And you should understand the situation more. nm
Posted By: sm on 2005-08-25
In Reply to: I was quoting from a Jewish website publication. - Dumb and dumber
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Your the one showing how little you understand about the situation
What part of Hamas and Israel at war don't you understand.
What part of Hamas terrorizing Israel don't you understand.
What part of Hamas slaughtering and killing innocent citizens, women and children don't you understand.
To me it looks like you don't understand any of what is going on over there, therefore should keep your comments to yourself.
I just say thank goodness our incoming President understands it very well.
What was that quote I read that Ben Franklin said "Better to keep one's mouth closed ...".
I understand that is a horrible situation for
it's not my responsibility to pay a mortgage for someone who had no business getting one in the first place. I have to pay my bills and my mortgage; they should never have had a mortgage.
I understand completely....people can see the same situation in 2 different ways....
I am not trying to bash your opinion either...and I will just touch on this briefly and leave it alone. Wanting regime change in Iraq did not originate with George Bush. It originated during the Clinton administration:
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.
Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.
US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.
U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.
More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.
Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.
Pentagon unveils details of Operation Desert Fox
Transcript:Text of Blair's remarks on Iraq attack
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
RELATED VIDEO
Clinton statement from the Oval Office on attack against Iraq
Windows Media 28K 56K
Pentagon outlines 'Operation Desert Fox'
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
British Prime Minister comments on the airstrikes
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
Watch as anti-aircraft fire erupts over Baghdad
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
In this story:
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
In-depth special:
Strike on Iraq
Related stories:
Explosions in sky over Baghdad - December 16, 1998
Iraq not cooperating with U.N., chief inspector says - December 15, 1998
Visiting U.N. weapons inspectors depart Iraq - December 14, 1998
Iraq oil sale wins approval from U.N. chief - December 12, 1998
Cohen: Iraq could be attacked at any time - December 10, 1998
U.S. reacts sternly to Iraq's rebuff of inspectors - December 9, 1998
There were limited bomb strikes at that time. And then we had not been attacked. George Bush did not invent the idea of regime change in Iraq. No, it did not turn into full fledged war at that time...but we had not lost 3000 of our citizens either.
Also, please check out the Iraq Liberation Act passed and endorsed enthusiastically by Democrats. And if you check closely...the same democrats who are decrying going into Iraq now were all for it then. When I look at the entirety of it...and I remember well Clinton saying from the oval office he was going to bomb Iraq and why he was going to do it...I agreed with him and I agreed with Bush. That is what I absolutely hate about politics...that partisan lockstep. If a Democrat President thinks we should bomb and/or invade Iraq, the Democrats are all behind him. Remember, the majority of Democrats voted this time to go in too. It was not George Bush alone. And the intelligence he used to make his decision is the same intelligence Bill Clinton had. I don't want to make argumentative. Just stating facts. And it is the totality of it that makes me say what I said about Bush. I do not believe for one minute that he went into Iraq knowing there was no WMD, any more than I think Clinton bombed Iraq knowing there was no reason to do so.
So far as I can see, John McCain did not say he was for more war. Even Obama has said that we cannot just pull out. So no matter who is elected, we are there for awhile. The say in Iraq for 100 years was misquoted and misrepresented by the Obama campaign and others...what he said was that there "could" not will be an American presence in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, like bases, advisors, etc. Not fighting soldiers. Like we had bases in Germany, bases in Korea, etc. Those wars had been over a long time and we still had bases there. He did not say we would be fighting in Iraq in a hundred years. That being said, if we are attacked again, he is certainly not afraid to fight. We can't afford a President who is not willing to fight. Clinton did not react to the first world trade center bombing, the khobar towers bombings, the embassy bombings, or the bombing of the USS Cole. Had he done so, we might not have had 9-11 and we would not have gone into Iraq. If Clinton had accepted bin Laden from the Sudan when they offered him...if, if, if. The war in Iraq was not the product of one man.
Again, not trying to be argumentative, but I do not understand how a huge group of people can blame one man for all the ills of this country and congress gets a pass. Bush by himself can't do very much. I mean I got pretty disgusted with Clinton at the end, and I didn't much care for a lot of the things that happened during his admin, but I did not blame him personally for it. That is not how the government works.
Yes, there are some things I did not like about the Bush admin and still don't like...but I don't demonize him and make him the poster chld for everything wrong with the country...I blame Congress. THey are the ones who can change things. And they haven't done diddly.
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
This is not a situation that can
...be simplistically reduced to a quarrel over "doom and gloom" or not, IMHO. Top military brass has tried repeatedly to bring the message home to this administration that we don't have the troops or planning necessary to "win" anything in Iraq and this has created a terrorist hotbed and training ground where none existed before. This is just a fact that no amount of "can-do" attitude can fix.
Of course, if the intention is simply to create a state of chaos that can enable thieves to steal with impunity, the job is more than fixed.
Also you might want to note that the 1700 casualty figure is grossly understated. Only combat deaths that occur in Iraq are counted. Those whisked out of the country to Germany or elsewhere and die en route or at the destination hospital are NOT counted. This is official US policy - a Bush policy. Ask yourself why they would have this policy.
I agree with MTME about the lying - I am sick of it myself. I would like the truth for once, instead of more spin and more efforts to divide the American people (more chaos, more cover for thieves).
If she (or anyone in that situation) sm
had kept her legs together she wouldn't be in this predicament. Simple solution.
and I am sorry for your situation!
x
what situation?
nm
come on bush, help with the oil situation
And here comes the winter..Im sure Bush with all his power can find ways to help America through the winter with oil prices but..nah..he has to pay back his oil cronies..OMG, if we can influence countries to stop nuclear production we surely can influence companies to help us through the oil crisis. The profits the oil companies are making is obscene..I have a friend who lives in Bakersfield, an oil town. He and his wife divorced and she married the head of a major oil company in the Bakersfield region. Not gonna say the name of the company but it is one of the biggest in America..He told me she lives in extreme luxury..I bet, especially in Bakersfield where prices are relatively low anyway..These oil barons are living high and we are, as my aunt used to say, *robbing peter to pay paul*. Ummm.do I smell and feel a revolution arising..sure hope so..
It's a no-win situation for Bush with you
The 9/11 commission criticizes his lack of a security plan pre-9/11(that's just barely 8 months after he enters office BTW). Then he's criticized for doing wiretaps in the name of national security which the FISA act gave the authority to do.
Okay, then which one is it--he's not tough enough on National Security or he's too tough bordering on some perceived legal violation?
Wait a minute, I know your answer Well, it's both. Sheesh...
It is a weird situation, for sure...
...but not really getting a good in-depth report on it from the news, have to think there MUST be more to the story - though can't think what in the world could explain such an attitude as prison is not going to help this offender (heard the judge himself say that). Whoever said prison was to HELP anybody? It's PUNISHMENT!
But then again, have never gotten the whole story- you never do on TV news, and have caught O'Reilly in numerous fabrications and exaggerations and grossly slanted panel discussions before, so who the heck knows!
From *The Situation* last night.
And Tucker Carlson is hardly a liberal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459509/
But first to a story horrifying even by the coarsening standards of Iraq, the brutal murder and torture of two U.S. soldiers.
Privates first class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker went missing Friday after an attack on a checkpoint they were manning south of Baghdad. Their bodies were found on Monday night. They were reportedly so badly mutilated they were tentatively identified by tattoos and scars. The corpses were also booby-trapped, an apparent effort to kill recovery teams.
Al Qaeda‘s new leader in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the soldier‘s slaughter.
In the face of brutality like this, is Iraq worth the cost in American lives? Here to answer that question, Brad Blakeman. He‘s the former deputy assistant to the president. He joins us tonight from Washington.
Brad, thanks for coming on.
BRAD BLAKEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: So we have spent untold billions of dollars, 2,500 American soldiers killed, all in an effort to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq. In return, they torture and murder and mutilate our soldiers. Remind me why this is a good bargain?
BLAKEMAN: Well, Tucker, look, this is a tough thing, and our hearts go out to every soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can live in freedom.
But Iraq is worth fighting for. The region is worth fighting for. It‘s in our interest. These terrible, brutal dictatorships must be brought down when they become a threat to our national security. You know...
CARLSON: OK. But that‘s not the rationale the president has offered. He has said now, because as you know, and not to rehash the whole war, but no weapons of mass destruction were found. And he‘s said now this is worth doing because it‘s worth bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. They yearn for freedom, and it‘s our duty to give them the freedom they yearn for.
My question is how have they earned our sacrifice to bring them that freedom? What about Iraq justifies the death—brutal deaths of American soldiers? Why should we feel like it‘s worth it to bring these people democracy when they behave like animals like this?
BLAKEMAN: We‘re focusing on the animals and not the good and decent people of Iraq. The vast majority of Iraq is peaceful.
CARLSON: Is that right? I don‘t think—I don‘t think there‘s any evidence of that.
BLAKEMAN: There are 12 million people who went to—who went to the polls. They have four successful elections. They have a new government. We tend only to focus on the very bad, on the insurgencies, and the evil people. But the vast majority of Iraqis want to be free.
You know, if we took your attitude...
CARLSON: Is that true? Is that true?
BLAKEMAN: Hold on, Tucker. If we took your attitude, we would have turned back at the beaches of Normandy when all those people...
CARLSON: Spare me the tired, hackney, cliched World War II analogies. Let‘s get to the war in progress, and that‘s Iraq. There are decent people there. I have been there. I‘ve met decent people there. I know firsthand.
However, your claim that most people want peace is bosh as they say.
Let me show you...
BLAKEMAN: It is not.
CARLSON: It certainly is. A poll undertaken by the ministry of defense from Great Britain, part of the coalition, said 65 percent of Iraqi citizens support attacks on U.S. citizens.
Our own polling, done by World Opinion, public opinion, 47 percent approve attacks on U.S. forces, 88 percent of Sunnis, 88 percent approve of attacks on U.S. forces.
These are—are these—these are the people our sons and daughters are dying to make rich and free? How does that work?
BLAKEMAN: It is our responsibility. We brought down this dictator, this evil dictator...
CARLSON: How are we responsible?
BLAKEMAN: ... who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Now, it‘s our responsibility to bring democracy to these people. We can‘t cut and run and defeat the dictator and then leave...
CARLSON: Why is it our responsibility? There are countries across the world who live in shackles.
BLAKEMAN: We are the freest nation on earth. That‘s why it‘s our responsibility. We‘re the freest nation on earth. We brought down the dictator, and now it‘s our responsibility...
CARLSON: How does that work? They have not done one thing for us. Look—look, think of the implications of what you are saying. I don‘t know if you have thought this through.
BLAKEMAN: I‘ve thought it through very well.
CARLSON: Nation after nation after nation, starting with Mugabe in Zimbabwe, moving all the way to communist—still communist, still unfree China, people who are living in fetters who are unfree, who are oppressed, is it our, as you put it, obligation as a free a nation to free those nations? Do you really want to play this?
BLAKEMAN: Is it—do you know what our obligation is? It‘s to bring freedom to those people who yearn to be free. And China has come a long way.
CARLSON: So it‘s your obligation to sent your son, my obligation...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... people I‘ve never met in countries that hate us? You‘ve got to be kidding. It‘s my obligation to do that?
BLAKEMAN: Yes, it is our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation.
CARLSON: Where does the obligation come from? I didn‘t sign up for that obligation.
BLAKEMAN: It‘s our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation to go into Europe where we weren‘t attacked? No, Europe let a dictator get so strong that collectively they couldn‘t take him down, and we had to come down.
CARLSON: We got in war when we were attacked.
BLAKEMAN: We lost 400,000 Americans in that war. We lost—a million people were wounded in that war.
CARLSON: Right. And there were...
BLAKEMAN: But was it worth it?
CARLSON: Let me just remind you, we entered that war on December 7, 1941, when our soil, the protectorate of Hawaii, was attacked by a foreign nation and thousands of Americans died. We went to war on that day, and not before. OK? So the overall principle you are stating here, that we have a moral obligation to free the unfree, think it through, man. It‘s...
BLAKEMAN: I didn‘t say that, Tucker. I said when we took down the dictator, when we made an obligation to risk our soldiers to free a country, we just can‘t cut and run. We have to establish a government for them. We‘ve got to give them the opportunity to succeed. That‘s our obligation.
CARLSON: And you may be right as far as that goes. But the blanket obligation that Bush implies, and you just stated, that we have to go free the world, to send our sons and daughters to go...
BLAKEMAN: No, we don‘t have to free the world
CARLSON: ... die for other people‘s freedom, people who hate us, it‘s a scary thing.
BLAKEMAN: Well, then you know what? Didn‘t the Japanese hate us?
Didn‘t the Germans hate us? Do they hate us today?
CARLSON: They attacked us first. We had no choice.
BLAKEMAN: They‘re our allies. They our allies, and they stand shoulder to shoulder with us. Should we have waited to get attacked by the Iraqis? No.
CARLSON: You know, I thought—when I supported the war initially, I thought that they were capable of attacking us, and it turns out, as you know, and I‘m sad to report, that we weren‘t.
BLAKEMAN: They were pretty capable of attacking us if they wanted to.
CARLSON: Brad Blakeman, thanks a lot.
BLAKEMAN: You are welcome.
It depends on the situation
I voted for Bush the first term. He was running against Gore. The country could not afford another 4 years of Clintons. I voted for Bush and I'm proud I did because it helped keep a known bafoon who didn't know squat diddly out of the white house. After Bush was elected a lot changed. I didn't want to vote for him again, yet the best the dems could do was give us Kerry???????? There were so many qualified people running. How that ninny got in there (must have been all those purple hearts). So I voted for Bush again. However I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against Kerry. That doesn't make me and others morons, it makes us well-informed voters. If it meant four more years with Bush in there then so be it, but I'll tell you something. With everything that has happened in the world these past eight years the US is lucky that Gore and Lerch were not in office. That's the way a lot of people feel.
Now we're in a totally different election. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are very different from their usual party people. This year is an unusually difficult election. Times are quite different than they were 4 and 8 years ago.
To tell someone they are a moron because they didn't vote for democrats? The other choice would have been even more moronic to vote for.
With everything that has happened I'll take Bush over Gore or Kerry anyday. And before anyone goes blaming him for everything that's happened - He's just a talking head being told what to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the bafoons in his party (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc to include the people who tell Bush what he's going to do).
Every situation is different, but I do know people
nm
my understanding of the situation...
My understanding is that Obama says this is a practice that can be regulated at the state level. The federal government is just making sure that abortion stays legal and then the individual states decide how far their state will go with it.
I have a friend in the same situation...sm
His father worked for GM and died several years ago, leaving my friend a nice trust fund and health care benefits and pension for his widow who currently is in a long-term care facility. My friend, who is an MT and cannot afford insurance and is in bad health himself, told me that when his mom loses her benefits at the first of the year, he doesn't know what they will do.
I don't know if blame the government for this mess as much as I blame mismanagement by the automakers with their big executive salaries and perks and insistence on manufacturing super trucks and huge SUVs. It seems to me that more could have been done to stem this before it got this far.
Yes, it is a no-win situation all the time.
Governing bodies do their budgets on what the expected income will be at that time. Any time anything goes wrong, it throws a monkey wrench into their budgets, then everybody has to fork over extra money.
It's always the taxpayers who lose in the end, no matter what. 
My twist on your situation
I was a democrat who became a republican and will probably reaffiliate as an independent in the not-too-distant future. I find the assumptions made on this board amusing and likely as not completely off base.
I think Obama is a likeable guy, but his starry-eyed supporters drive me up a wall. If not for the lunacy surrounding him and his office I probably wouldn't feel as apprehensive and insecure about his presidency as I do. Okay, I don't agree with him on much so far, but I so believe he's intelligent and sincere.
Try not to take the categorizing too seriously; it's just more silliness.
At lest Obama is TRYING to better the situation.
If he will be successful the future will show. At least we should give him some TIME.
The republicans would not have even TRIED to better the situation, but would have trotted along the same path, down into the final abyss.
But I agree with you that discussions about pub : dem AND about pro-life : pro-choice 'suck' and lead nowhere but to personal attacks.
When you say "world situation"....(sm)
and that Obama has played a big part in it, exactly what are you talking about? The economy was in the toilet before he got there, and yes, he's spending a lot of money, but that's in an attempt to try to stop (or at least slow) the progression of this economic downfall.
As far as foreign affairs go, I think we're on better terms with just about everyone now.
So I don't get what you're talking about.
situation in Iran
Iranian opposition leader calls for rally Thursday
because the situation OVER THERE CHANGED,
Taliban in Pakistan is getting stronger!
Think and get more flexible.
exploring situation from both sides? What?
Exploring the situation from both sides? What two sides? The man stated crime would go down if we aborted black babies. What is the side you are referring to? It is a racist remark, a dumb remark and insensitive hateful remark. No two ways about it..PERIOD..
His bosses handled the situation, as it should be - nm
x
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
In all honesty, you are the aggressor in this situation (sm)
You came on to a political board and insulted the way everyone on here has behaved. Would you teach your daughter to do that? I'm sorry. I am a very nice person too...I just think you were kind of asking for trouble by doing that.
With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.
Whether Obama or McCain were elected would make no appreciabe difference in our tax situation because this huge bailout has to be recouped in some fashion and it will be off the backs of ALL Americans.....at least the ones who pay taxes.
There is no Biden situation. Therefore, I did not comment.
I replied to a post that also did not comment on the so-called Biden situation but I don't notice you jumping all over that one.
Obama cannot dispatch anyone to anywhere until after Jan 20. As a sworn sitting senator and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I think Biden's trip is perfectly appropriate and evidently, so does the Senate.
Another thing I am not in the habit of responding to (besides non-issues conflated only in the imaginations of O haters) would be phoney outrage. It was tiresome during the campaign, is downright boring now and not the least bit compelling.
You may think that gutter-bound gripes and groans are "intelligent" legitimate political dialog, but it's not my thing. Once again, Obama did not send Biden anywhere. In his capacity as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that would be the prerogative of the Senate, over which Biden will be presiding as VP, so his relationship with them will be ongoing and, under those circumstances, I appreciate the sense of continuity he is maintaining.
Finally, it is truly laughable in a pathetic sort of way that you are accusing a lib dem of sidestepping issues. Puh-leeze.
Our economic situation is in no way as simple as that...wish it were!.....sm
What Mr. Rogers (love the name!) does not take into account in this equation is that in our particular case, which he did not forsee before his death, I believe, is much different. There are many hardworking, ethical, proud Americans who are very reluctantly receiving "handouts" from the government because there ARE NO JOBS to be had, the bills are due, the house is on the auction block, cannot afford medicine for a sick child, food for a starving family, heat and shelter....there are definitely people who abuse the system and use it as their piggy bank, but nowadays it can be me, you, your neighbor, anyone, no matter how many years you have worked hard, no matter how you have tried, we are in a crisis of almonst UNPRECEDENTED proportions, and still gettin worse. As for the rich, please do not get me started....TAKE from them???? don't you think that they are robbing all the American People and the System when they use all types of tax loopholes not to pay their fair share of taxes, when they move operations overseas for cheap labor and once again to avaid American taxes, when they pay lobbyists, who pay politicians, to look the other way in Congress on bills that would hurt big business but might HELP Amerfican workers???? Okay, I could go on, but I guess you get the idea how this poster feels about that particular quote. All for freedom, yes. But Free Enterprise has become the Evil Empire, as in Star Wars, (okay, hokey analogy!), and until we get that particular 2000 pound elephant out of the room and roasted, we are sunk as a nation.
UAW is definitely to blame for GMs current situation.
Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Automobile Workers Union?
Mises Daily by George Reisman | Posted on 4/19/2006 12:00:00 AM
 This is a question that no one seems to be asking. And so I've asked it. And here, in essence, is what I think is the answer. (The answer, of course, applies to Ford and Chrysler, as well as to General Motors. I've singled out General Motors because it's still the largest of the three and its problems are the most pronounced.)
First, the company would be without so-called Monday-morning automobiles. That is, automobiles poorly made for no other reason than because they happened to be made on a day when too few workers showed up, or too few showed up sober, to do the jobs they were paid to do. Without the UAW, General Motors would simply have fired such workers and replaced them with ones who would do the jobs they were paid to do. And so, without the UAW, GM would have produced more reliable, higher quality cars, had a better reputation for quality, and correspondingly greater sales volume to go with it. Why didn't they do this? Because with the UAW, such action by GM would merely have provoked work stoppages and strikes, with no prospect that the UAW would be displaced or that anything would be better after the strikes. Federal Law, specifically, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, long ago made it illegal for companies simply to get rid of unions.
Second, without the UAW, GM would have been free to produce in the most-efficient, lowest cost way and to introduce improvements in efficiency as rapidly as possible. Sometimes this would have meant simply having one or two workers on the spot do a variety of simple jobs that needed doing, without having to call in half a dozen different workers each belonging to a different union job classification and having to pay that much more to get the job done. At other times, it would have meant just going ahead and introducing an advance, such as the use of robots, without protracted negotiations with the UAW resulting in the need to create phony jobs for workers to do (and to be paid for doing) that were simply not necessary.
(Unbelievably, at its assembly plant in Oklahoma City, GM is actually obliged by its UAW contract to pay 2,300 workers full salary and benefits for doing absolutely nothing. As The New York Times describes it, "Each day, workers report for duty at the plant and pass their time reading, watching television, playing dominoes or chatting. Since G.M. shut down production there last month, these workers have entered the Jobs Bank, industry's best form of job insurance. It pays idled workers a full salary and benefits even when there is no work for them to do.")
Third, without the UAW, GM would have an average unit cost per automobile close to that of non-union Toyota. Toyota makes a profit of about $2,000 per vehicle, while GM suffers a loss of about $1,200 per vehicle, a difference of $3,200 per unit. And the far greater part of that difference is the result of nothing but GM's being forced to deal with the UAW. (Over a year ago, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that "the United Auto Workers contract costs GM $2,500 for each car sold.")
Fourth, without the UAW, the cost of employing a GM factory worker, including wages and fringes, would not be in excess of $72 per hour, which is where it is today, according to The Post-Crescent newspaper of Appleton, Wisconsin.
Fifth, as a result of UAW coercion and extortion, GM has lost billions upon billions of dollars. For 2005 alone, it reported a loss in excess of $10 billion. Its bonds are now rated as "junk," that is, below, investment grade. Without the UAW, GM would not have lost these billions.
Sixth, without the UAW, GM would not now be in process of attempting to pay a ransom to its UAW workers of up to $140,000 per man, just to get them to quit and take their hands out of its pockets. (It believes that $140,000 is less than what they will steal if they remain.)
Seventh, without the UAW, GM would not now have healthcare obligations that account for more than $1,600 of the cost of every vehicle it produces.
Eighth, without the UAW, GM would not now have pension obligations which, if entered on its balance sheet in accordance with the rule now being proposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, will leave it with a net worth of minus $16 billion.
What the UAW has done, on the foundation of coercive, interventionist labor legislation, is bring a once-great company to its knees. It has done this by a process of forcing one obligation after another upon the company, while at the same time, through its work rules, featherbedding practices, hostility to labor-saving advances, and outlandish pay scales, doing practically everything in its power to make it impossible for the company to meet those obligations.
Ninth, without the UAW tens of thousands of workers — its own members — would not now be faced with the loss of pension and healthcare benefits that it is impossible for GM or any of the other auto companies to provide, and never was possible for them to provide. The UAW, the whole labor-union movement, and the left-"liberal" intellectual establishment, which is their father and mother, are responsible for foisting on the public and on the average working man and woman a fantasy land of imaginary Demons (big business and the rich) and of saintly Good Fairies (politicians, government officials, and union leaders). In this fantasy-land, the Good Fairies supposedly have the power to wring unlimited free benefits from the Demons.
Tenth, Without the UAW and its fantasy-land mentality, autoworkers would have been motivated to save out of wages actually paid to them, and to provide for their future by means of by and large reasonable investments of those savings — investments with some measure of diversification. Instead, like small children, lured by the prospect of free candy from a stranger, they have been led to a very bad end. They thought they would receive endless free golden eggs from a goose they were doing everything possible to maim and finally kill, and now they're about to learn that the eggs just aren't there.
Here is the link for the rest of the article: http://mises.org/story/2124
Obama about to make a bad situation 10 times
nm
It is a new lawsuit - but I think the point is the situation has already been settled - nm
x
Limbaugh stated today he was asked to do an op-ed for the whole situation. nm
x
Reminded me of a real-life situation when I was a child -
My sister, cousin, and myself had a koolaid stand on the side of the country road where we lived. We spent the day selling koolaid to mostly family. Halfway through the day, my sister decided it was too hot and she quit. We divided the money up 3 ways at that point and started all over.
At the end of the day, my sister had come back and spent all her money at our koolaid stand. My cousin and myself divided the money up 2 ways at that point when we quit.
An hour later, my sister was complaining to my grandfather that she had no money, that we had all the money and did not give her any... My grandfather proceeded to count our money and give her the exact amount we ended the day with!
I just started comparing that story to the government when I saw this cartoon! Boy, that made me mad...!!!
I do agree. It was a lose/lose situation for him either way.
Very sad.
Also can understand...
I was also accused of being the notorious gt also. Not sure what their obsession is with this, perhaps they are hoping that all the posters who do not agree with are one in the same.
What I understand you to be saying....
What I hear you saying is that this board's posts need to reflect your personal ideology and that it is your role to call our attention to posts that you consider too liberal.
In looking back at your protests on this board, particularly a post where you have repeated the word hate over and over, combined with your delusions of grandeur that this board should operate according to your political agenda, I think you are mentally unbalanced. As a result of mental illness I doubt you will be able to comprehend any reasonable explanation of why what you are doing is misguided.
I suggest that if you want full control of a political board and the ability to censor each post that you create your own website.
Also, I am not sure why you have been allowed to run amuck on this particular board.
You know what I don't understand?
If we are so wacko, why do they keep coming here to read *liberal* posts and then slither back to insult us on their board?
PK,you're very welcome. Have yourself a lovely afternoon/evening wherever you are.
I don't understand....
How does one person's possibly tactless comments excuse another person's comments? This line of thinking doesn't make sense. So you're saying it's okay for Ann Coulter to be a brutal witch with her comments because if you look hard enough you can find comments from the opposing side that were also of questionable moral character? So what? LIke I always told my kids when they were little, just because other people are doing it doesn't make it right.
Besides, Ann quibbles that the widows are using their grief to promote their political agenda, well, my thought is that every time some family member of a war casualty goes on the local news saying how proud they are of what the military is doing in Iraq, etc., isn't that ALSO promoting a political agenda?
I do not understand why anyone would believe there were WMD....sm
IF there were any thread of truth this administration would have announced it at first notice to redeem themselves from the *unjust war* criticism. Unless they are holding on to this tad bit of information until closer to electoins, which I doubt. I would not be so quick to jump on board with Santorum with his *classified document.*
What I think I do understand.
After much research, I feel I can comment on this. Embryonic stem cell research has more than one goal. There is the harvesting of aborted babies stem cells, but there is also the stipulation in small writing that embryos can be cloned in the lab and those stem cells used for research. There is also this article, not released for general knowledge. I am sure that Michael Fox, as young as he is, and being the father of small children, would like to believe that embryonic stell research is going to be the be all and end all for Parkinson disease. I would want the same thing. But it just isn't and there are sinister forces at work just waiting for this bill to pass and for all heck to break loose. If it sounds dramatic, I don't think it is dire enough warning. An informed public is a forewarned and armed public. Here is the article I mentioned above.
Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds
Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.
Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.
Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.
Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.
This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.
The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.
Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.
Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells.
Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.
But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.
The researchers killed the animals before they could know for sure, and said any experiments in humans would have to be done very cautiously.
Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research cite such threats. Many opponents, including President George W. Bush and some members of Congress, believe it is immoral to destroy human embryos to obtain their stem cells.
*****
Finally, I will close with President Bush's words about embryonic cell research because I agree with him 400%. I suppose the division lies between conservative and liberal in defining the meaning of life.
(quote) believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. (Applause.) In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value.(unquote)
Amen, President Bush, Amen.
Okay....although I still do not understand...
but as you said, I don't have to. It seemed a very simple observation that if you found fault with Bush showing up at VA Tech and not at a soldier's funeral...I could not attribute that to anything but a strong dislike (I will not use word hate) of Bush. And no, I do not hate any of the people you mentioned. And had any one of them shown up at VA Tech, I would not have criticized them for being there because they had not gone somewhere else I might have felt they should have gone. I would have been glad they showed up to try to help those kids heal. I suppose you might call me naive, but I took it at face value, just like I did when Bill Clinton came to OKC after the Murrah bombing. As I said, he is not a person I like, respect or admire, but he was the President and he did come and I was very, very glad to see him there, he seemed sincere and I took it at face value. And, as I have said many times, there are a lot of things I do not like about this administration, I do not agree with everything Bush has done. However, on that same note, I was appalled at the pork the Dems wanted to hang on the troop funding bill, so I am not a big fan of the Democratically controlled Congress either. Nancy Pelosi broke the law by her Lone Ranger visit to Syria, and Harry Reid...I think he is a coward, I think to publically announce the war is lost when men are still on the ground fighting is at the last ill-advised, at the most tantamount to treason, emboldens the enemy and was from a personal standpoint hateful and very, very mean-spirited. I think when I see him, please do not tell me you support the troops and in the same breath tell them the war is lost. I think that is supremely arrogant, like he had a clue whether or not the war was lost. I am ashamed of him, and I have not been that ashamed of a politician since Bill Clinton's shenanigans. All that being said, as a person, I still like George Bush. I believe he is sincere and I believe his heart is in the right place. I think he is genuinely a good person, and that is probably why he is not a good politician, because there are very FEW who, in my estimation, are both. But that is just me. I think this war has taken a toll on him, and I think people who say he couldn't care less about the soldiers dying do not know what they are talking about. I have seen him shed tears on numerous occasions talking to families and talking to soldiers in the hospitals. The last President I remember shedding a real tear was Ronald Reagan. I think it is a sign of strength when a man shows his emotion like that. Again, you may perceive that as naive.
Basically I am looking for a hero this round. A man (or woman) with the courage of their convictions who will administer not to get rel-elected, but for what is good for the country. If such a person exists, now would be the time. I frankly have not seen that person in the running right now.
Yikes! Too much information.
God bless!
I really don't understand that, either....
I have been coming to these boards for a very long time and I have never seen a conservative post that liberals should stick to their own board. But they are really quick on this board to say things like "neocons need not apply" and "this board is for liberals." All that says to me is that they don't want to debate, they want only one viewpoint, theirs, and want validation from everyone for their viewpoint. The moderator has said that we could post on either board as long as we kept it respectful. This is America for Pete's sake. Each is entitled to his opinion and to support it. Sigh.
I understand
That is a whole lot more than I make, too! I live in an area where I have to pay $1,000 a month to rent a studio apartment. I thought this was outrageous! Then, my mother started a traveling job and has been telling me how much it costs to live in D.C. and some places in California. Even Vermont (sorry, don't remember what town) was more expensive! In these cases, a lot of that 88,000 would be eaten up by rent/mortage payments alone. Don't get me wrong, I do NOT think that someone living in a 3,000 sq foot house with a huge mortgage should get assistance - obviously their priorities would be out of whack. But for those in areas when it costs way more to live, that may not be unreasonable. Anyway, that was just my thought. On the site that I found, it does not mention that cap, it only says that states would set their own cap. If I recall, the 88,000 was mentioned by New York, who wanted that as their cap. I would imagine living in NY would be insanely expensive (anyone know #s?). I'm not sure how they would work out a maximum allowable cap - that doesn't seem to be written into the proposal.
I was just curious for reasons. Thank you for sharing!! :)
I understand what you are saying...
my experience totally different. My husband served in Somalia fighting AL Qaeda there..before 9-11...when Clinton was President. We have been in the military for many years. So, of course, we know soldiers...my husband was a member of the 10th Mountain Division. He was retired by the time Iraq came around (he still works for the Army in civilian capacity), but the 10th Mountain was instrumental in Afghanistan...he knew many of those who were deployed and he knows many who have ben to Iraq...needless to say our roots in the service run deep. And all the young/older servicemen we have come in contact with hold the opposite view...they understand the need to fight the enemy there so we don't have to fight them here. They believe, as do I, that keeping Al Qaeda busy in Iraq is one reason we have not been hit here again in a big way. The surge is working; casualties are down dramatically for both civilians and soldiers...the data is there if you look. Still, we will not get into a war debate but I will say this...no one WANTS war. I would like to have them home today too, but what I don't want is for America to become like Israel with car bombs and human bombs in malls, schools...I don't want to hear about something like that every day. I believe our being in Iraq helps keep that kind of thing at bay, and if we can leave a free Iraq we will be one step closer to keeping Al Qaeda at bay.
I saw a man on TV a few nights ago...a man who has interviewed several jihadists, including Al Qaeda...I wish I could remember his name. Will have to Google for that too. He said that most Americans really did not understand the threat. He said that there was a common thread in interviewing all of them, whether it be Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad...they said themselves that we did not understand. They are in this for the long haul. They intend that the world be converted to Islam, and those who do not convert will die. They will not stop until it is done. They intend to start in Europe and extend it to the US. When asked why could we not have a dialogue, they all said in essence: "There is no dialogue. There is nothing to discuss."
That should tell us what we are up against. And it should chill us all.
Have a good night!
I understand what you are saying but..
It seems that over time the majority of politicians who are supposed to be looking out for the people of this country have decided it is more profitable to concentrate on a certain constituency - those who have wealth and connections, no matter which party they represent. I'm just kinda tired of always seeing Obama slammed - if he blinks wrong, does not say the 'right' thing, carry himself in a certain way - people are all over him negatively. He cannot be any worse than what we have had in office the past eight years, and I am willing to see what he does without maliciously tearing him apart.
I understand everything you said
There is no way to deal with these people. Everything we do is a catch-22. We go to war - we are intolerant murderers. We don't go to war - we are weak. My personal opinion on this is that we need to bring as many troops back as we can and do everything humanly possible to keep this country safe. I am afraid that with so many troops in Iraq, we are not safe. Other countries recognize this. Look at Iran. What would we do if we HAD (and I say had because I would hope that we would exhaust every other option) to invade Iran? Our poor troops are exhausted and weary. Who would fight any other threats? I think it is important to gain strength here at home. Secure our borders. Thoroughly investigate anyone coming into our country. I think that is the best we can do because fighting really doesn't get us anywhere in the grand scheme of things.
what I can;t understand
If repubs are the minority being attacked by the all-powerful liberal media, why can't we have a liberal talk radio network? You got yer Hanninity, Limbaug, shrieking harpie Laura whats her name, Michael Savage, etc. You can't be a minority and still have all the radio programs . ... don't make no sense.
Understand what exactly?
Are you looking for justification for leaning toward conservatism? Your prose is rhetorical and exhausting. Can we get some fair liberals, aka, fellow Democrats who would like to discuss issues, candidates, etc, on this site?
I understand what you are saying...
I am just not sure universal health care is the answer. In every country I can find who have it, the cost is catching up and they are contemplating cutting services or raising taxes out of sight...many Canadians now pay 50-55% of their paycheck in taxes. I do not want to see this country go down that road. That will only force more and more people onto assistance, and that is going backward, in my opinion. Bottom line is, we need to figure out a way to get health care costs down, or it does not matter what kind of plan whether private or government-provided...we will not be able to afford it. Gotta get costs in control and keep them down. That is what I want to hear a candidate talk about...now throwing more money and raising taxes for yet another entitlement. Look at the money coming in now and prioritize. If free health care for everyone is what is most important, fund that first. It might mean cutting some other services or entitlements, but sometimes choices have to be made. What is most important? Do we really need to drive up everyone's taxes yet again? And how come no one is stating what universal health care will cost? Because the figure would scare us to death is my guess.
I understand what you are saying....
but what is the worst that could happen? Some of them go back to being jihadists. But if we can turn one heart, one life...who then might turn another...isn't that worth it?
We cannot change anything that has been done in the past. We can, however, learn from it, and hopefully give these kids hope. That is what they need desperately...hope for a better time, a better life. And if we can help with that...we should.
|
![Iran](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090617/videolthumb.ec330d8bf51ff0f97896c253d0a81a66.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=n02llinss0WKJvn1w3HGlg--")
