How many times has this one been brought up and shot down?

"There were inspectors in there that had to be withdrawn immediately prior to the attack and unltimately there were no weapons of mass destruction so there was no justification."

Jerry - Proof of destruction is different from inspectors "finding".

"There are two parties to vote for."

In my ever humble opinion, this thinking makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

"I don't agree with everything Bush did with the economy or the war and I've seen some of his comments about both, and his mistakes, looking back. War Criminals? I don't get the haters. Not directly at you but in general..."

Thanks to Doug we can't bash each other...

It's not clear why he chose to attack Iraq, but

They planned an invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Dividing up oil fields and such. According to the commerce secretary whose name starts with "O"?

Bush did an interview with Mickey Herzcovitch, his potential biographer, who said that Bush said that if he had the opportunity to get into a war, like his daddy, he'de better take advantage of it to get things done like eliminating social security

Barabara Bush, after Katrina, talking about the people stranded at that stadium with no food or water or bathrooms said something about "those homeless people are doing quite well, they have a place to stay...". The Bushs are entitled super rich people that have no empathy for the rest of us - we're just lazy - if there was a war in Iraq, well those are just poor Arabs who are violent anyway. Gives a window into George Bush's mind - he had no empathy for the millions of Iraqis that would be killed/injured/displaced.

When people spoke up against the weapons of mass destruction, like the ambassador, they "outed" his wife who was a CIA agent trying to identify and weapons of mass destruction - they "got two birds with one stone" - Cheney's assistant was convicted - and Cheney wrote down on some document that she was "fair game" which shows he was in on the plot.

I understand why Obama doesn't want to investigate any of this. And why the Scooter Libby prosecution didn't continue up to Cheney - it would be disruptive and the impeachment would be totally political with all Rs voting against

Maybe giving past presidents a pass makes sense in the short run, but future presidents might be more law abiding.

Romney has many of the same advisors. He talks the same as Bush - "tough guy" talk, claims to be a moderate and will work with the Democrats,...

Voting for Romney is just taking as back to the Bush years...

"There are two parties to vote for.

In my ever humble opinion, this thinking makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution."

You mis-understand me, Doug.

Historically, only once has there been a new party - whigs replaced by Republicans

However occasionally a party gets taken over and replaced from within - maybe the "tea party" is an example, except as they were taking over the Republican party, they got taken over by the same super-rich guys, like David Koch, and now the one issue they really care about is reducing taxes, but they don't say what they really mean - reducing taxes for super-rich.

I'm not saying to passively accept either the Democrats or Republicans, I'm saying take over the one that's closest to what you want.

Jerry

Why would I include power bias etc? We only have so much room on here and felt they were not worth it and a distraction. We are talking about liberal bias. I intentionally excluded the 1 study about liberal bias that was criticized. So there goes your criticism complaint. 90% of the conservative bias allegations center around FOX and Rupert Murdoch. We already know that. We are talking about all the media in the US.

I can give examples. It wasn't msnbc that Dan rather was on when he pulled a hatchet job based on false documents attacking bush. Are you conviently forgetting that one? Want more?

Jerry,

You are starting to sound like a politican or newscaster. Both sides can cherry pick things against their opponent and make him look bad. IMHO I think you are falling into the trap of trying to defend your party against the other. I think when any of us do that we lose credibility.

My position (which I'm having trouble communicating) is that both parties no longer have the US or the citizens best interest in mind. They are focused solely on power and getting re-elected. I think we would all like to think that some of the politicians are thinking about us, but when you look at it objectively it is obvious not their intentions. We could all pull from hundreds of examples.

Example 1: Immigration
We obviously have an issue that needs to be addressed, but no one is interested in developing a plan. They tend to vote more democratic and less republican. Both parties are taking a position that enforces that.

Example 2: Voter id
Same as example 1.

Example 3: Energy (public/private funding)
Rep support tax credits for oil and gas. Dem support alternative energies (really disguised as helping business that support them). Wouldn't it better to have a comprehensive plan? No possible because the parties have aligned with supporters. So the taxpayers pay the price.

I say follow the money or the vote and you will find the truth.


BTW, how does it help us talking in the past (Carter, Bush, Clinton, etc). That's what sports fan always do. When their team is having a bad year they always talk about well remember back when we ......

Brad

On planning Iraq war b4 9/11

You do know we have plans for invading any numbers of countries, right? The govt plans for all these contegincies and one part is controlling using or keeping online all aspects of production. So a plan to invade Iraq and divide oil fields is not in and of itself suspicious.

On outing a CIA agent.

Everybody knew she was. It was no secret. Much ado about nothing.

I agree with you Brad

But Michael copied just the liberal bias without the criticism or the conservative bias - that's cherry picking - I listed all the biases

Yeah, the lack of energy policy bugs me too.

I think the "Dem support alternative energies (really disguised as helping business that support them)" is just a right wing talking point. Romney said in that debate that half the alt energy companies failed but actually it was 10%. And the reason they needed government subsidy is they're risky so private financing is difficult. Government should "prime the pump" then private companies can take over the bulk of the financing.

You conservatives will say let private companies do everything, and I say the government should provide financial leadership, and maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Obama could switch over government vehicles to using natural gas. And subsidize an initial network of fueling stations that could also fuel private vehicles which would then become viable. And if you need congressional authorization, well, I never heard any proposals from Ds or Rs.

Jerry. I left off the one liberal bias study that was criticized because it was criticized. I don't need it to prove my point do why bring up a questionable study?

I also didn't include east coast bias allegations. That is not cherry picking. Get a grip.

Again nearly all of the conservative allegations are based on Fox and ruper Murdoch.

If you actually read it all you would see the overwhelming evidence points to a general liberal bias in mainstream media.

I have a few things that keeps me from Voting for Romney. One he was CEO of Bain capital who did Leveraged buy outs and also consultant also. He was educated at harvard business school during the time the school of thought of a consulting was parachuting in to company telling them what was wrong with company that led to massive lay offs to make a company worth more on the surface than leave after a year or two after the wake of destruction started happening in the company.

Basically his company was a bunch of jackal's or hatchet men doing what the owners of the company did not have the heart to do themselves.

I being a ex mormon I am very very afraid that he may impose his values on the nation with supreme court judges he picks and laws he sign. When he was at Bain capital he opted out on the Artisan Entertaiment because they produced "R" rated movies.
Plus I know one vice that seem to be predominate in the mormon church the members vice Is money and power.

I will be voting Obama again but I hate to seeing how much a laid back Kid from Hawaii has aged since he took office.

Being president especially during bad times ages the office holder really fast.
Terry

I want a president that worked for a living, made the hard choices, and succeeded in the real world.

Not some community organizer politician that's from one of the most corrupt jurisdictions around. I've seen enough to know obamas worse than bush

I don't like much about the R party but I like much much less about the D party.

Brad @ "I say follow the money or the vote and you will find the truth."

Wow, I'm impressed - seriously. So few really 'get it'; most tend to be hopelessly wrapped up in the team dynamic and never step back to see the big picture.

Now the next question for you young grass hopper, is: do you live this ideal or merely express it as an opinion on an interwebs chat site?

By that, I mean, do you exploit your knowledge of the current system in order to maximize the things you enjoy? I noticed there's another thread regarding re-entering society after a long thru hike. But what if you never had to 're-enter society' to the extent of running the treadmill according to rules purposely enacted to ensure your debt serfdom?

What if you simply played the system as is, thereby taking a hunk out of each dupe so that you might enjoy a life most aspire to? Morals? Does the lion care what the zebra(s) think of him?

Specifically, regardless of who is elected, which country we attack, which new laws & regulations are enacted to enslave the sheep, the bottom line is that the US government must add $50 TRILLION in **new** debt to the federal balance sheet over the next 10 years, or the Ponzi will come to a screeching, crashing end.

So how are you gonna get a piece of that action? Which asset/service classes will be decimated? When price controls & rationing are imposed, how are you going to position yourself to benefit? Think big my friend - it's one thing to have a good time hiking, it's another to be a downtrodden loser.

Edited by Hobbesatronic on 10/11/2012 10:54:53 MDT.

So, if you have Mormon experience, what's this about the prophecy that a Mormon will become president and ...

Jerry my friend. The market will shake out the things that don't work, generally speaking.

"Obama could switch over government vehicles to using natural gas. And subsidize an initial network of fueling stations that could also fuel private vehicles which would then become viable."

This was also suggested by a professor at a large university in my state. He failed to mention that with the current capacity of most vehicles, they couldn't make it to his next mandated station, that implementation would cost taxpayers (you and me) lots of zeros, and that the project could never be cost efficient as proposed. I'm paying people like this to teach my kids? ... Yet I heard a lot of people saying we should probably do it. As moronic as it all sounds, the project can't even make it past the first test question. Is this the role of the federal gov't? Nope. Priming the pump? If the gov't has to prime anything, it's not ready for the market. Besides that, we're broke. Quit this pizzin off money like a drunken sailor and then we can talk about fair taxes.

Bill Wattenburg has been pushing this - he's more conservative than liberal

T Boone Pickens has pushed it - very conservative destroyer of Democratic presedential candidates

The government has "primed the pump" on many technologies that then become commercially practical - like computers, integrated circuits, airplanes, electrical power, nuclear plants,... It would be easier to list the things that the government didn't prime the pump on.

Jerry ,
The white horse prophecy by Joseph Smith a mormon president would save the U.S. constitution I did not know much about it. But it makes since because the mormons consider themselves Latter Day Saints that means the second coming of Jesus.

I became inactive and sour about the mormon church when their battle with U.S. government that they would take away their tax exempt status if they did not let people of color hold the priesthood.
So all of sudden when it was about to happen in 1978 Prophet Spencer W. Kimball had revelation from god that people of color should be able to hold the priesthood. Basically the church was forced or they would lose their precious money.

My comment about Mormons even though I was inactive I still have family in the church and friends.

At one time in life I went back on the urging of a friend to attend a adult ward I went to church two times the second time in a priesthood meeting they were talking about how Church wanted to reach out to members of the church who fell away from the church like me. The main reason instead offering fellowship and help and understanding why they became inactive was. The church want them back so they would start tithing again which is 10% of a members income.

I gave them a ear full of what I thought and walked out forever on the church. My friend chased after me we talked about what just happened in the church parking lot he agreed it was pretty stupid reason to get inactive members active.

I also disagree with the reason the mormons do Genealogy on their families and other non members who are dead. The whole reason genealogy is for baptism for the dead by proxy they have done this for thousand of unknowing people.

I have had family members die every time I have to tell my sister who is active not to change their religion by baptizing them after their dead. Leave them alone they lived their life a certain way on their own terms so let them keep their chosen religion in death. She always promises me she will leave them alone.
Terry

Edited by socal-nomad on 10/11/2012 11:49:46 MDT.

I googled "white horse prohecy"

purportedly, Joseph Smith prophesized that a Mormon will become president and "save" the country making it a mormon dominated theocracy

Romney so transparently says and does anything to get elected, it's impossible to know what he really thinks, maybe this is his plan

It's like some fundamentalist christians think that revelations says there will be a war between jews and muslims in isreal, half the jews will be killed and the other half will become christians, and then the rapture will happen,... so these fundamentalist christians want to take actions to make this happen now provoking a war between isreal and muslims.

My interpretation of the bible is it's impossible for man to know when any of this will happen and it's anti-christian to take actions to make this happen.

I don't want a person's religion to be a consideration in an election, but some of these hyper-religious people worry me

Suprise you didn't mention the internet. I can't agree with all of your list, but again the bottom line is, you missed the point.

"Yeah, the lack of energy policy bugs me too."

Maybe we should change O&G incentives to force them into advance alternative energies. We are throwing taxpayer money at startups who really don't have the resources or experience to develop AND commercialize alternative energy. To get adoption you have to figure out the commercialization component. However it can't be a hand out to big companies. Some kinda of joint approach with accountability just seems to be a better solution.

I'm a conservative if given the choice I would prefer government (NASA, DAPRA, Defense, etc) work on the development of alternative energy as opposed to startups. We have seen a lot of success over the years from this approach. Startups are doomed from the start from the beginning.

We already have a distribution system for gas, so why not leverage a way to utilize it. Developing a whole new network is just too expense when it comes to land, building, system, etc. However I don't know anything about how to make this work.

Brad

"I won't list all the reasons we should have (Iraq) or how we should have gone about it"

I, for one, would be most interested in hearing your reasons why we should have invaded Iraq, and how we should have gone about it, at a cost approaching $1,000,000,000,000, ~4600 US dead, ~32,000 physically wounded US troops, >200,000 US troops with varying degrees of PTSD that will cost us dearly over at least the next 2 generations, and a minimum of 100,000 Iraqi dead, 3-4 million Iraqi refugees, and a shattered, unstable nation that has gravitated into the Iranian orbit, thereby threatening to destabilize neighboring Sunni nations.




"but, remember we are tied to the UN. How many times did the UN tell Saddam, "we'll give you one more chance but next time there are going to be consequences". 14?"

Are you saying the UN forced us to invade Iraq? Seriously??