Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

Obama to lay out sober assessment, hopeful future


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Please Define "PORK"??????????

 

All Gov. Expenditures can be considered "PORK" by those not directly benefitting from it?????????

 

"Pork"

 

The addition of $9 Billion to build a maglev train from LA to Las Vegas for the Dem Majority leader! That's pork.

I could go on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Ill give you that but, Why dont we ask Schumer, he used the term

 

Yeah - it was stupid for Schumer to say that. Though in essence, what he was trying to say - is that there is pork in this bill - though it pales in comparison to the overall size and scope of the bill. ANd the Americans want the bill passed. All of which is true. Republicans want to point out this and that - again all true - but it's irrelevant when you consider the percentage it represents in the whole package. And it was the only way to get the thing thru. Nobody's said that the bill is perfect - quite the contrary. It's been said time and time again that it's not pefect - but it's simply a waste of time - and just typical politics to try to make something out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - it was stupid for Schumer to say that. Though in essence, what he was trying to say - is that there is pork in this bill - though it pales in comparison to the overall size and scope of the bill. ANd the Americans want the bill passed. All of which is true. Republicans want to point out this and that - again all true - but it's irrelevant when you consider the percentage it represents in the whole package. And it was the only way to get the thing thru. Nobody's said that the bill is perfect - quite the contrary. It's been said time and time again that it's not pefect - but it's simply a waste of time - and just typical politics to try to make something out of it.

 

And why is there less pork in this bill? Because the Republicans stood up and said no!

It points out the painfully obvious. While millions of Americans are out of work and suffering, the Democrats want to play the same old games

 

There is no change in Washington

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is there less pork in this bill? Because the Republicans stood up and said no!

It points out the painfully obvious. While millions of Americans are out of work and suffering, the Democrats want to play the same old games

 

There is no change in Washington

 

I don't really disagree with you. I'm disappointed by Dems all the time. I don't think much of Pelosi or Reid and would prefer that they be replaced. Though I do believe the Dems as a whole are better for the common good than Republicans. And I feel we have a better chance with Obama to get our country back on the right track than with any other alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta love liberal drivel!

 

How about citing your revisionist source, because this looks like it was written by some clown on a blog.

 

I was talking about the Sudan; not Afghanistan: http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prio...t_bin_laden.htm

 

The CIA's counter-terrorism division quickly began drafting plans to capture and remove bin Laden from the country. However, Marine General Anthony Zinni and some in the State Department protested the move, saying that the United States should focus instead on ending the Afghan civil war and the Taliban's human rights abuses. Who's the Commander in Chief? A guy attempts the first trade center demolition, and that's not as important as a civil war and human rights abuses in a third world country?

 

The senior management of the CIA was skeptical of the plan, and despite objections, canceled the operation, fearing that the risk to their operatives and financial costs were too high. It is unclear whether or not Clinton was aware of the plan. Unclear whether or not the Commander in Chief was aware of the plan? WTF? He's either incompetent or stupid. Kind of like not having sexual relations with that woman, huh?

 

On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at the camp and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by “a few hours.”

 

At the time of the attacks, Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. This led many Republicans in Congress to accuse the president of “wagging the dog”—launching a military attack simply to distract the public from his personal problems. Clinton and his principals, however, insist that the decision was made solely on the basis of national security. Substantiates what I just said above, huh?

 

 

I expected a better debate from you.

 

Here are my sources for the above.

 

"General Anthony Zinni and some in the State Department protested the move...

Richard Clark - Against All Enemies. September 2004. New York: The Free Press.

 

 

"The senior management of the CIA was skeptical of the plan..."

National Security Council note, Simon to Berger. February 27, 1998. Declassified by 9/11 Commission.

 

 

"On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles..."

Executive Order 13099 on Middle East Peace and Terrorists, August 22, 1999

 

Any other specific facts you want to refute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be no outrage, here is a group of Dem's doing the right thing

 

 

And flyboy, Clinton is the one that deserves the credit for the housing crunch, regulating banks to make them loan money to people who dont have the money to pay has a lot more to do with it that any deregulation. And your buddies in congress were warned and ignored the facts.

 

Most of the Democrats are out of touch right now. Like shumers little "the American people dont care about pork" comment

 

There you go blaming Clinton again as if a Republican administration that didn't lift a finger to stop it for 8 after should just get a free pass heh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pork"

 

The addition of $9 Billion to build a maglev train from LA to Las Vegas for the Dem Majority leader! That's pork.

I could go on...

 

 

There is a $9 Billion funding but it's not to build a maglev train from LA to Vegas! The bill is a general one for high speed rail which is being divided up between ALL the states. In the case of California, voters approved a high speed line from LA to SF last year with a bond for the amount of $4 Billion, though how much of the $9 billion will go to that effort are as yet unknown as the funds are being allocated under a competitive bidding process.

 

There was at one time an effort by Disney and some Vegas interests in building a train between the two but it never went anywhere.

 

"And for all of the Republican's talk of the "Sin City to Tomorrowland" line connecting Las Vegas with Los Angeles, there is no high-speed service designated for Nevada."

 

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/02/what-the-stimul.html

 

High speed corridors under consideration below.

highspeed.png

highspeed.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is there less pork in this bill? Because the Republicans stood up and said no!

It points out the painfully obvious. While millions of Americans are out of work and suffering, the Democrats want to play the same old games

 

There is no change in Washington

 

You are correct in at least one respect! The Republicans said "no" but because of that they weren't able to attach any pork to the bill! :hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are my sources for the above.

 

"General Anthony Zinni and some in the State Department protested the move...

Richard Clark - Against All Enemies. September 2004. New York: The Free Press.

 

 

"The senior management of the CIA was skeptical of the plan..."

National Security Council note, Simon to Berger. February 27, 1998. Declassified by 9/11 Commission.

 

 

"On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles..."

Executive Order 13099 on Middle East Peace and Terrorists, August 22, 1999

 

Any other specific facts you want to refute?

 

You cite sources but ignore the counterpoints? For people in positions such as theirs, they write like crap. The intial point was Sudan offering Clinton OBL, and Clinton refused. What does that got to do with your posts about Afghanistan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will see this same comment for years to come. It will always be Bush's Fault. When the depression hits, and it will with all this new spending and taxes, it will be Bush's fault, when Iran sends off its nuclear wepon, it will be Buish's fault. When an asteriod hits the earth, you got it, Bushes fault.

 

Wow! You must be the other person that added to Bush's approval rating :hysterical3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, I am not anti-Obama. Heck the man hasn't been in office long enough to honestly be hated for his decisions yet. I think the majority of the problem was sitting immediately behind and to his left. Charismatic as he may be when prepared, I do believe he is inept and not qualified to lead the USA, especially right now. One would think the great orator would check what he says when he is going to be under such scrunity but maybe his writers also cut and pasted his speech. As I said which you seem to have overlooked, the car comment was trivial; trifling to the conversation. One can not nor should they overlook the generalalities and hyperboles he expounded upon to build himself up which seems to be the very core of politics itself, as the link I pasted pointed out.

As far as me "cutting and pasting" you have done you fair share as well. I am not a political analyst nor do I follow politics - in fact I am probably one of the most anti-political, anti-drama people you will ever meet except for specific issues - but like most of America I do depend upon news reporting agencies to decipher the pomp and circumstance.

You can choose to ignore, you can belt insults and snyde remarks and you can also choose to wait on the rainbow stew, free rent and million dollar checks in the mail which seems to be what a large majority of his following expect. Me? I'm going to bed early tonight so I can wake up refreshed and go to work - so my tax dollars can go to fund all this crap as I sit here with absolutely no say-so in the matter.

:violin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will see this same comment for years to come. It will always be Bush's Fault. When the depression hits, and it will with all this new spending and taxes, it will be Bush's fault, when Iran sends off its nuclear wepon, it will be Buish's fault. When an asteriod hits the earth, you got it, Bushes fault.

:yup: It will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're right - we have short term memories. Bush is simply the last Republican administration. Though the real start for all of this mess was with Reagan himself. And this was when I was a registered Republican and a true believer. I was all for his foreign policy and spending the Soviets into oblivion. And I was all for the trickle down theory. And I was all for deregulation of government. Though everyone needs to now recognize and accept that that philosophy, that policy is a failure and why we're in the situation we're in today.

 

Again - deregulation has led to the sub prime mortgage mess, the subsequent mortgage backed securities mess and the Madoff messes. This is lack of regulation and oversight across the board - letting the free market do as it will. The last time Bush practiced this philosophy was when he let Lehman Bros fail - and he came to regret that. He found the new religion that the Federal government does indeed need to step in and play a role in these crisis. Had he not let Lehman Bros fail - we may not be in the crisis of confidence that we now have. This is why we have frozen credit markets - banks don't want to lend for fear of further losses. Bush should have saved Lehman - that was the first domino to fall.

:yup: Your wright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go blaming Clinton again as if a Republican administration that didn't lift a finger to stop it for 8 after should just get a free pass heh?

 

 

No Jeff, Therin lies the difference between us, I blame them all. You only blame republicans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...
...