For Dems only.

[Texsox]

I was just trying to be the puppet master and keep this forum a positive. I'm just so mellowed out by plenty of salt air, dolphins, pelicans. fish tacos, kayaking, and just hanging out that I don't want war anymore. Peace dudes

[Rex Kickass]

[FlaSoxxJim]

Haven't we been down this road today?

 

Where's YAS??

[Balta1701]

Hey, Republicans, you want to be able to vote your cronies billions of dollars in contracts, be as corrupt as you want, declare war on random disarmed countries, make this country reviled around the world, and still get me to vote for you? Here is how you do it.

 

Sen. George Voinovich, Ethics Committee chairman and a sometime gadfly to Republican leadership, is warming to Democratic-backed proposals for public financing of federal elections.

 

Voinovich (R-Ohio) told The Hill that he has met with Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) to discuss collaboration on the public-financing pitch Durbin is crafting with Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), the Rules Committee’s ranking Democrat. Snagging the endorsement of Voinovich, who last year bucked his party by opposing the confirmation of U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and has so far taken a supporting role in the GOP’s push for lobbying reform, could give the public-financing concept considerable momentum.

 

“Maybe it is the answer,” Voinovich said. “Too much of our time is spent raising money, time spent campaigning, time buying TV ads. When everyone’s out there trying to raise money, dialing for dollars ... until we deal with this issue you’re going to continue to have problems.”

Right now, I can see no other way to even begin to clean up the morass of corruption that is Congress and the White House other than to totally remove the lobbyists from the equation. As long as there are lobbyists, then there will be a reason for elected officials to work for the benefit of someone other than the voters who elected them. That is where a huge number of these problems start.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Right now, I can see no other way to even begin to clean up the morass of corruption that is Congress and the White House other than to totally remove the lobbyists from the equation.  As long as there are lobbyists, then there will be a reason for elected officials to work for the benefit of someone other than the voters who elected them.  That is where a huge number of these problems start.

 

 

^^^^^

 

I totally agree. You kick those people out of Washington and the quality of leadership on both sides of the aisle goes up dramatically.

[KipWellsFan]

Democrats have to run on a 100% anti-corruption platform. It doesn't matter if they made money off Abramoff or not they just have to have like 4 or 5 main points to eliminate corruption, and run on those points. It's better to run off a 100% bulls*** platform than no platform at all.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It's better to run off a 100% bulls*** platform than no platform at all.

 

I disagree, even though that strategy might get you elected.

[Balta1701]

Democrats have to run on a 100% anti-corruption platform. It doesn't matter if they made money off Abramoff or not they just have to have like 4 or 5 main points to eliminate corruption, and run on those points.  It's better to run off a 100% bulls*** platform than no platform at all.

It would be very, very nice if somehow they could run on an anti-corruption platform and actually, you know, not have it be B.S.

[Balta1701]

Rick Santorum runs a charity which has donated a whopping 40% of the money it has taken in over the last 4 years. Several people in his Congressional office have received decently large salaries from the charity.

[Rex Kickass]

Rick Santorum runs a charity which has donated a whopping 40% of the money it has taken in over the last 4 years.  Several people in his Congressional office have received decently large salaries from the charity.

Don't forget about his PAC which actually only uses 20% of its contributions to fund candidates.

[Balta1701]

I think this is clearly an outlier on the negative side, but it's nice to see the Port deal doing some dragging in this number. And the approval rating for Iraq has dropped hugely from their poll in January.

 

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?

 

Approve:  34

Disapprove: 59

The internals of this poll seem really skewed. They veer from Bush being at 35 in October up to 42 in January and back down to 34 in February. That's a lot of movement. I bet there's something funny in the way they're adjusting their sample which gives extra weight to Republicans polled...where a few ticks upwards in Republican approval gives a larger tick upwards in overall approval because they're a minority in the sample.

 

Anywho...always nice to see a new low. The lower the outliers get, the lower the mean gets.

[kapkomet]

Anywho...always nice to see a new low.  The lower the outliers get, the lower the mean gets.

YEEE f***ING HAW!!! LOW POLL NUMBERS! OUR PRESIDENT SUCKS!!! WOOO HOOOO!!!

 

And then you wonder why the perception is from a conservative standpoint all you want to do is attack and wish bad things for this president.

 

Edit: Oh, crap, my fault. This is the Bush bashing thread that no one dare speak anything good about the president in here. My fault, I just realized where I was. But I think this is a good enough point to leave it here.

Edited February 28, 2006 by kapkomet

[Balta1701]

YEEE f***ING HAW!!! LOW POLL NUMBERS!  OUR PRESIDENT SUCKS!!!  WOOO HOOOO!!!

 

And then you wonder why the perception is from a conservative standpoint all you want to do is attack and wish bad things for this president.

 

Edit: Oh, crap, my fault.  This is the Bush bashing thread that no one dare speak anything good about the president in here.  My fault, I just realized where I was.  But I think this is a good enough point to leave it here.

Or...could it be that I'm hoping for a win in this little election at the end of the year, and the lower Bush's poll numbers, the easier it will be to defeat Bush's party?

[kapkomet]

Or...could it be that I'm hoping for a win in this little election at the end of the year, and the lower Bush's poll numbers, the easier it will be to defeat Bush's party?

Ohhhhhhhh. Is that it? I stand corrected.

 

But, my bigger point is, this is what's wrong. You have to have one negative, for the other to be positive. And that really sucks. There's no compromise on issues.

[Mplssoxfan]

YEEE f***ING HAW!!! LOW POLL NUMBERS!  OUR PRESIDENT SUCKS!!!  WOOO HOOOO!!!

 

And then you wonder why the perception is from a conservative standpoint all you want to do is attack and wish bad things for this president.

 

Edit: Oh, crap, my fault.  This is the Bush bashing thread that no one dare speak anything good about the president in here.  My fault, I just realized where I was.  But I think this is a good enough point to leave it here.

Kap, GWB ran on a great deal of issues and promises, as all of our politicians do. I voted for Al Gore, as the plurality of people who voted in that election did. However, I had some hope for the new President, especially in his promise to be "a uniter, and not a divider." I really thought that that statement could help a great deal, especially given the vitriol of the preceding eight years.

 

Tragically, on September 11, 2001, GWB was given an oppurtunity to prove that he was a man of his word, that he truly was a uniter. He simply hasn't lived up to that promise. He, or more precisely, his political team go to extremes to attack anyone who stands in their way, no matter how nobly or well that particular person has served this country (see Max Cleland or John Murtha as two prime examples). He doggedly clings to tax cuts as being a panacea to all economic ills facing the country, even though our (your, actually) children are going to have to pay the price for them.

 

Now things are going poorly for the administration. The situation in Iraq seems to be worsening, with Islamic sectarian violence spreading; even staunch conservatives such as William F. Buckley are doubting that we can prevail there. We have a couple of overriding problems with our economy: high energy prices, and, more importantly, the fact that so much of our debt is being held by foreign governments, especially China. Every month, it seems that new stories about prisoner abuse, each as horrifying as the last. I am about a quarter through a fascinating piece about Alberto Mora, the former general counsel of the Navy, who warned against the administration's position on detainees. The USA used to stand staunchly for human rights. Sadly, it doesn't seem like we do any more.

 

As someone who didn't vote for GWB (and someone who posts in this thread and doesn't read the GOP thread), does it make me happy that the President's poll numbers are down? In a way, it does. The fact that it may make it more difficult for Republicans to retain control of both houses of Congress is beneficial. As a citizen of the USA it saddens me to see those numbers. When a President has lost the confidence of his fellow Americans, it is not good for our Nation. I would have liked the President to make good on his promise to be a uniter. Sadly, it seems he's lost his chance.

[Balta1701]

From the Truth is stranger than fiction file:

 

Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, has hired a renowned memory-loss expert to assist him with his legal defense. Harvard psychology professor Daniel L. Schacter tells NBC News he has been retained by Libby as a consultant. An official familiar with the Libby defense team confirms the news.

 

Schacter, who has been at Harvard since 1991 and who has a 29-page resume, is the author of "The Seven Sins of Memory" and  "Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind and the Past." His books offer explanations for the "vulnerability of memory." Schacter writes that if we are distracted as an event unfolds, "we may later have great difficulty remembering the details of what happened." Time, of course, often weakens our memory. And, he writes, it is easy to "unwittingly create mistaken -- though strongly held -- beliefs about the past."

 

Libby's lawyers hinted in court filings last week that memory loss will be "central themes" of Libby's defense. Libby's lawyers write: "...any misstatements he made during his FBI interviews or grand jury testimony were not intentional, but rather the result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory."

Scooter Libby's defense? I forgot. And here's the guys who prove it's possible to forget.

 

Yowza.

[kapkomet]

Let me give you an example of something. Last March, I made some decisions and did some things at my current place of employment. All of a sudden, I get subpeoned and I have to remember the DETAILS and I mean EXTREME DETAILS of EXACTLY what I did last year at this time. Do you think I will remember that? Probably not.

 

Or for you college kids - you aced an exam in a mid-level college course last year on March 1, 2005. If I handed you the same exact exam, without cracking a book or notes or lectures or anything to refresh your memory, would you still ace it? Probably not.

 

That's the sort of thing that's going on here. I'm not saying that Scooter is an angel. But at the same time, I'd forget some details of what the hell I was doing in a day to day basis.

 

Edit: DAMN! You keep putting this s*** in this thread to keep 'the other people' from commenting. How cute. See? I already forgot where in the hell I was posting at. Good thing I'm not Scooter. I'll move it all later into it's own thread. I really don't mean to do this.

Edited February 28, 2006 by kapkomet

[Balta1701]

Let me give you an example of something.  Last March, I made some decisions and did some things at my current place of employment.  All of a sudden, I get subpeoned and I have to remember the DETAILS and I mean EXTREME DETAILS of EXACTLY what I did last year at this time.  Do you think I will remember that?  Probably not. 

 

Or for you college kids - you aced an exam in a mid-level college course last year on March 1, 2005.  If I handed you the same exact exam, without cracking a book or notes or lectures or anything to refresh your memory, would you still ace it?  Probably not.

 

That's the sort of thing that's going on here.  I'm not saying that Scooter is an angel.  But at the same time, I'd forget some details of what the hell I was doing in a day to day basis.

 

Edit:  DAMN!  You keep putting this s*** in this thread to keep 'the other people' from commenting.  How cute.  See?  I already forgot where in the hell I was posting at.  Good thing I'm not Scooter.  I'll move it all later into it's own thread.  I really don't mean to do this.

So, let me get this straight...you proved that it's possible to forget things to yourself without the use of a memory expert.

 

Anywho...if Libby actually is going to use the defense "I forgot" to explain how he gave false statements not about 1 act, but about specific acts over the course of at least a month, acts which he was asked about at the time during press appearances and later by the grand jury, he's in real, real trouble.

 

Yes, it's possible to forget an exam. But if you learned something at one point, read and discuss that same topic with your superiors several times within the next few weeks, and a month later are giving that same information to 3 different reporters, "I forgot" isn't going to stand up.

[Balta1701]

Knight Ridder

 

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.

 

Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists - and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.

 

The existence of the top-secret document, which was the subject of a bitter three-month debate among U.S. intelligence agencies, has not been previously disclosed to a wide public audience.

 

The reports received a cool reception from Bush administration policymakers at the White House and the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to the former officials, who discussed them publicly for the first time.

 

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and others continued to describe the insurgency as a containable threat, posed mainly by former supporters of Saddam Hussein, criminals and non-Iraqi terrorists - even as the U.S. intelligence community was warning otherwise.

 

Robert Hutchings, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council from 2003 to 2005, said the October 2003 study was part of a "steady stream" of dozens of intelligence reports warning Bush and his top lieutenants that the insurgency was intensifying and expanding.

 

"Frankly, senior officials simply weren't ready to pay attention to analysis that didn't conform to their own optimistic scenarios," Hutchings said in a telephone interview.

Mind you, this isn't some report leaked with no one on record...they actually have a person willing to attach their name to the story.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sure he just has an axe to grind

[Texsox]

YEEE f***ING HAW!!! LOW POLL NUMBERS!  OUR PRESIDENT SUCKS!!!  WOOO HOOOO!!!

 

I guess we should change your screen name to CAP-KOMET.

 

Yes sir, we understand, any negative comments about Bush will result in you getting pissed off, even in a Dem only thread. We should be more like the GOP who is still complaining about Clinton 6 years after he left office.

 

Not everyone is enamored with this President, last I looked Homeland Security and the Patriot Act didn't take away our freedom of speech, we still can complain about the government.

[YASNY]

Let me give you an example of something.  Last March, I made some decisions and did some things at my current place of employment.  All of a sudden, I get subpeoned and I have to remember the DETAILS and I mean EXTREME DETAILS of EXACTLY what I did last year at this time.  Do you think I will remember that?  Probably not. 

 

Or for you college kids - you aced an exam in a mid-level college course last year on March 1, 2005.  If I handed you the same exact exam, without cracking a book or notes or lectures or anything to refresh your memory, would you still ace it?  Probably not.

 

That's the sort of thing that's going on here.  I'm not saying that Scooter is an angel.  But at the same time, I'd forget some details of what the hell I was doing in a day to day basis.

 

Edit:  DAMN!  You keep putting this s*** in this thread to keep 'the other people' from commenting.  How cute.  See? I already forgot where in the hell I was posting at. Good thing I'm not Scooter.  I'll move it all later into it's own thread.  I really don't mean to do this.

 

Oh man! You are GOOD. You take a subtle approach to proving your point. I like it!

[Texsox]

I guess there mustn't be anyone to talk to in the GOP thread

[FlaSoxxJim]

The "everyone forgets stuff" defense is pretty pathetic, Kap, and you know that. We're not talking about whether Scooter can solve quadratic equations or recite The Raven from memory 40 years out of high school. We are talking about a specific important act - sharing clasified information with uncleared individials - which he would have known was a Bozo no-no at the time he was doing it and which he was repeatedly pressed on while testifying. He would also know if he had the authority to commit such an act and who the authority would have been granted by. No matter how many other things he does in the course of fulfilling his job duties, its unreasonable to believe that he would take compromising the identity of an undercover agent so lightly that now it just escapes his mind.

 

The "I didn't know the information was classified" seems like it would be the stronger bucket of bull to draw from, They tried that and it didn't stick. The "Cheney declassified it so it's no biggie" defense is frightening and fits perfectly wih the broad interpretation of executive power taken by the administration. They are throwing everything out there.

[kapkomet]

The "everyone forgets stuff" defense is pretty pathetic, Kap, and you know that.  We're not talking about whether Scooter can solve quadratic equations or recite The Raven from memory 40 years out of high school.  We are talking about a specific important act - sharing clasified information with uncleared individials - which he would have known was a Bozo no-no at the time he was doing it and which he was repeatedly pressed on while testifying.  He would also know if he had the authority to commit such an act and who the authority would have been granted by.  No matter how many other things he does in the course of fulfilling his job duties, its unreasonable to believe that he would take compromising the identity of an undercover agent so lightly that now it just escapes his mind.

 

The "I didn't know the information was classified" seems like it would be the stronger bucket of bull to draw from,  They tried that and it didn't stick.  The "Cheney declassified it so it's no biggie" defense is frightening and fits perfectly wih the broad interpretation of executive power taken by the administration.  They are throwing everything out there.

On this one, we actually agree. I think the whole thing stinks to high heaven. However, I almost always take what's said by anyone about this administration with an alternative point of view and then decide. You will find that in all seriousness I agree with you all more then I let on. I must be forgetting again.