No one gives a flip about retreat.
Posted By: But ignorant bigotry... on 2009-02-04
In Reply to: And you think I can't read -- Look below - MT in PA
that perpetuates division and hatred....quite another story. No only do you have the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader, you can't seem to count past 3 and are obviously outnumbered by folks who have zero tolerance when it comes to bigots. Such a bore.
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
A little context before retreat.
Yes, I know your post appeared before Cease Fire. As soon as I pressed the Post Reply button, there you were, right back up there taking one last “shot”…your words, not mine. Cease fire…broken before it even began. That would suggest that the 3rd person rules of engagement never applied either. You have made it quite clear that you prefer the garbage-out/garbage in approach…again, just dancing to your tune. Remember the part about someone always being around to answer bigotry’s call-to-arms? Thus, the gloves stay off for the time being. Besides, your rejection of the olive branch is fairly apparent by now.
He’s my friend, not my therapist. He still has so many issues of his own, he would be the first one to say that he’s the one who needs the couch. He is brilliant when it comes to helping others, just not when it comes to helping himself. We have known each other for 42 years. He actually seeks my advice, and I his..it’s personal, not professional.
The economics is way to vast to get into for the time being. May another time, but in terms of what we spend to “support” illegals, that amount is a drop in the bucket when compared to the profits generated for transnational corporations (those guys who actually run the country) in the maquilidoras in Mexico and the cheap labor pool they create once they cross that porous border. So yeah, I got some 4-letter words on that subject. Just ask yourself this fundamental question. Who stands to gain/profit from all this? As long as the transnationals’ bottom line is in the black, they have no motive to “fix” this “problem.” Don’t hold your breath. This is what global economy looks like.
The yada, yada, yada was not referring to the path to citizenship. I was talking about entering with legal status. Let’s put a face on a case. I had a Filipino friend (fellow MT) back in 1983, who entered on a work visa and applied for permanent residence. That took 3 years. She waited. No problem. Then she tried to apply for her 5 children. By 1986, the laws relative to family unification requirements had changed. In 1983, she only would have had to wait another 5 years (AFTER becoming a resident) for approval to sponsor HER OWN CHILDREN. Whoops. No so fast. By 1986, that generous 5-year wait had been doubled to (count ‘em) 10 years for Filipinos. She traveled back and forth over those years while immigration did its thing to see her children and husband, who had stayed behind to raise them in her absence.
Her kids were school age when she when she started this. By the time they were all together again, her youngest was a sophomore in college. She waited. She did it all nice and legal. Excuses, excuses, excuses? Good things come to those who wait? What’s so great about a mother missing 13 years of her children’s lives? Was it worth it? The price they paid was way too high. They had all become so disillusioned and had lost so much, within 5 years after completing the process, the entire family turned around and went back to the Philippines. So much for THEIR Ameican dream and playing by the rules. Maybe good riddance to some, a tragic shame to others. That’s just one case….and yeah, there are plenty of 4-letter words that reveal just how many others there were. Things have gotten a whole lot worse since then, but your party still insists these arcane laws are “too liberal” to suit them. Puh-leeze. So no, I don’t pick and choose laws that suit me. Simply stated, bad laws need to be changed, or eliminated all together.
No national spokesperson here. Just a lifetime of experience (sorry, Sam, you left yourself wide open by trying to be so cute). U of H, 1967…that pesky urban academic forum you love to hate. Free speech for all students was encouraged and accommodated back then. Alongside Viet Nam War, civil rights and nascent women’s lib protests were the highly visible and vocal Arabs and Iranians, here on student visas, nice and legal, the way you claim you like it. Their issues were:
- The 6-day war, when US-backed Israel stepped up its bloodthirsty quest to drive an entire Palestinian population into the refugee diaspora by expanding its illegal occupations of Syria and Egypt. They created some great future killing fields in Golan and Gaza by rearranging a few borders and chopping up the West Bank like a piece of cheap mortadella, sending millions of refugees fleeing into Jordan, which has never been the same, Syria, Europe and the US.
- The pros and cons of Arab political unity as an appropriate response to such blatant aggression and invasion. Now this idea scares the pants off the US. If the Arabs were ever to unify, and especially if they ally themselves with Iran, the world power that would create could crush US superpower ambitions with its eyes shut. US was really nervous about that prospect. Not hard to figure why they have spent trillons of dollars since 1948 (Israel's birthday) and turned a blind eye to all that bloodshed in an effort to keep that region just as destabilized as possible. Where's the outrange over that expense? Oil makes countries do some crazy stuff.
- The formation of the OPEC states as organized by the Shah of Iran, the puppet monarch the US backed after their successful early 1950s coup that removed Mosadegh, the secular democratic prime minister who wanted to eliminate Western control and nationalize Iran’s oil. Democracy in the Middle East? Right. “Oil”agarchy? Nothing new under the sun. Imperialism? Old as the hills.
- The subsequent withdrawal of US backing for the Shah when he had the audacity to take a page out of Mosadegh’s book to suggest that Iran should control it OWN oil resources.
- The rise of a multitude of Iranian political parties, including the strengthening and empowerment of those nasty Islamic fundamentalists that eventually seized control.
- The overthrow of the US puppet monarch who, by that time, had systematically imprisoned, tortured and executed his opposition behind the scenes, ultimately turning Islamic party leadership into national martyrs, making it really easy for them to step right in and take over. Not a great choice for a puppet. Can you say "human rights?"
- The outpouring of refugees from Iran in the aftermath, trying to escape the same-song-second-verse torture, imprisonment and executions under the new leadership. My husband was one of the lucky ones who made it out in time. Things were a bit hectic for him in the middle of the blood bath, there being a revolution and all. No time for a visa. Declared asylum when he got to Germany and was approved.
- The 1951-1952 CIA-backed coup has been acknowledged by our own government and US tax dollars transfered from the US to the Israel treasury...a matter of public record, so "frankly, I don't believe it" isn't going to cut it. I could give you some more 4-letter words, but time is short. As you can see, this is not exactly democratic party line I'm spouting here. No mouthpiece on this mouth. This is information that is not served up by the US news media outlets either. You can hear a lot about it from news broadcasts from other countries and there is a ton of information to sift through on the net should one feel so inclined.
This is not some angry tirade or “tude” I harbor. Not trying to condescend or educate anyone here. History simply is not your friend, Sam, so keep those elitist accusations on the tip of your tongue where they belong. In any case, I was just like you, at first. Beat my patriotic chest, fought tooth and nail, until I finally started to acknowledge my own bias and prejudice against “foreigners” and decided to look into it all. Started reading up on the subject, listening more and talking less, checking facts, etc. Picked up a keen interest in all flavors of foreign policy. Changed my life for the better forever. Made friends along the way of all sorts and persuasions, over many decades, by now, way too numerous to count. Studied together, had lots of fun, ate dinners with them and their families, baby sat their kids, went to weddings, house warmings, baby showers and funerals, shed bucket of tears, learned respect for their customs and cultures.
I married once to an Arab for 12 years, went overseas and lived with the family for 2 years in Madaya, a RURAL village 40 miles west of Damascus in the Bekka Valley. Most beautiful orchards you ever laid eyes. Too bad the skies over this particular pastoral scene were often darkened by the storm clouds of war. That was the year Israel tried to push itself all the way to Beruit, a mere 45 miles to the west of us, decimating whole villages in the wake of that land grab (been so many, I've lost count)…but not quite as gory as their most recent offensive into Lebanon. Israeli fighter jets (bank-rolled by good ole’ American tax dollars,) would often fly so fast and so low under the radar screen they sounded like they were getting ready to crash into the house. This would send us all scrambling to the floor, nose to the ground and hands clenched tightly behind our heads in a hopeless attempt to somehow feel safer, where we would cower for a couple of minutes until it was over. Kind of reminiscent of those war photos from Sadr City and Mosul when American soldiers ransacked those villages in search of insurgents, going door-to-door, breaking in with the butt of their rifles, sending civilian old men, women and children dropping like flies in the absence of all military-age male family members (out trying to protect everybody), as the GI planted his boot into the small of an Iraqi teenager’s back, shaking like a leaf. Just how proud, safe and strong do you think that “should” make me feel?
Later married that Iranian refugee I spoke of earlier. Got in-laws abroad and here. My husband has difficulty accepting the idea that he may never see his mother, father, 3 brother(s), sister(s)-in-law, nephew and neice, aunts, uncles and cousins. We make do with weekly phone calls. My son is a native-born citizen, with very much of a westernized hyphenated Iranian side to his identity….American-Iranian, according to him. My sister lives in Tehran with her husband and her own 12-year-old American citizen American-Iranian/Iranian-American son. Hope they don’t get caught up in the aftermath of the latest nuclear flap and proposed American diplomatic efforts. You’ll forgive me if I a bit suspicious of Bush’s stunning reversal of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” mantra. An “American interests section?” Indeed. Don’t look for the Iranian madman to agree to another CIA spy dugout in the middle of his capital city any time soon. Shades of ignored WMD inspector reports and manufactured “intelligence” (give me a break) findings. I take little comfort in the fact that he is running out of time for another Middle East invasion/fiasco.
Through it all, I have engaged myself with immigration law, starting back in college, trying to help different nationalities navigate the stormy waters of the LEGALIZATION process. Furthermore, because of my husband’s political refugee status, we are well acquainted with Homeland Security (DHS) issues. One of our friends is a DHS regional director. He is an advocate for immigrant rights and reform, legal and illegal…a position he takes after his retirement from INS after 30 years and 5 years with DHS. Probably knows a thing or 2. He can’t wait for the inauguration. Says his job will be a lot easier and kinder once McCain or Obama take office, since they both support immigration reform. Looking forward to going to sleep with a cleaner conscience, he says.
Anger? Not exactly. Passion? You bet. Please forgive me if I feel like I might have something of substance to bring into this debate. I take these issues very seriously since were are talking about my families, my friends. In my experience (not some passage out of some old dusty textbook), these are matters of life and death. I may be a little far out in left field to suit you, but I feel I have at least earned my stripes. I am no less American than anyone else born and raised here. Keep in mind that I am not by myself here either. The last 2 elections were too, too close to support that notion.
You will be relieved to hear this. That’s all the time I have right now. One thing we all can see about you is you somehow feel if you get the last word, it must be the best word. Ain’t necessarily so, but at least for the time being, you can have it your way. Have no intention to leave the remainder of your slanderous post unanswered. Debate is suspended from this side due to the job hunt thing, but certainly not finished by any means.
One thing I look forward to is the (un)Cival War discussion. Maybe you can enlighten me as to how to construe a war which produced more than half a million deaths of various sorts in 4 years was about anything except some of the same fundamental issues that divide us to this day…the economics and human rights issues that surrounded slavery then, the common thread that divides us, then and now, being the bigotry of it all. Will follow your advice and read up on the Republican party, but before playing the Abraham Lincoln was a Republican card, better bone up on how your party platform has reversed itself on most issues since it formation in the early 1850s. HisRepublican Party in no way resembles the GOP of today. Confusing? Yes. Alas, another 4 letter word for you.
I appreciate your parting “shot.” Wouldn’t want to let a little thing like a hurricane sink OUR hot air balloons (pleural). now, would we? Enjoy your last word and the sabbatical. Gonna get swallowed up by poverty if I don’t find a job soon.
Have it your way. Retreat back behind that wall of separation
But do yourself and all of us a favor and simply give the man a chance. Your posts are full of fear and doubt. If you find the simple suggestion that you reach deep down inside yourself and do your part to meet the challenge of healing halfway so intimidating, it is not your time yet. I pray hope will come to you sooner rather than later.
I don't understand how you can blame Obama for the retreat?
This is a yearly thing they do. He just attended this year. It was not for him or by him.
Also, he could not know the tax situation of each person he was interested in having in these positions unless they tell him and until they are researched. I don't know the tax situation fo each person that I do business with and never will because there is no reason for me to know. Once this information becomes public, if he continues to support them then yes that is a problem - one I think he already apologized for.
I don't think it will be a problem again.
Typical, retreat without answering a simple question under ANY of your many names...
demean, belittle, name-call, deride, post under different names to support your view because no one else will...and as far as granting my wish...never asked you leave...you said you were leaving to hunt a job. I said see ya when you get back. That is hardly asking you to ride off into the sunset. You are so similar to Mr. Obama...birds of a feather and all that...ask a simple straight-forward question and you dodge it like it was on fire. Guess your superior intelligence just deserts you in the face of a simple question...or perhaps even you, from your lofty perch, have enough common sense to realize that there is no bigotry to what I said. You are far more bigoted toward conservatives and people you feel are inferior to you than I ever could be...and certainly more bigoted than my stance on immigration.
Still with the plaigiarism thing...good grief, you DO love to belabor a point, especially when you are wrong. Someone has always said something before...and in all your diatribes I did not find one original point. Read the same thing on leftist blogs, in articles, and on and on and on. Not one original thought from the great brain that is GT/GW/BW/FPJ.
See ya...and yeah, it HAS been fun. lol.
And no, I did not discount that FPJ could have been speaking on her own...just said if she was, she was plagiarizing you. You seemed to be so concerned about plagiarizing...not even taking into consideration that your lectures are about 98% plagiarized (by your definition...your words, not mine). Did you really think people wouldn't google?
Take care. I am still considering spiteful little vixen stationery...might even get T-shirts. :-)
The flip
MSNBC just showed that a little while ago....the whole clip. He scratched with one finger, then with the other. Not at all meant to be any kind of hand gesture.
Wow...flip flop, flip flop....
You yourself said social programs did not need more money thrown at them but managed better and priorities applied. Now you say there is no such thing as runaway social programs and they were not mismanaged. I guess you read a common dreams article and had to readjust your thinking, the article d'jour? lol. You should run for office. You got it down, girl.
Let's look at regime change in Iraq. That was not hatched by "neocons" (whatever the heck that means). It was hatched during the Clinton administration. He went on TV during his tenure and called for regime change, how Hussein had WMD, yada yada, for our own safety we should disarm him, look what he did to his own people, same thing intelligence said during Bush admin (no big surprise...Bush kept the intelligence structure intact from Clinton admin...boy what a colossal mistake THAT was). Clinton is liberal isn't he??
Open your mind and Google it. And figure out a way to spin it. If the attack on the WTC had happened during Clinton's watch, we would have invaded Iraq then, and you would have been on here defending it because a "liberal" Prez instituted it. We would not be hearing conspiracy theories from you, we would not be hearing bring the troops home from you. We would not be hearing you calling for HIS impeachment. No wonder we cannot get anything done in this country.
Moral relativism. In your mind, perjury is not wrong in all cases, it depends on what you are lying about. Go after Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction (same thing Clinton did) because it is somehow worse when done by a Republican. Not be upset that the person who actually committed the crime (outing an agent) was Armitage, NOT Libby and NOT Rowe, was never charged. In fact was asked by Fitzgerald to keep quiet about it. But THAT does not matter to you.
The fact that you cannot see that yourself proves that you exist in the state of denial and your only "truth" has to come from a liberal page, a liberal article, a liberal TV station, yada yada. Anything printed in Common Dreams is gospel to you and you go no further. Anything printed on a page you don't approve of is a lie and you go no further. You don't even attempt to see if the FACTS are true (no matter where it is printed)..but, what am I thinking????? Why, heck, it CAN'T be the truth, if those evil lying conservatives printed it. LOL. Amazing!!
Oh yes, let's talk about unions. Why are Americans buying cheaper imports? Because union costs have made cars so expensive Americans can't afford them anymore. You don't think that has a direct effect on lots of jobs going overseas?? Of course it does! Unions as they were conceived were a needed thing. A wonderful thing. But many other things, money and power corrupted them. Where is the big money in unions? At the top, not with the union members. And both political parties suck up to them big time because of that power and money. Unions have contributed as much as anyone to sending jobs and manufacturing overseas.
Look at your history. Democrats (predominantly southern Democrats I grant you) DID keep the black population from voting. It was conservatives, largely for religious reasons, who opposed slavery and finally abolished it and were willing to fight a war over it. Even after the war and the emancipation proclamation, southern Democrats passed laws making it impossible for blacks to vote and managed to do so until the 60's. And when that point was made, you spun that by saying the Republicans of that time were more liberal. Spin, spin, spin. LOL.
It was Republicans (conservatives of that time) who started the sufferage movement for women, because conservatives believe that all men (and women) are created equal.
When did liberals get interested in what blacks wanted or needed? WHEN THEY GOT THE VOTE. Hence, the Lyndon Johnson war on poverty which came on the heels of blacks getting the vote. I don't know how much more transparent you can get. Same way with illegals. Oh NOOOO don't card them...they vote for US.
Lyndon Johnson was president when the decision was made to raid social security. And we know where that led, don't we? It was promised that would never happen. I would not call Lyndon Johnson a conservative.
The first pre-emptive war was started by a liberal President "to stop the spread of communism." That was not an idea spawned by "neocons" or the Bush administration. If you want to lay blame, at least lay it where it belongs. Liberals also forced the withdrawal when the war became increasingly unpopular, resulting in the killing fields of Cambodia, when the liberal Congress would not allow Nixon to keep his promises to the South. Now there is something for liberals to be proud of. Got the war stopped, yep...but at what cost?
You say you are not talking Democrats and Republicans, you are talking liberals and conservatives. I say tomato, you say tomato. Semantics. It is all the same. Most Democrats are liberal...in varying degrees. Your definition of "liberal" is not the same other persons who call themselves "liberal." When a Democrat does something you don't like, first thing heard is "he/she is not liberal." I guess you have to, in order make a vain attempt at a consistent message. So far it ain't happenin.
Media manipulation and lobbying were begun by the conservative party? First I would say prove it with something other than Common Dreams opinion pieces, but given the benefit of the doubt, let's just say they did. And here is the big BUT...it has certainly been perfected to a fine art by liberals. And what, pray tell, is the conservative "party?" Don't see that on any ticket. Just like I don't see "liberal" on any ticket. I thought you were not talking about democrats/republicans. Oops. That is what happens with cutting and pasting sometimes.
Your post looks like a left wing conspiracy theory ohhh myyy gooodnessss it is all THEIR fault, WE have NEVER EVER done ANYthing wrong, they are EVIL, EVIL, EVIL and EVERY bad thing that has EVER happened to this country was perpetrated by conservatives! Let's get the picks and shovels and torches and go to the castle and DESTROY them. LOL. Good grief.
And you wonder why people don't take the hard left seriously???
I tell you one thing....if BOTH sides don't quit playing the blame game and own up to the fact that no one party, no one ideal, no one ANYthing got us where we are, nothing will change. I cannot believe the colossal arrogance of anyone to state that it is all someone else's fault and accept no blame whatsoever.
Why can't we just drop all the labels, and when a good idea comes down the pike join in support of it instead of automatically rejecting it because...GASP...a "liberal" had it, or...GASP...a "conservative" had it. I am sure we do have some common goals in there somewhere, but they get lost in the power struggle.
It's like high school. Just bigger cliques. Superficial, judging someone by a label and engaging in group ridicule and dislike and not seeing individuals and not behaving as individuals but rather in packs. It was ridiculous then when we were teenagers. It is even more ridiculous now that we are adults.
SIGH. When we will we put away childish things??
hey, take off your flip flops
and we can wrastle....
...and on the flip side...we will soon see...sm
what Obama will do with his regime.
I have a feeling it won't be pretty.
At least we'll have a reason to throw all the democrats out of all branches of offices when they fall flat on their you know whatsits, and find they can't do what they think they can.
The American people won't stand for what the country is about to become, you included, once you wise up and see what's about to come.
And on the flip side...
http://www.pnhp.org
France, which comes in 1st in WHO health care rankings, has a better plan for the US to emulate than England's. It *can* be done right, if we try.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
Now Bush has flip-flopped...sm
The UN is a viable and necessary institution now. This is his latest on the UN.
When he was making the case for the war it was screw the UN.
In the wake of the mess in Iraq he has changed his tone, done a 360.
It's too cold for flip flops where I am, but here are a few...sm
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus. [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes. [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects. [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas. [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states. [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed. [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS The administration is open to a buyout. [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach. [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARMWell, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature. [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question. [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE I am pro-life. [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price. [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds. [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04 [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops. [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference. [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony. [President Bush, 3/30/04]
9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE...I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good. [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE 60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels. [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers. [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY...So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people. [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out. [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue. [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection. [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.' [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him.[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... [If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act. [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency. [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. [President Bush, 2/6/04]
17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11. [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. [ABC News, 09/20/02]
18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work. [CNN, 2/4/04]
19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday. [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock. [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into. [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. [President Bush, 2/24/04]
21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people. [President Bush, 3/6/03]
22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11. [President Bush, 9/17/03]
23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written. [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area. [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East. [President Bush, 5/23/03]
25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression. [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW [T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law. [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
26. 527s
Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import. [President Bush, 3/27/02]
…Bush says 527s bad for system: I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold. [President Bush, 8/23/04]
27. Medical Records
Bush says medical records must remain private: I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private. [President Bush, 4/12/01]
…Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department…asserts that patients no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential. [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]
28. Timelines For Dictators
Bush sets timeline for Saddam: If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack. [LA Times, 10/3/02]
…Bush says he's against timelines: I don't think you give timelines to dictators. [President Bush, 8/27/04]
29. The Great Lakes
Bush wants to divert great lakes: Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'– [AP, 7/19/01]
Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water. [President Bush, 8/16/04]
30. Winning The War On Terror
Bush claims he can win the war on terror: One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can. [President Bush, 4/13/04]
…Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: I don't think you can win [the war on terror]. [President Bush, 8/30/04]
…Bush says he will win the war on terror: Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]. [President Bush, 8/31/04]
Re: Canadians...The flip side. s/m
There is a flip side to some Canadians coming into the US to get health care, jump the line, etc. For every Canadian that comes here for care there is an equal or larger number of Americans entering Canada to obtain more reasonable medication. Also, a small but growing situation are Americans traveling to India for surgical procedures that they otherwise could not afford in the US.
As I have said before, I certainly do not have the magic "fix" for the health care debacle, but there is a flip side regarding Canada, etc.
She definitely calls them out on their flip flops
xx
on the flip side .. those with $$ pay more in taxes ...
by virtue of the money they SPEND -- their property taxes are higher; all those clothes and cars and boats and fancy diners out are taxable items ....so they automatically are already paying more into the tax funds that those with lower incomes.
I am also one who thinks it should be a flat tax -- WITH NO LOOPHOLES ... keep it fair and keep it simple.
We don't make much ... but I don't think it's fair to take from the rich and give to the poor. Let the rich give of their own accord, if they so desire.
I could have worked harder, made better decisions/different choices ... but I didn't and those who did should not have to support me.
I agree with the other poster - I would give the shirt off my back to those who really deserve it but our social programs have propagated a whole generation that think they are owed something just for being here and being American.
oh well .. back to work .. LOL
Is tht so? So I assume that you are a flip-flop,
WHAT exactly made you change your mind?
Biggest FLIP FLOP of all time...sm
So does Bush think there should be an exit strategy or not?
He's a joke!
Conservative Santorum - a flip flopper?
Group accuses Santorum of switch
Conservative association says senator made '180-degree turn' on intelligent design
By Lauri Lebo
Daily Record/Sunday News |
|
Dec 25, 2005 — A conservative organization that touts itself as a supporter of traditional values blasted Sen. Rick Santorum for his withdrawal of support for the Dover Area School District's unconstitutional intelligent design policy.
Senator Rick Santorum's agreement with Judge John Jones' decision ... is yet another example of why conservatives can no longer trust the senator, the American Family Association of Pennsylvania said in a news release Friday.
The association's president, Diane Gramley, said Santorum - who is expected to face a tough re-election challenge next year from state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. - should heed her organization's remarks.
It's a warning that he needs to be careful, Gramley said. That he's beginning to lose his conservative base.
A year ago today, an editorial by Santorum praising Dover's intelligent design policy appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I commend the Dover Area School District for taking a stand and refusing to ignore the controversy, he wrote.
Dover school officials were so pleased that they printed the piece in a newsletter sent out to district residents.
But last week, one day after Judge John E. Jones III sharply criticized former Dover board members and ruled that intelligent design could not be included in the science curriculum as unconstitutional, Santorum said he was troubled by former board member's actions.
Jones, in a strongly worded decision, left no doubt that he believed board members lied under oath in order to cover up their motivations - getting religion into science class.
Gramley criticized Santorum for changing his position.
He's almost made a 180-degree turn on this issue, she said.
In August, after President Bush said he supported teaching intelligent design in science class, Santorum said he didn't agree.
Rather, he said he supports teaching the controversy over evolutionary theory.
As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution, the Pennsylvania senator said during an NPR interview in August.
But in a 2002 Washington Times op-ed article, Santorum wrote that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.
Gramley said Santorum's change of view is an indication that he may be diverting from his conservative positions, in order to court more moderate voters.
Santorum also said he intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Thomas More Law Center, which defended the Dover policy in the lawsuit.
Santorum could not be reached for comment Friday.
http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3342145 |
|
|
|
Seems like Harry Reid has done some flip flopping of his own
FLASHBACK: Dem Senate Leader Harry Reid: 'Our Federal Wallet Stretched To Limit By Illegal Aliens Getting Welfare'
'Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally'
August 5, 1993
The Office of Sen. Harry Reid issued the following:
In response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today introduced the first and only comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress.
Currently, an alien living illegally in the United States often pays no taxes but receives unemployment, welfare, free medical care and other federal benefits. Recent terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep violent criminals out of the country.
Reid's bill, the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, overhauls the nation's immigration laws and calls for a massive scale-down of immigrants allowed into the country from approximately 800,000 to 300,000.
The bill also changes asylum laws to prevent phony asylum seekers. Reid said the U.S. open door policy is being abused at the expense of honest, working citizens.
We are a country founded upon fairness and justice, Reid said. An individual in real threat of torture or long-term incarceration because of his or her political beliefs can still seek asylum. But this bill closes the door to those who want to abuse America's inherent generosity and legal system.
Reid's bill also cracks down on illegal immigration. The 1990 census reported 3.3 million illegal aliens in America. Recent estimates indicate about 2.5 million immigrants illegally entered the United States last year.
Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs, Reid said. The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.
Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes.
Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally, Reid said.
Specific provisions of Reid's Immigration Stabilization Act include the following:
-- Reduces annual legal immigration levels from approximately 800,000 admissions per year to about 300,000. Relatives other than spouse or minor children will be admitted only if already on immigration waiting lists and their admission does not raise annual immigration levels above 300,000.
-- Reforms asylum rules to prevent aliens from entering the United States illegally under phony asylum claims.
-- Expands list of felonies considered aggravated felonies requiring exclusion and deportation of criminal aliens. Allows courts to order deportation at time of sentencing.
-- Increases penalties for failing to depart or re-entering the United States after a final order of deportation order. Increases maximum penalties for visa fraud from five years to 10 years.
-- Curtails alien smuggling by authorizing interdiction and repatriation of aliens seeking to enter the United States unlawfully by sea. Increases penalties for alien smuggling.
-- Adds alien smuggling to the list of crimes subject to sanctions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Expands the categories of property that are forfeited when used to facilitate the smuggling or harboring of illegal aliens.
-- Clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen. This will eliminate incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits.
-- Mandates that aliens who cannot demonstrably support themselves without public or private assistance are excludable. This will prevent admission of aliens likely to be dependent on public financial support. This requirement extends to the sponsor of any family sponsored immigrant.
-- Increases border security and patrol officers to 9,900 full-time positions.
END
Don't forget that he flip flops at every turn....sm
of the wind, saying stuff INFORMED voters well know is just a ruse to get votes. Most of the stuff he is so-called "promising" will never get out of Congress - he knows that and is banking on uninformed Americans who think highly of his rock-star status. Personally I always thought the lying was supposed to start AFTER they got into office, but it's obvious that Obama sees things WAY differently than most folks who pay attention to his rhetoric instead of being "sheeple. "
maybe he's just a flip flopper - like 100 years in Iraq
He should have just said "I don't remember" like the pubs have over and over and over.
Mmmm, no I think the mother of all flip-flops...sm
Goes to McCain for "Experience, experience, experience, I have the experience!" McCain: What, that's not working? Okay, I mean "Change, change, change!" ("Do you think anyone will notice that I just adopted what my opponent's platform because mine wasn't working, and that I've gone from being a so-called 'Maverick' to a populist in a matter of weeks?")
Bush Flip Flops on Immigration Bill...sm
Sensenbrenner: Bush Turned Back on Bill
Key House Republican Jim Sensenbrenner says Bush turned his back on immigration bill
WASHINGTON, May. 17, 2006
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER Associated Press Writer
 (AP) |
|
(AP) Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who has pushed a tough border security bill through the House, accused President Bush on Wednesday of abandoning the legislation after asking for many of its provisions.
He basically turned his back on provisions of the House-passed bill, a lot of which we were requested to put in the bill by the White House, Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., angrily told reporters in a conference call. That was last fall when we were drafting the bill, and now the president appears not to be interested in it at all.
Sensenbrenner chairs the House Judiciary Committee and would be the House's chief negotiator on any final immigration package for Bush's signature. He said it was the White House that had requested two controversial felony provisions in the bill the House passed last winter.
We worked very closely with White House in the fall in putting together the border security bill that the House passed, he said. ... What we heard in November and December, he seems to be going in the opposite direction in May. That is really at the crux of this irritation, he said of Bush.
I think the flip flop prize still belongs to Joe Biden...
from "He is not ready to lead; the job does not lend itself to on-the-job experience" to "He is ready to lead." Talking about the #1 on his ticket. Think that one still takes the prize. :)
|
