and our FED and our Treasury for decades to come.
 
You believe a claim not proven. That says it all.

You DISBELIEVE a claim proven. THAT says it all.

Or do I need to post the video showing the consequence of Saddam Husseins Gas attack that killed over a 100 thousand Kurds ?

You know, so you can ignore it again ?
 
No, it's generic one dimensional nonsense. It's the. "anti-corporate greed runs the world" knee jerk narrative that only appeals to the young and weak minded partisans who rely on the simplistic evaluations of complex issues because a more in depth and accurate analysis hurts " their litte pointy heads ".

Corporations want to make profit ?

NO SH** ?!

Here's a concept, improve your marketabillty, improve yourself to the point that you're a asset to those " EEEBIL CORPORATIONS "...

Then, " like Magic" the rewards will follow. If your job or posotion OR SKILLS become redundant, Retrain, go back to school, continue to improve yourself and your condition.

If your'e just too stupid to accomplish any of that, or too lazy, so what, lifes a bitch and no its not fair.

Thinking that a Government Entity should be the arbiter of whats fair, or " equal", or should mandate policies that enact some type of arbitrary economic or social justice is absolute folly.

FFS, that's what created the Sub-Prime Collapse. THAT'S what poisoned international markets and our FED and our Treasury for decades to come.

I don't think you read the post very well, because nothing that you just said is at odds with the post I quoted. They're both right.
 
You DISBELIEVE a claim proven. THAT says it all.

Or do I need to post the video showing the consequence of Saddam Husseins Gas attack that killed over a 100 thousand Kurds ?

You know, so you can ignore it again ?

Nope, we knew about that attack. So, throwing that up doesn't support your claim. You're dancing tinker bell. ;)
 
No, it's generic one dimensional nonsense. It's the. "anti-corporate greed runs the world" knee jerk narrative that only appeals to the young and weak minded partisans who rely on the simplistic evaluations of complex issues because a more in depth and accurate analysis hurts " their litte pointy heads ".

Corporations want to make profit ?

NO SH** ?!

Here's a concept, improve your marketabillty, improve yourself to the point that you're a asset to those " EEEBIL CORPORATIONS "...

Then, " like Magic" the rewards will follow. If your job or posotion OR SKILLS become redundant, Retrain, go back to school, continue to improve yourself and your condition.

If your'e just too stupid to accomplish any of that, or too lazy, so what, lifes a bitch and no its not fair.

Thinking that a Government Entity should be the arbiter of whats fair, or " equal", or should mandate policies that enact some type of arbitrary economic or social justice is absolute folly.

FFS, that's what created the Sub-Prime Collapse. THAT'S what poisoned international markets and our FED and our Treasury for decades to come.

You should've put this at the beginning of your post :ranton:
 
So, when they say, as Kerry did, not to invade outside the UN, this doesn't show intend?

No, they explained a lot that hey wanted to put muscle behind his threat, but did not to invade outside the UN. If we care at all about being accurate, we take it all in.

Have you ever read the "Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"? I didn't think so. It must list at least 50 different UN resolutions that Iraq had failed to follow or was just going through the motions on. John Kerry was and is full of crap. He votes for authorization of the use of force then wants to cherry pick his way out of his own vote. But liars lie and he hasn't changed one bit over the years.

The UN resolutions listed in the "Authorization for use of Military Force against Iraq resolution of 2002" are just a part of what is included in the act. There are many other justification's and reasons cited as reasons why we were to go to war with Iraq. Once again, John Kerry is full of crap because apparently he doesn't mention those. One of the many other reasons listed that the Democrat and Republican members of the House and Senate cited in passing the "Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998". Yes that's right, check the date out that bill became public law of the United States of America. Guess what President signed that bill into law, it wasn't Bush. Here's a little part of what's included in the 1998 law that was used in part for justification of the Iraq War:
"SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."


Now granted the 1998 law did not authorize war against Iraq but the policy established in 1998 by the US Government had never changed so the law in 2002 used in part, the 1998 policy. Now why doesn't John Kerry talk about that instead of telling his lies?
 
"SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."


Now granted the 1998 law did not authorize war against Iraq but the policy established in 1998 by the US Government had never changed so the law in 2002 used in part, the 1998 policy. Now why doesn't John Kerry talk about that instead of telling his lies?

I know, I know quoting myself but I left out a very important thing or two about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

First off, Sen John Kerry voted for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Second off here's what President Clinton had to say when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 into law:

"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998"
 
Back
Top Bottom