Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: gringo <gringo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:02:57 -0600
~Tony~ wrote:
gringo <gringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:EPsbj.36571$rc2.27743@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
If this is an example of your debating style, we might as well end
this now. Because that is a misinformed personal opinion, without
merit or factual basis.
The Senate sponsored immigration reform bill that did not pass earlier this year offered those illegally in the states then, a path to citizenship by requiring them to simply pay fines and fees totaling $3,000 per person, and to pass a "rigorous" background investigation.
The problem with that is that most of us who watch how politics are played out know that hardship exemptions would certainly have been a part of the final bill, had it passed for those who were too poor to pay the fines and fees, and the background checks would have been impossible to complete in many, if not most cases, because the recordkeeping south of the border is sparse at best.
No, you don't know that anything not in the original would have been in the final. That is just your opinion. Background check, mostly about their attitude and reactions while *in the US*.
Now the wrangling point over that bill was over the use of the word "amnesty", and the fact is that anything short of sending them back across that border and making them apply for admission to the United States like everyone else who did it the correct and lawful way, is indeed "anmesty", despite the fines and fees.
semantics.
asinine statement. actually, to call it bull*** is to insult the
bovine subspecies. You want a debate, Tony? Produce one shred of
evidence (hint: your opinion and those of Faux talking heads is not
evidence) to back up your assertions.
You're going to have to look to the state Governments and those Democrats on that one. I never meant to imply that there was an Federal Democratic movement to force states to license illegals. But Republican led efforts to stop states from issuing them are in evidence. The 2005 federal law called Real ID Act, will make it more difficult to offer them to illegals, but we'll have to wait until 2013 for that to kick in.
nope, not the way a debate works. You have to conduct your own research, and legitimately refute my point with fact. Else, you are tacitly admitting that you cannot, conceding the point to me.
Eleven states did issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens, including Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. North Carolina and Tennessee rescinded their issuing them in 2006 to illegals.
In 2003, California's Governor Gray Davis (D) signed into law a bill that would give illegals drivers licenses. This was behind the movement to have him removed from office.
Not true. The CA energy crisis was the problem. You remember Enron's rip-off of Californians; CA utilities were paying up to a 1000 percent more for electricity than in any other state. More of that privatization of essential government services most republiCONS are so in favor of.
Incoming Republican Governor Schwarzenegger immediately annulled it.
But to get to the heart of your challenge, I need only to look back to last month, where Democratic candidate for President Barack Obama in the November 15th debate, stated clearly and concisely that he supported allowing illegal aliens to be issued driver's licenses.
Hillary Clinton on that day reversed her stance on driver's licenses for illegal aliens on the same day to a simple "no" when asked the same question. In her earlier October 30th MSNBC debate, she gave a long and apparently contradictory series of answers about whether to give illegals driver's licenses.
As stated elsewhere, commonsense dictates that they be awarded DLs, when all criteria are met.
Now as to my statement that "They want them to be allowed to vote in our elections. Hell, for that matter, the Democrats are actively working on signing them up despite the fact that it's illegal for them to vote.
BULL***. Prove the allegation, or own up to be an opinionated ignorant rightarded republiCON who doesn't give a flying *** about truth.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are not funding fake identifications that are good enough to allow them that opportunity", I need only point to a couple of simple facts. You see, these two separate issues are tied hand in hand.
In 1993, Bill Clinton signed the piece of legislation called the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter law,". It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote. No one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen in ANY of the 50 states.
Read the damned laws before you make such an asinine statement.
BTW, in most other democracies, voting is much simpler. They whine about our low voter turnout; well, that is precisely the reason. Ironic as hell that in Iraq, no one had to register, or show proof of ID: after one voted, one's finger was dyed purple. Simple system, resulting in about an 85% turnout compared to our 40-something. But that cannot be permitted here, for if it were made any easier for poor people to vote, a republiCON couldn't get elected to city hall toilet scrubber.
As for the drivers' license issue, I disagree with most Democratic
candidates on this. In order to get a license they must (1)show proof
of residence (2) produce proof of auto insurance, and (3)either drive
in accordance with our traffic laws or lose the license. Without
licenses, they still drive, because they must; but they do so
exceedingly uptight about being caught, and when stopped for speeding
or involvement in an accident caused by their too-careful driving,
they run, leaving the damages to be paid by insured motorists. To deny
them licenses is just plain stupid. And before you say it, no, Tony, a
driver's license is not recognized as proof of citizenship when trying
to register to vote. Commonsense alone ought to dictate the issuing of
DLs to everyone who can pass the test and meets insurance
requirements.
The act was passed by 62-36 in the Senate. Only 5 Republicans voted in favor of it. Not one Democrat opposed it. In the house, it was passed by a 259-164 margin. 238 Democrats voted in favor, while only 14 opposed it. 20 Republicans voted in favor of it, while 150 opposed it.
it damned well should have passed. Under the system favored by republiCON rightards, only wealthy landowners would have the right to vote.
My logic is more than sound when it comes to the statements I made. Refute it if you can.You have not proven your wild assertion that Democrats are actively trying to sign up illegals to vote. To the contrary, you have merely proven that like all who kiss up to the rightwing elitists, you want to severely limit the right to vote. Got news for you, buddy. In America, even the guy living under a bridge has the right and the duty to vote. Until that 1993 law, here in MS a trucker was almost guaranteed that he'd lose his voting rights, they made it so difficult to get an absentee ballot.
Yes, that is true. No one wants them granted complete amnesty. If any Progressive could snap a finger and send them all instantly back to...wherever they came from...we wouldn't be having this discussion. non-citizens cannot influence our elections.
Really? Then explain to me the sheer number of monetary contributions given to political candidates in this nation from foreign nationals.
I didn't mention multi-national corporations...didn't mention money at all. You are correct: money pretty much rules our electoral processes. Ain't it a shame. Corporations don't make donations; they make investments. They don't actually buy votes, though. They merely buy the means to pull the wool over voters' eyes.
Do you know what "bundlers" are? Sure you do. It's the answer to all candidate's ability to raise money from sources unknown, and where they can mask the sources of donations.
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=320
Then for your reading pleasure, take a gander at one of my state's more embarrassing former Congresswomen...
http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00256354/124538/sa/ALL
nothing whatsoever to do with my reply to your wild-assed assertions.
As for the drivers' license issue, I disagree with most Democratic candidates on this. In order to get a license they must (1)show proof
of residence (2) produce proof of auto insurance, and (3)either drive
in accordance with our traffic laws or lose the license. Without
licenses, they still drive, because they must; but they do so
exceedingly uptight about being caught, and when stopped for speeding
or involvement in an accident caused by their too-careful driving,
they run, leaving the damages to be paid by insured motorists. To deny
them licenses is just plain stupid. And before you say it, no, Tony, a
driver's license is not recognized as proof of citizenship when trying
to register to vote. Commonsense alone ought to dictate the issuing of
DLs to everyone who can pass the test and meets insurance
requirements.
Look back at the above. There is absolutely no provision in the law to check the citizenship of those who register to vote through ANY outside source of voter registering. You sign the form ATTESTING to the fact that you are a citizen. No one verifies citizenship EVER in ANY state.
holy horse***. you cannot be as ignorant of events as you pretend; your memory cannot be so poor. George was elected in 2000 because, using provisions of the MVRA, thousands of lawful, legal, Floridians were illegally denied the right to vote because a right wing financed outfit claimed that they were convicted felons. This threw the election to George Boy. In 2004, even worse voter registration fraud was conducted by republiCONs in control of voter registration in Ohio, throwing that election also to Boy George.
The "Motor Voter Law" made it easier than ever to allow illegal immigrants the opportunity to vote, and you can bet your ass they are doing it in many states. There's nothing to prevent it from happening.
see the above. Your wild assed basely assertions are becoming annoying. How about it, big boy: when will you begin to shred me with your brilliant debating prowess?
This is WHY most people are opposed to allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses. In just about every state in this nation, a driver's license is considered legal identification,
for cashing checks and other inconsequential things. A motor voter registration has many requirements, including a minimum of 30 days before election in which to verify the registrant's legal status. In 2004, 4.7 million convicted felons who *illegally* registered were justifiably kicked off the roles-- long before election day. So, you see, your argument doesn't wash.
You're a truck driver. How many people did you know prior to 1989, who had false or dual driver's licenses when they were pulled over, for the sole purpose of evading having to pay tickets? I knew at least a dozen myself.
What does that have to do with voting? I keep telling you, a DL does not automatically qualify anyone to vote. BTW, those illegals' licensing? Their non-citizenship status is clearly marked. So, once again, your assertion is a crock of steaming ***.
The other candidates in that debate disappointed all reasonable, thinking Democrats. Hillary's stance was the correct one, as I have outlined above. Hillary's healthcare plan sucks--but not so bad as not
having one. The plan she proposed while husband Bill was president was
nearly perfect. But the AMA, the insurance lobby and big
pharmaceuticals spent $80 million to defeat it. Corporations don't
make donations; they make investments.
Under Hillary's healthcare plan that she crafted while she was the First Lady, had severe problems. The most outrageous one, would have resulted in any citizen who sought,obtained, and paid for private healthcare outside of the "National Plan" on their own to be arrested and imprisoned for doing so.
prove it. Or will you once again leave the research up to me. You're getting wilder and wilder, but you haven't connected with my chin yet. Let me know, please, when you're about to begin shredding me.
Look, the history of this nation should give you all the clues as to what would happen if the Government were to take over the health care for EVERY citizen in this nation. There is not one program that Government has administered in the past 200 years, that has been proven to be run efficiently. They can't do it.
Ever hear of SSA? The US Postal Service before Reagan partially privatized it? Fire departments, big and small? The FBI, numerous other law enforcement agencies. Again, you are making wild, asinine statements you cannot back up with fact.
From the Post Office, which has nearly went bust more than a dozen times, to Medicare, which I assure you is nothing short of a disaster today. My wife took a job after four years of retirement earlier this year. She spends her entire day assisting Medicare patients resolve issues with the Government and Insurance companies. I think she's wearing a wig at this point because her hair has been yanked out at the roots.
You never had to "resolve" an issue with an insurance company? They deny millions of claims every year with no recourse. Dealing with the government, you have an appeals process, an assigned advocate for your rights that is paid by the government.
Now fast forward to a time when this kind of crap will be played out over and over for 300 million people, and think about what it would screwed up it will become. Look at the countries that have switched to Governmental administered healthcare. Not one of them is efficient, and people die long before they are approved for things we take for granted, like simple day surgery to take out a gall bladder.
Physicians have abandoned practices in those countries to go where they can be paid on time, and at rates they deserve. In Australia, hospitals have closed the doors in droves since they switched to national healthcare. One article I read stated that in Queensland, there was a waiting list of 1,500 people for heart surgeries. The waiting lists for beds in one hospital exceeded 3,000 people.
here in the US, only about 15 of those people needing the surgery would be able to afford--they WIL allow you to die if you lack the ability to pay their top dollar!
Canada is the only one that has any record of decent success, but there again, in the more populated areas, healthcare beyond a cough and a cold results in massive waiting lists. This is why in the Northern states, a quarter of the patients treated are from Canada. Some would rather pay a US provider out of their own pocket, than to die waiting for an MRI or a CAT scan.
Alright, you are stubbornly refusing to become educated. But I will try once again. We have had this discussion before on MTT. But once again into the breech. Reason there are so many on those waiting lists there and not here is quite simple. Here, so many cannot afford the expensive lab tests, CAT Scans, etc, so they do without, and die long before their time. There, people receive the testing their doctors say they need, not what they can pay for. obviously, there would be more of a demand. Know what? I don't give a good goddamn if you have to wait a few extra days for an expensive test you may not need, if as a result of your inconvenience 50 people who desperately need treatment they could not afford today in America get the help they need. Does it make me a socialist if I believe that all peoples have a right to Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? that all men are created equal irrespective of their wealth or position in life??? It does? Well, then, all signers of our Declaration of Independence were also socialists.
And let's not forget that the average National income tax rate in Canada is around 26%, with additional Provincial income tax rates ranging from 11.5% to 18%, which is used to fund all this wonderful "free" healthcare.
Now I don't know about you, but that sure doesn't sound like utopia to me.
Do you have any idea how much the AVERAGE American spends in total in taxes AND healthcare? Are you aware that Canada is rated higher in standard of living than the US? And do consider this along with the Canadian tax rates. When Kennedy was elected in 1960, the top tax rate here was 98%. But how many actually paid that rate? Minuscule... so low you have to get down into fractions of fractions of even the very wealthy.
I am an ex-Georgian. And I assure you that Carter was a good
president, and would have been a great president sans the economic
mess left in the aftermath of the Johnson war Nixon made his own and
the illegal, traitorous machinations of Reagan and GHWB.
We could pick it all apart, but there's no need to do that, because the simple fact is, that Reagan will always be revered by the majority of American's for his economic policies and Carter will forever be known for his bumbling of the economy and as the only President in office with double digit inflation numbers.
there is every need. but nothing will result from all my effort--you won't play. You make lots of assertions but back up your opinions with more will assertions. And I am willing to admit that the right wing media is skilled at fooling the people. Trickle down... Tell me, did you enjoy catching the corporate urine drops on your extended tongue? Carter saved the economy, dude, after Nixon's inept admin. Then just when Jimmy had it revived, along came Ronnie. Whose economy looked good to the fools among us on the strength of his outrageous spending spree with money borrowed from your great-great-great grandkids. In just four years he more than doubled 200 years of deficit spending!!!
And if you want to blame prior administrations, let's remember that Johnson, a Democrat you know, put us in that expensive and deadly war, after Kennedy was poised to end it before it got off the ground. It's probably what got him killed.
very true. Kennedy was killed by the CIA because he was withdrawing from Vietnam.
Nixon, a Republican, did end it right after he took office.
Nixon was elected due to the propitious crippling of George Wallace, who would have split the republican vote, and his promise to end the war within months of taking office. Instead, he kept it going for another four years--and another 30,000 Americans died needlessly.
If Carter had been reelected, there would not have been an Iran-Contra
scandal, a savings and loan scandal, a first war with Saddam
Hussein--no gassing of the Iranians and his fellow Iraqis--no claims
of WMD in Iraq. and since there would have been no reason to invade
Iraq the first time, there would not have been a 9/11. And without
9/11, we'd still enjoy all the protections granted to Americans in the
Bill of Rights.
You really think so?
I know so. Because I know and respect the man, and know and despise those in charge on the other side. The Right is always wrong, and the Left is always right.
I happen to believe that the President actually has little power to influence very much in this country when it comes to foreign affairs. I also believe that the military pretty much does what it has to do, without the President being involved very much in those affairs.
In shrub's case, that is true. He has always been a figurehead for those who also controlled Nixon, Reagan and George Daddy. Cheney is higher up the chain of command, and without scruples. But he too takes his orders.
You can't seriously think that every four to eight years, that everyone gets up and plays musical chairs, do you? It would be ludicrous to think that even in a span of eight years, a President would know every little detail of who does what, and what they are up to on a daily basis.
Naw...the real players in that game are never known to the President, or you and I. They are nameless, faceless, and they live quiet existences both on the the job, and when they retire.
Then why in hell would you support any RepubliCON. At the very least, Democrats give lip service to us little people.
But one thing you write up there deserves a little challenge. We (The US Government) helped put Hussein in power, and he got a taste of that power and liked it. The monster was created and went out of control. Just remember one thing; his rise to power, began in 1968. Johnson was in office then, and he had a great deal of ties to the military.
His rise to power, but he did not have the power until 1979...shortly before reagan's election.
To not blame it on the Iran hostage crisis is ignorant in the extreme.
Oh for sure, it was an issue for some, but not the dominant one.
you concede another point to me.
The inflation was a carryover from Nixon's inept handling of the
Vietnam War (Nixon even had to implement wage and price controls
trying to control inflation, but it failed).
Look...no President makes those decisions. He follows the advice of financial experts. Everyone knows that.
no everyone does not. Nixon made the decision after listening to kissinger and other bumblers, and the plan failed miserably.
But when a President signs legislation tax increases, that is a horse of a different color. Carter signed legislation raising the rates on the top earners in this country, and the tax revenue fell. Reagan reversed it with his pen, and the revenue increased. Those are simple and verifiable facts.
so verify. Else, it is just another baseless personal opinion. I tire of conducting all the research.
Know how much of that Alaskan oil has ever been received at an
American dock? Not one gallon: it all goes to Japan and the Far East.
And you know why that is. EPA. The sulpher content is too high.
riiight. There is no filtering available? then, pray tell, why the republiCON push to drill every inch of Alaska if it will not actually benefit the American people????
without carter it was merely an ambitious plan.some kook! His Habitat for Humanity has provided about a hundreds thousand Americans with a home of their own. He has supervised
elections in dozens of 3rd world nations, insuring that Democracy
doesn't rot on the vine. He has had the balls to stand up to the
Jewish cabal that insures that the world will never enjoy a single
peaceful generation.
We're going to have to disagree there. I am not going to blame the Jewish people like he does for them being constantly under the threat of attack.
Carter did not start Habitat for Humanity. Millard and Linda Fuller, who are also from Americus Georgia founded the organization. Jimmy's a family friend.
Judy WOODRUFF, NewsHour Special Correspondent: The former president and Nobel Peace Prize-winner has just written his 21st book. It is called "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
That title has brought some sharp critiques from Americans sympathetic to Israel, and its publications comes amid both renewed tensions and some peaceful gestures between Israelis and Palestinians.
President Carter, it's good to see you. Thanks for being with us.
JIMMY CARTER, Former President of the United States: It's nice to be with you. Thank you, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The title, you chose, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." Did you mean to be provocative, because this immediately calls to mind South Africa, the repression of blacks by whites?
JIMMY CARTER: Yes. But I don't consider the word "provocative" to be negative. I wanted to provoke...
JUDY WOODRUFF: The word "apartheid."
JIMMY CARTER: The whole title, I wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States, but it's prevalent every day in Israel and in Europe. This is needed, I think, for our country to understand what's going on in the West Bank.
And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel.
Secondly, the emphasis is on peace.
And the third thing is not apartheid. I don't want to see apartheid. And since now the entire peace process is completely dormant, there hasn't been one day for good faith substantive negotiations in the last six years to bring peace to Israel, I wanted to rejuvenate this process.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And you say it's dormant, and yet today Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announcing she's going to meet with the leader of the Palestinians, Mr. Abbas, later this week. Isn't that a sign of progress, potential progress?
JIMMY CARTER: Well, a sign of progress -- to talk to one side and then talk to the other is very nice. But I'm talking about there hasn't been a day of negotiation orchestrated or promoted by the United States between Israel and the Palestinians in six years.
And for all practical purposes, it is dormant. I don't mean that the United States has not visited Israel; I don't mean that the secretary of state hasn't talked to the Israelis and the Palestinians.
And let me get to the word "apartheid." Apartheid doesn't apply at all, as I made plain in my book, anything that relates to Israel to the nation. It doesn't imply anything as it relates to racism. This apartheid, which is prevalent throughout the occupied territories, the subjection of the Palestinians to horrible abuse, is caused by a minority of Israelis -- we're not talking about racism, but talking about their desire to acquire, to occupy, to confiscate, and then to colonize Palestinian land.
So the whole system is designed to separate through a ferocious system Israelis who live on Palestine territory and Palestinians who want to live on their own territory. In order to have peace, Israel has got to withdraw from the occupied territories, not just from token withdrawals from a few settlements leaving about 150 other settlements on Palestinian land.
Peace efforts and withdrawal
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, again, your book comes out at a moment when, not only you have Dr. Rice saying she's going to meet with the Palestinian leader, you have the Israeli prime minister, Mr. Olmert, announcing just yesterday that he is putting a proposal on the table.
He's saying, "We will give back most of the West Bank. We will get out most of the West Bank." He's saying, "We will release prisoners, if there will be a good-faith effort on the part of the Palestinians." Is this the kind of progress you're looking for?
JIMMY CARTER: I think that's a minor first step, yes, to give back some of their land. The demand is for them to give back all the land.
The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories.
And the present only game in town -- that is, the international quartet's road map -- calls for the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories. That road map, by the way, all of the terms of it have been adopted by the Palestinians. All the major terms of the road map have been rejected officially by the Israeli government.
So this is what's created this quagmire and what I consider to be a total inaction for the first time in the history of Israel. We've been six years now without any negotiations for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But are you dismissing what Mr. Olmert is proposing as of yesterday?
JIMMY CARTER: Well, the New York Times said it was a non-substantive speech that didn't bring anything new to the table. I haven't read the entire speech, so I haven't analyzed it that thoroughly.
But when he says we're going to withdraw from part of the process, part of the land that we're occupying, and keep the rest, we're going to keep our wall there, which surrounds the remnant of the Palestinians' land that they're going to be permitted to live on, where we're going to keep Israeli settlements all over the land even that the Palestinians will retain, and keep the wall around Gaza, all of these things need to be changed and not just a token withdrawal from some of the land that the Israelis have acquired.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So you're saying it's not nearly enough?
JIMMY CARTER: No, it's not nearly enough, and everybody knows that. In fact, the international community, all the policy of the United States' government since Israel was founded as a nation, the agreements that the Israelis have adopted -- a strong majority of the Israeli people all agree that, in order to have peace, Israel has got to withdraw from the occupied territories, not just from token withdrawals from a few settlements leaving about 150 other settlements on Palestinian land. And as a matter of fact, Hamas, whom everyone criticizes -- the fact is that Hamas, since August of 2004, has not committed a single act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life, not a single one.
Accepting Hamas' victory
JUDY WOODRUFF: President Carter, people would listen to what you're saying here, and they would read your book, and they would say, "He's putting the onus here on the Israelis." And many would return that by saying, "But wait a minute. It's the Palestinians who continue to fire rockets into Israeli land. It's the Palestinians who have kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It's the Palestinians that continue to perpetuate terrorist acts against the Israelis."
JIMMY CARTER: Sure, that's what you say, and that's the general consensus in the United States. The fact is that, when the Palestinians dug under the Israeli wall from Gaza and captured the Israeli soldier, one soldier, at that time, Israel was holding 9,200 Palestinians prisoner, including 300 children, almost 300, 293 children, some of them 12 years old, and holding almost 100 women prisoner.
And immediately, the Palestinians who took that soldier said, "We want to swap this soldier for some of our women and children." And the Israelis rejected that proposal and refused to swap at all with the Palestinians in the West Bank. That was the key to the issue.
So it's right that the Palestinians took a soldier, which they should release. But for Israel to keep 9,000 Palestinians and not release any of them is something that you don't mention in the question, and it's generally not even known in this country.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And we want to give you the opportunity to give that side of the story...
JIMMY CARTER: That's why I wrote the book.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... as well, and that's why we're here talking to you about it.
JIMMY CARTER: I know.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But what would you say, President Carter, to the Israeli public who would, again, listen to what you're saying, and they would say, "Wait a minute. You're asking us to put our faith in a people, in a government that doesn't even recognize our right to exist?" Isn't that the posture of the Hamas government and the Palestinian territories?
JIMMY CARTER: Well, we were there -- the Carter Center was there, and we monitored the election in January when Hamas did win a victory. They won 42 percent of the vote. It was an open, free, fair, safe election, as certified by the Carter Center, and National Democratic Institute, and the European Union observers. Nobody questioned the integrity of it.
That was an expression of will by the Palestinian people on whom they wanted to serve in their parliament. Well, at that time, I thought that this would be a matter of a unity government. But immediately, the United States and Israel said, "We will not accept a government that has Hamas leaders in it."
And so, as a result of that, all financial aid to the entire population of Palestine was cut off just because they expressed their will in a free vote. And as a matter of fact, Hamas, whom everyone criticizes -- the fact is that Hamas, since August of 2004, has not committed a single act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life, not a single one.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I think many Americans would be surprised to hear that.
JIMMY CARTER: I know. They would be surprised, but it's an actual fact. And Hamas...
Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter
Former U.S. President
A majority of Israelis, in every public opinion poll that's been done since 1967, have favored exchanging the confiscated Palestinian land for peace.
Recognizing Israel
JUDY WOODRUFF: But what about not recognizing Israel's right to exist?
JIMMY CARTER: The day after the election, I went and met with Mahmoud Abbas, who is the leader of the Palestinians. He's their president. He's the head of the PLO, which is the only organization, by the way, that the United States or Israel recognizes, the PLO, in which there's not a single Hamas member. Hamas has nothing to do with the PLO.
And after I met with Abbas to talk about a unity government, which he rejected, then I met with a Hamas leader. He's a medical doctor who was elected. He's now in prison, by the way. But he said -- when I insisted that they recognize Israel, he said, "Mr. President, which Israel are you talking about? Are you talking about the Israel that's occupying our land? Are you talking about the Israel that has built a wall around our people? Are you talking about an Israel that deprives us of basic human rights to move from one place to another in our own land?" He said, "We can't recognize that Israel."
But later, the prime minister of the Hamas government, Haniyeh, said, "We are strongly in favor of direct talks between Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the PLO and the head of the government, and the prime minister of Israel, Olmert." And he said, "If they reach an agreement in their discussions that's acceptable to the Palestinian people, we will accept it, also. Hamas will."
Those things are not even known in this country; they're a matter of record.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And you're saying that, if the U.S. doesn't get involved, then...
JIMMY CARTER: Then there won't be much progress. You know, it's been proven in the past that some outside group needs to get involved. And in 1978 and '79, I got involved and negotiated a peace treaty between Israel and its only formidable opponent, that is Egypt.
In 2003, the Norwegians concluded an agreement, the Oslo Agreement. In both cases, the Israeli leaders won the Nobel Peace Prize for adopting the principles that Israel would withdraw from the territory in order to get peace. That has been abandoned now under the last three leaders of Israel.
And as I said earlier, a majority of Israelis, in every public opinion poll that's been done since 1967, have favored exchanging the confiscated Palestinian land for peace. But there's a small minority in Israel, a substantial minority, that says we would prefer the land, and we will not relinquish it in order to get peace.
Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter
Former U.S. President
The main obstacle for their full support of the United States now in Iraq and other places is because we have not shown any interest for the last six years in alleviating the horrible plight of the Palestinians.
Effect on situation in Iraq
JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quick final question about Iraq. Can you have peace in Iraq without fixing the Israeli-Palestinian problem, or is it vice versa? Do you must -- you first need to fix Iraq?
JIMMY CARTER: There is no way to separate the two. President Bush is over there now trying to harness supporters among the moderate Arabs. He just was in Jordan, and in Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and others that I need not name right now.
To get them to support us enthusiastically in Iraq means that he's going to have to alleviate their deep concern and their animosity -- with less than 5 percent of Jordanians and Egyptians looking with favor on our government -- because the main obstacle for their full support of the United States now in Iraq and other places is because we have not shown any interest for the last six years in alleviating the horrible plight of the Palestinians.
We've made no effort in the last six years to bring peace to Israel or to their adjacent neighbors, the Palestinians.
JUDY WOODRUFF: President Jimmy Carter, with some passionately held views. We thank you very much for being with us on the NewsHour. We appreciate it.
I'll give you the point on much of his foreign policy achievements. He has a great relationship with many of the foreign nationals, but much of that is window dressing too. To think that he truly had the ability to oversee elections in another nation is a bit of a stretch. We can't truly verify the ones in our country to an degree.
a vast difference in elections here and yonder. Here, we have politicos at every level interfering with the process. And billionaire donors to the republiCONS providing the machines we vote on. Proven to be rigged to elect republicans.
funny thing, that American helicopters had been operating just fine in
sandstorms for several decades. funny thing, that. Even funnier is the
fact that immediately after reagan took office, ollie moved into the
WH and took over reagan's costly and traitorous Iran-Contra
machinations.
So let me get it straight. Ollie sabatoged the helicopters, is that what you're saying? Give me a break.
him personally, hell no. he was the military man in charge, and obviously even then in close contact with bush, reagan's controller. Give me a break and use your head.
You offer all this, as if it was the first time that the US has done anything like furnishing weapons to foreign countries, or using proceeds to fund actions elsewhere. It's not, and it's going on as we speak.
proof?
Why is it done? Because like Jack Nicholson offered so eloquently..."You can't handle the truth". Americans want to go on believing that all is well on the planet earth, and that everyone lives in peaceful harmony. Well that's just not the case, and so the American Military does what it has to do, behind the scenes, and without idiot politicians holding six month hearings because they want to know all the little details of it, then grandstand for another six months to solicit votes because they stopped it all.
understand this: CIA and other military organizations entrenched in the American government, do in fact manipulate world events, but not for the benefit of the people. For the benefit of big business.
suspicions? Ain't suspicions, but factual that Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, George the Dad and george the boy have all operated outside
the law. I take that back about Eisenhower; he wasn't responsible for
the illegal and traitorous machinations conducted by the CIA he
couldn't control. In fact, he tried like hell to have it disbanded. As
did JFK, before he was murdered. George the Dad was himself a CIA
henchman.
I plainly stated that ALL Presidents in the past century have been involved, more than likely, with under the table deals that would most definitely be illegal. It's part of the job. But don't you DARE suggest that no Democratic President was not involved or knew something about them.
Johnson was very likely highly involved with Kennedy's assassination. He benefited the most from it.
he may have known it was coming. Bush certainly knew that 9/11 was coming. Cheney was in direct charge of NORAD that morning; he personally ordered all interceptor flights to stand up, 'in order to facilitate special surprise military training overflights of the Eastern Seaboard.'
and you applaud these people?forgive me for breaking in the middle of your paragraph. But, ummm,
who was he the fall guy for, hmmm? his esteemed leader Ronnie Reagan,
maybe?
No...I would bet the more likely candidate would have been for a General in our Military, who directed the entire operation.
obviously. So did Goebbels and Eichmann and several thousand concentration camp guards. No excuse for violating American laws and common decency. I assure you that not all that many people believe
ollie did such a good job: he has lost election to office several
times, and always by a large margin.
I honestly cannot recall the last time I read anyone bring him up. And why should he care? He lost not a thing but some time in a cozy prison cell, if that. No one really knows whether he spent a night in one or not for sure, do they?
He was George the Dad's henchman. They take care of their own, don't they. And yet you applaud these traitorous bastards???
I have already given you tidbits of that info from other sources. And the charge it made against grandad Bush is definitely a matter of public record. In 1942 under the Trading with the Enemies Act, Roosevelt did have Bush's bank seized. Conduct your own research about the treason if you don't fear the truth about your heroes the Bushes.http://www.hermes-press.com/crimes.htm
I've already told you that kook sites are not proof of anything but the person's opinion who wrote it. Not one thing written on that page can be substantiated.
o-kaaay. Then here, read about this generation of bush:
<garbage snipped>
It disagreed with your personal opinion; therefore it was trash to you. Tsk tsk.
What was the source?
Bush I Officials Profited from Illegal Arming of Iraq
01-Jan-04
Saddam Hussein
Tom Flocco writes: "Members of the Bush 41 cabinet held sizable and conflicting financial positions in Gulf War-related companies. And the results of a financial assets analysis by his Attorney General, Richard Thornburgh, forced the elder Bush to employ a 'conflict of interest waiver' -- kept secret from Congress -- to absolve his cabinet from future culpability or prosecution should Congress or surviving Gulf War military families ever question or litigate their private and/or undisclosed financial links to Iraq. Shockingly, Houston's Baker &Botts law firm -- owned by George Bush Sr.'s Secretary of State James Baker -- was mentioned in a billing statement (for legal services rendered) by a Florida chemical company headed by an Iraqi terrorist and bio-chemical engineer. The Iraqi -- Ihsan Barbouti -- had close ties to World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, but was also the main contractor for the Rabta chemical weapons plant in terrorist Libya."
The Saddam Hussein Sourcebook
27-Dec-03
Saddam Hussein
"Newly declassified documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive show the British Embassy in Baghdad recommending Saddam Hussein to London in 1969 as a 'presentable young man' with an 'engaging smile,' 'with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business.' ... The newly declassified briefing notes for special envoy Donald Rumsfeld's second trip to Baghdad in March 1984 reveal Rumsfeld's instructions to reinforce the message of U.S. interest in improved relations 'at a pace of Iraq's own choosing,' and to emphasize that U.S. criticism of Saddam's chemical weapons use versus Iran was not meant as a pro-Iranian or anti-Iraq gesture."
the above from the Democratic Party's website.
Annals of Outrage II
from the Nation Magazine (it wins awards for its accuracy in reporting)
In January, I wrote my first Annals of Outrage weblog about the waste, fraud and abuse that the Bush Administration has perpetrated against the US taxpayer. But so much has happened in just the last three months--a cornucopia of corruption stemming, in large part, from the war in Iraq and the growing scandal that is Rumsfeld's Department of Defense--that I felt the time had arrived to do another top ten list of the most serious GAO and Inspector Generals' (IG) reports that have recently become available. It's a bracing series of studies, revealing the ever-widening scandals in this post-9-11, say-and-do-anything political environment. Happy Reading.
1) Halliburton Redux: The revelations seem to never stop when it comes to the Defense Department's favorite corporate client, Halliburton. In April, Henry Waxman released summaries of five reports in which the Defense Contract Audit Agency cited as questionable $212 million that Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root spent in Iraq under a no-bid contract. The money given to Halliburton by Defense was part of a $1.69 billion no-bid contract awarded the company. The auditors told the Army that it should withhold some of Halliburton's money. The Army refused. Halliburton continues to do its work and make millions in Iraq.
2) Democracy in the Middle East: Iraq is a "free-fraud zone." That's the description that a brave whistleblower Frank Willis--who had served as a senior advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq--called Iraq a few weeks ago. It's hard to know where to begin. The scope of the corruption beyond Halliburton is so widespread and endemic that multiple investigations by the government and non-governmental organizations are underway to see how much the fraud, waste and abuse have cost the US taxpayer. One corruption watchdog organization, Transparency International, reported in March that the US had completely mismanaged Iraq's oil revenues, used "faulty procedures for awarding reconstruction contracts," and that we were now potentially facing "the biggest corruption scandal in history."
In addition to all of the problems associated with Halliburton, our reconstruction efforts have also come under fire from IGs and the GAO because US officials failed to provide the proper training and oversight for private security firms doing contract work in Iraq. CACI International Inc., for instance, had an essentially free hand to conduct interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison. The Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction Stuart Bowen reported as well that US officials have been unable to account for how nearly $100 million slated for Iraqi reconstruction projects had been spent. The IG is now investigating whether anyone in the US-led Development Fund for Iraq committed outright fraud.
3) Bagram Out-of-Control: According to reports written by the Army Criminal Investigation Command that Human Rights Watch obtained last month, the US military committed some of its worst prisoner abuses in Afghanistan. The reports reveal in new, horrifying details the extent to which American soldiers abused Afghan prisoners so severely that two detainees died at the Bagram Control Point where the military was holding them. ("The deaths took place nearly a year before the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq," the New York Times reported.)
4) DOD's Fraud: In January, the GAO faulted the Department of Defense as the most-fraud prone agency within the federal government. David Walker, the Comptroller General of the GAO, said that DOD's repeated failures to curb waste and other abuses "results in billion of dollars in waste each year and inadequate accountability to the Congress and the American taxpayer." The DOD is asleep at the wheel in such areas as mismanaging finances and contracts, giving personnel security clearances, mismanaging military bases and failing to modernize its computer systems. A Defense Department spokeswoman responded to the GAO's findings by saying that "it's a little bit premature at this time for us to have a full response."
5) DOD's Fraud, Part 2: Nowhere, perhaps, has the DOD run into more trouble than in its lax procurement procedures. Boeing has been at the center of this storm. Former Defense Department official and Boeing executive Darleen Druyun went to jail because she did favors for Boeing while working in the procurement office of the Defense Department--and then got a plum job with Boeing as a reward. The government has launched a whopping 48 investigations because of the Druyun scandal, and the Druyun controversy also gave birth to the Procurement Fraud Working Group, a federal task force that investigates procurement fraud in the federal government. With John McCain and other members of Congress criticizing the DOD's procurement practices including its relationship with Boeing, the Army took the step of changing at least one Boeing contract and "the Air Force restructured a contract with Lockheed Martin Corp. for C-130J transport planes," the Washington Post reported.
6) TSA's Egregious Spending: That's right. The agency responsible for protecting America's skies has its priorities all wrong. The Inspector General for the Dept. of Homeland Security reported in April that TSA has spent lavishly--to the tune of $500,000--buying artwork and silk plants for a TSA operations center whose mission is monitoring transportation security incidents. It's certainly not the first time that TSA has mismanaged taxpayer dollars. The agency--created by the Administration after the Sept. 11th, 2001 attacks--wasted almost $500,000 on creating an office suite for its first leader, hosted a birthday party (for itself) and awards banquet costing another nearly half a million dollars, bought Sub-Zero refrigerators at $3,000 a pop, and spent thousands of dollars over three years to put cable television in employees' offices. TSA employees "ignored federal contracting rules and appeared to conceal their spending," the Washington Post explained, and a different IG report revealed that TSA is still failing to find guns and knives when tests were run at airport security checkpoints.
7) Mercury Politics: Nikki Tinsley, the EPA's Inspector General, disclosed in February that Administration officials had instructed the EPA's staff to set artificially low limits on mercury pollution and then find a way to justify a pre-determined policy. Doing the bidding of coal-burning power plants and other industries, the Administration, Tinsley courageously charged, dismissed scientific evidence and ignored the agency's procedures to reach a policy that allows more mercury into the environment, which has been shown to be especially harmful to children and pregnant women.
8) "The Jungle": In February, the GAO issued a groundbreaking report about the flaws in protecting workers employed by the meat and poultry industries. The GAO found, for instance, that while statistics in the numbers of injuries on the job appear to be declining, the industries might not be reporting these figures accurately, and that working at such plants remains hazardous work. No single federal agency monitors the line speed at the plants and protects workers from getting injured because of the pressures of production. The GAO and the Department of Health and Human Services encountered resistance from the big poultry and meatpacking companies in gaining access to their facilities.
9) DoJ's White-Collar Friends: In March, the GAO discovered that the Justice Department had failed to collect fines and other forms of restitution from white-collar criminals who were high-ranking corporate officials. (They went unnamed in the report because their cases are still pending.) While some of the criminals claimed to be wiped out--saying that they lacked the resources to pay the fines to the federal government--they were still luxuriating in million dollar homes. Some of the criminals had hidden their assets from the government. The Justice Department acted like it didn't care one way or the other. And the GAO also reported that two of the criminals in question traveled overseas while they were on supervised release--adding fuel to the fire that white-collar criminals are living large even as they avoid paying the fines the courts ordered them to pay. Only about seven percent of the $568 million in court-ordered restitution to crime victims has been collected, the GAO reported.
10) Do Tell: Also in February, the GAO reported that the cost of the government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies amounted to nearly $200 million from 1994 to 2003. The costs involved the amount of money needed to recruit and train replacements including translators and other highly skilled troops for the men and women discharged under the Army's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Marty Meehan, the Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts, wants to pass legislation that will repeal the policy which forces soldiers out of the Armed Forces and causes the country to lose access to these talented people willing to serve.
In 2000, Bush vowed that he would restore "integrity" to the White House. No surprise, that hasn't happened. But at least these reports show there are federal investigators who--unlike many Administration officials--are willing to do the hard work to promote ethics in government.
Show any evidence you have, please, that these presidents profited illegally while in office--or out of office for that matter. I bring
up gross malfeasance and treason, and you, of course, counter with a drunken brother and a blowjob.
This is going nowhere.
of course not. you don't debate. You don't provide even one cite on which you base your opinions.
When do you begin to shred me?
oooh, terrible crimes. almost as bad as cheney's allowing the oil companies themselves to write energy legislation--in secret. almost as
bad as ol' dead-eye shooting the hubby of his lover in a drunken rage.
Tell me, do you have any original thoughts, or do you just quote those of others?
oooh, tony is getting angry.
Sonny, you cannot have it both ways. When I put the info in my own words, you whine that I haven't provided any factual data to support my opinion. When I do, you whine that I am copying someone else. Bud, the truth is the truth. And you have not refuted even one 10-word statement I've made.
horse***. presidents cannot pardon for local, inconsequential crimes.
they are, after all, Federal.
Regardless of that point of law that appears to be a fact, he did do it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1184118.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9804E3DB1439F93AA15755C0A9679C8B63
LOL. you whine about "kook" sites, then you post wikipedia as a reliable source.
But just what the hell does it matter than one ticket for drunk driving was dismissed. *** cops fix tickets every day for their friends. I mean, it ain't like the boy got himself a blowjob. LOL.
define reputable. And "now" must also be defined. The people have been
rightly convinced that the troops could not be removed immediately,
that the process once begun will take up to a year.
You're hedging. I stated plainly what the criteria had to be. The question is rather simple. "Do you want the troops out of Iraq now?" However that may be defined is not an issue. Not one independent poll taken in the past four years has reached a percentage of over 40% with a "yes" response to that exact question.
what is even more telling--and you choose to ignore it-- is the undeniable fact that 60+% of the American people realize that we cannot "win" in Iraq (as defined by bush); that 72% of American soldiers want the US out of Iraq YESTERDAY; that a large majority of Iraqi citizens applaud the killing of American soldiers.
Define "win." How will we know when we've won...when we can come home without you neo-CONS crying about our lost honor?
"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
-- John Kerry, speaking before Congress as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
define reputable. And "now" must also be defined. The people have been
*rightly* convinced that the troops cannot be removed immediately,
that the process once begun will take up to a year.
Again...your hedging is quite evident.
you're erecting a scarecrow. Well, I am not intimidated. Since I didn't offer any exact percentages in my earlier posting, since it was obvious to even you that I wasn't expecting to be taken literally, it is obvious that you think you have finally latched onto a mechanism for claiming victory in our debate. But you haven't debated; you have ranted, you have posited your baseless, unsupported personal opinions.
*** 'em if the parents won't or can't, right? And when they grow up mentally challenged, and criminal, they'll have to pay for their own incarceration?
It ought to be a crime to have a child if the parent(s) cannot financially support them. It's called taking responsibilty for one's actions. If they can't afford a kid, then they need keep their damn zipper closed. That's rather simple isn't it?
sure is. but humans are every bit as animal as the lowest mammal in the garden. Sex is a powerful force in all our lives. With the exception of you, no one is perfect.
"...who is able to."
I clearly made that distinction. The disabled, the elderly, and the ill most certainly are exempt from that statement.
but what about the babies? *** 'em, huh?
you're superior: I am happy for you.
No. I'm RESPONSIBLE.
you are perfection personified. you feel justified to sit in judgment of the unmarried mother who waits tables at Waffle House without knowing a goddamn thing about her life or character. Didn't realize you were so hypocritical. Compassionate conservatism, yeah right.
Not everyone is as blessed. Millions of people are brought up to believe that they cannot do any better than their parents did--and a majority of them probably don't have either the physical, mental or emotional gifts necessary to
succeed in life.
Utter crap. Most American's have their stuff together. It's a very small minority that drag us down.
we are 300 million+ strong. a few million is a small minority.
Think, Tony, think!
Nevertheless, we live in a consumer society. The
poor, having no resources, still want to have all the things others
have, such as a good tv and cablevision, a Wii game console and a few
of their favorite games, a good steak now and then, nice clothes and
the latest pair of athletic shoes.
People who budget their money know what they can and cannot afford. If you cannot afford those things on what you are making now, then you find a better job. You might have to work two jobs. But what you don't do is buy things that you cannot afford, unless you are absolutely stupid.
alas, unlike you and tscott, millions of Americans are imperfect beings.They want the things others have. They want a nice home for their families, so they enter into those rigged mortgages. They want things, so they send for the credit cards. I am doing fine financially. Just paid off a new Nissan I bought 8 months ago; spent $8,000 on home remodeling; paid off all my credit cards within the last two months--and still provided nice gifts for kids and grandkids and even a few close friends. But millions of Americans are not doing alright. Their fault, the mortgage company star salesman's fault, whatever, the result is the same. Millions of children are suffering through no fault of their own. You're willing to help the elderly, the infirm, the... Why won't you help the helpless children of parents who cannot? Why are compassionate conservatives so stingy?
So, given a choice between going
hungry or without electricity for two weeks or taking their kid to the
hospital, they're prone to assume every illness is something that can
be cured with a dose of Nyquil. BTW, those "free" hospital ER visits
aren't free: they cost quite a lot in self respect and embarassment
when the harassing phone calls begin to come in.
Aw Geez...spare me the pity party. It's not as if they are going to be arrested if they do not pay the hospital bill. The calls quit at some point, and the bill is written off.
ever heard of wage garnishment? You really should stop addressing a subject about which you are, forgive me for saying this, absolutely ignorant.
I think given the fact that they do get the care free, and those bills are quite often picked up by the taxpayers when they are not paid, is worth a few phone calls and a little diminishing of self-respect. It's their price to pay for not being responsible enough to have planned to have insurance in place to pay the bill in the first place.
sigh. what if they don't? *** the children? let them scrounge in a garbage dump for crumbs off your table?
The net reasult:
we're teaching these people that, since they can't pay their own way
anyway, why worry about it, just take the handout and *** 'em if they
can't take a joke.
Reagan said, Let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. He
was gifted athletically, and he could act, and he came from upper
middle class family. some bootstraps! Few are as gifted as ronnie.
Apparently, few are as gifted as you. Lucky you.
Luck has nothing to do with it. I have worked my entire adult life, and it's not been since I was 16 years old, that I made minimum wage. I strived to make the most out of my work time, both in terms of compensation and my work record, so that my job prospects were always assured. I also saved money from day one on a job for those rainy days. I began planning my retirement when I was 20 years old. I never bought anything that I could not pay for in cash if I had to.
Now all of this has led me to be very comfortable in my fast approaching older years, and not one person helped me, or gave me a thing, other that 20 acres of land that I inherited two years ago, and that is merely and added tax expense as it stands today.
blessed you. So happy for you. But why have you no compassion? Why can't you in your perfection accept the imperfections of others?
with a little trouble I can produce proof of that very thing. Catastrophic emergency healthcare, yeah, but for anything more serious--such as dialysis, a transplant, cancer treatment, no, hell
no, the poor are on their own.
Now you're changing the game. You went from typical medical care to catastrophic. Insurance companies fight paying those bills too.
oh, so this makes it right? who the hell mentioned a little cold? you, not me.
I guess I need to quantify this. No one has a RIGHT to the best medical care in this country. You do have the right to seek it, to find a means to pay for it, and to sacrifice whatever it takes to obtain it.
Without question, poorer people die at higher rates than those with more substantial means to seek higher quality healthcare, but that's the breaks in life like alot of things.
No one is entitled to live in a million dollar home unless you can pay for it either.
Life isn't fair. But that's the way it is.
but what of the children? Withhold your compassion, your tax dollars, and today's hungry, ailing child will become tomorrow's angry criminal. Paraphrasing businessman Andy Granatelli's commercial: you can pay them now, or pay them later--but pay them you will.
well, it's like this. If one can afford only the barest minimum insurance, but the government will provide better coverage at a third
of the cost, which would you choose? The answer isn't to provide less healthcare, but more. Healthcare is a RIGHT of all people everywhere.
Please quote the relevant passage in the Constitution that states that people have a "right" to medical care in this country.
sigh. You are being facetious.
provide evidence supporting the assertion.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicaid/3-01-14StateBudgets.htm
with your selective clipping in order for me to respond I have to go back and find your statement and my complete response. What precisely was my above statement referring to? ***, you even clipped your portion of that exchange.
If his employer provided healthcare, he would have had no problem,
would he. BTW, you should get your propaganda from better sources.
He HAD healthcare. He worked in Calhoun for Shaw Industries. They have one of the best benefit programs in the area.
Again, you selectively clip. You want a response, stop clipping. anything you don't want to respond to, feel free to clip. but if you do respond, leave the section intact. Or I will be forced to ignore it.
higher tax brackets are a thing of the past, guy. The top tax rate is only a few percentage points higher than that paid by those in the
middle.
And rightfully so. Why should ANYONE have to pay taxes at a higher rate, simply because they make more money than others? It's robbery.
it's called progressive tax rate structure, established with the 16th amendment. First, one deducts all the costs of basic human needs, then what is left is subject to tax at an escalating rate. Why should Gates pay more tax? Are you serious???? He has a $400 million home, private planes, maybe an $80 million private luxury submarine. Even Bill agrees that he should be paying a higher tax rate than that paid by his gardeners.
Most of the taxes are paid by people that I would categorize as almost
poor to almost rich. Or, more specifically, 66% of income taxes are
paid by those who make from $44,451 to $383,407.
That's a skewed perception.
Here's the latest FACTS:
The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected by the IRS.
The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.
The bottom 50 percent now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-
contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
your facts do not trump my facts. The bottom 50% have to use 100% of their income for basic needs. The top 10% use a minuscule percentage of their income to fill their mansions with luxuries. They will never miss a meal, never window shop wishing they could afford a used bike for little Johnny.
The bottom line is that we have a system where wealth is being
transferred from the bottom 90% to the top 10% and from the top 10% to
the top 1.0% and from the top 1.0% to the top 0.1%.
That is absolute hogwash. It doesn't begin to be true. It's as valid an argument as those who claim that the money that illegals send to their families will make us all poorer.
disprove it then.
People make what they work for, plain and simple. People invest and profit. More Americans than ever are doing that through 401K's and other retirement programs.
more americans than ever are going hungry here in the richest nation on Earth. Sure, I agree it is their own fault: they should have been born more intelligent, like Bill Clinton,stronger physically and with a willpower of iron, like you and Reagan. Else, like Bush Jr an Sr, they should have been born with a silver spoon up their shiny white behinds.
I previously wrote:
And why not? It's the Democrats that allow them to do this, with
their constant wanting to create more "entitlements" that they exchange for more votes.
Gringo's brilliant response:
asinine statement, without factual backup.
Please...There isn't one entitlement program on the books that the Democrats were not clearly responsible for proposing, passing, and signing into existence.
name one that doesn't provide needed help to people in need. I'm sure you will overlook all examples of corporate welfare.
Poverty is, and always will be, a mental disease. But I digress.
to an extent, yes, it is. So what? No child should ever go hungry; no child should ever die for lack of regular doctors' visits, here in the
richest nation on Earth.
If a child is going hungry in this country, it is because of actions or lack thereof by the parent(s). And all the money in the world will not save that child if they do not avail themselves of it.
but what of the children?
No one, not even a child is "entitled" to healthcare. I'm sorry, but that is not a right anywhere.
why are you so stingy if you consider yourself a compassionate conservative, hmmm?
Richest nation or not, the focus should be in showing people how to live responsibly, and not how to become leaches of society.
but you republiCONS don't want to spend any money on education or childcare for working moms.
What happened when welfare as we knew it was changed? A date was given when all benefits would be terminated, and what happened? The lazy bums got off their asses and went to work.
200,000 combat vets moved into the streets. millions of children miss at least one meal every day.
We need more of that kind of tough love enacted in this nation. Omly the truly disabled, the elderly, and those too ill to work, should be drawing support checks. The rest should be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine if they could be doing more to support themselves.
"tough love" is an oxymoron invented by a compassionate conservative.
there have always been wars and rumors of wars. the occupation of Iraq
is a proving ground for terrorists. One of the complaints of American colonists was that they were being forced to house foreign (British troops) in their homes. How many doors do American troops kick in
every day? how many Iraqis are forced to sleep on the street so that
American troops can take cover overnight? how many innocent Iraqis
have been gunned down in the streets by mercenaries paid by America?
Blackwater "troops" raped an American contractor employee, and the
rapists are totally 100% immune from prosecution by either American or
Iraqi courts!
You sure know how to spread those rumors, don't you? What did you do, join the John Kerry fan club?
FACT, son. Cold hard fact. The rape victim just spoke before Congress. I have watched the documentaries of our troops in action in Iraq. Not saying they are wrong to kick in the doors, or roust peaceful people from their homes (they are after all fighting for their lives). But the effect of all that kicking is the creation of more hatred of America. I realize that you fear the truth too much to ever go out on your own seeking it. But war is war, and we are forced to brutalize those people. Every moment we spend in Iraq gives birth to another determined terrorist.
I'm sorry, but the above deserves no response whatsoever, because it is completely unsubstantiated and supposition. For all anyone knows, someone got bored at a keyboard and made it all up.
another snip. Beginning to appear that you're doing so in order to make your feeble opinions appear more cogent. I won't respond to a pig in a poke, and home for the holidays I sure as hell am not going to waste time backtracking to figure out what the *** you're talking about.
Ben said many "clevor" things. He was the founder of the Democratic Party. Since he himself "borrowed" many of his favorite sayings from others, I'm certain he wouldn't mind in the least that his words are still being used to promote his ideals.
The only problem is, that they no longer apply to our world.
you couldn't have said anything as silly if you were attempting to do standup at the comedy club.
Laughable but so ignorant of history. Research what befell about 60 of
the signers of the Constitution. And damnit, tony, are you seriously claiming that bush's destruction of Constitutional protections will
have no longterm effects on our life here in America???? Of course
everything that affected Franklin still affects us all!
First of all, no one has destroyed anything. I've yet to read one case in the papers of ONE American being hauled off in handcuffs over something that was heard in a monitored phone call, unless it was absolutely related to terrorism.
horse***. you haven't been paying attention. You shouldn't expect the truth from Faux. You have to conduct the research yourself if you want to sift a kernel of truth from a bucket of right wing lies.
Secondly, the Bush Administration has made it clear as a bell many times, why they need to monitor suspected communications, under what circumstances that they intend to do it, and it's continuously ignored by the Chicken Little's in our land.
don't become an *** here at the end of our discussion. For your erudition, Bush installed secret monitoring stations in cell phone providers' comm centers months before 9/11 happened. How do we know they're not monitoring political conversations among Democrats? Their word that they aren't?
FISA as originally written provided a 72-hour window during which they could legally listen in on any communication without warrant. No, amigo, they're whining for updated FISA in order to protect themselves from criminal charges once bush leaves office.
I don't care of George Bush himself taps my phone line. I've got nothing to say that he's not welcome to hear if he wants to.
LOL. the favored response of you Faux boys. Spoken like a pre-war German.
"First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me."
-- Martin Niemoller
"in a reasonable manner" is the key phrase. Do you advocate seeding
the Rio Grande with 'gators?
Wow, I had not heard that one. I actually like it very much.
Burying a few million mines under the fence that republican Bush won't build?
Another good one, but rather pointless. The rats have figured out how to build tunnels.
The United States is STILL respected.by whom?
All of our allies, or at least those that matter anyway.
Everyone on the left thinks that just because a few British citizens decided to protest the war, that we are now suddenly hated throughout the world.
A`few??? one poll states that 70% of british people and 80+ of German people oppose the Occupation.
The prior leader in France was an idiot, and his replacement is a pretty kewl dude, and he's back on board with us again.
he's a right wing toad.
yeah, make 'em fear us, that's the thing.
It sure makes people think twice about screwing with us. Didn't you learn anything in school? Or were you the picked on kid?
No. I was small, but quick as a snake and mean as a pissed off chihuahua in a cage filled with pitbulls.
George made Iran fear us with his axis of evil speech. So Iran, who had been helping us out in Afghanistan, set out to protect itself with a nuclear strike capability.
Where in the hell did you get the idea that Iran helped us in Afghanistan?
news reports, son. tune away from faux once in awhile, you won't remain so damned ignorant.
From the NY Times, titled "censored version of original OP-Ed regarding Iran:
.....
These episodes reinforced already considerable suspicion among Iranian leaders about United States intentions toward the Islamic Republic. But, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, senior Iranian diplomats told us that Tehran believed it had a historic opportunity to improve relations with Washington. Iranian leaders offered to help the United States in responding to the attacks without making that help contingent on changes in America’s Iran policy — a condition stipulated in the late 1990s when Tehran rejected the Clinton administration’s offer of dialogue — calculating that cooperation would ultimately prompt fundamental shifts in United States policy.
The argument that Iran helped America in Afghanistan because it was in Tehran’s interest to get rid of the Taliban is misplaced. Iran could have let America remove the Taliban without getting its own hands dirty, as it remained neutral during the 1991 gulf war. Tehran cooperated with United States efforts in Afghanistan primarily because it wanted a better relationship with Washington.
But Tehran was profoundly disappointed with the United States response. After the 9/11 attacks, xxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx set the stage for a November 2001 meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the foreign ministers of Afghanistan’s six neighbors and Russia. xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Iran went along, working with the United States to eliminate the Taliban and establish a post-Taliban political order in Afghanistan.
....
and then George made his infamous speech in which Iran was labeled part of "the Axis of Evil."
Iran has been behind more of what we are fighting over there, and is and has been a bitter enemy of the United States since we assisted Israel in the fourties.
bone up on your history.
we've killed an estimated 150,000 Iraqi citizens (who had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack). Is that revenge enough? If Bush wasn't so goddamned greedy, he would have gone after his business partners, the Saudis, who had everything to do with 9/11.
The Saudi's did not have "everything to do with 9/11". They just happen to have had the unfortunate distinction of having more of their former citizens who wound up as terrorists and involved in the 9/11 attacks.
There is no way you can claim that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring terrorism any more than Nebraska does, just because a 16 year old kid decided to kill eitht people in a shopping mall.
oh you poor misinformed boy. Saudi Arabia "donates" more than $25,000 to the families of every suicide bomber, their citizen or not.
Israel is a deep subject, worthy of its own debate. Ample proof can be
provided of Israel's insane and inhumane treatment of all its neighboring peoples.
I've seen no evidence of that. But of course, I'm sure there are plenty of kook sites out there, dedicated to the goal of informing just how violent Jews are.
obviously, everything that contradicts your misinformed opinions will be labeled "kook." So I am wasting my time trying to debate a willfully ignorant rightarded compassionate conservative.
LOL. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our Occupation. Saddam killed them for us. That is the very reason Bush Daddy armed Iraq with
a small supply of WMD for his fight with Iran at our behest.
Actually, there really isn't any way to know that for sure, but the bottom line is, they are there for sure now, and they have to be taken out.
the majority of foreign insurgents in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia. Why isn't bush hollering about closing that border? Everyone who fires a BB gun at allied troops is labeled al Qaeda, and this is patently false.
I have provided you with FACT; you have provided me with a few
thousand words of your personal opinion...baseless personal opinion.
If you say so.
one must negotiate in good faith; the Israelis do not. They grab more and more land, displacing more and more Arabs, creating more and more enemies.
We're going too far off the subject here, and I'm not very well versed in the struggle between those surrounding Israel to effectively comment on it.
the question that arises is whyinhell aren't you better informed. and the answer is: you rely on faux news to tell you what to think.
we cannot either. The British couldn't defeat us, because we were fighting on our own turf, for ourselves.
Well..time will tell, won't it? We have at least a year before the Democrats will have a chance to yank those boys outta there, don't we?
The planner of the first WTC bombing is as we speak rotting in an American prison.
Bin Laden claimed it. I have no idea who you claim is in prison. But either way, Bill Clinton hardly deserves any credit for that, if it indeed is even true.
how old are you anyway? are you that young or that senile?
In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) a car bomb was detonated by Radical Islamic terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500-lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-fuel oil device was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into Tower Two, bringing both towers down and killing 250,000 people. It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.
The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. And in November 1997, two more were convicted: *Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings*, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.
Bin Laden, sure, he provided the funding. BTW, the barracks bombing occurred in Lebanon while Reagan was in the WH.
My bad...I'm referring to the Khobar Towers bombing in Khobar, Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996. 19 of our tropps were killed, and 372 were wounded.
For your education, American forces, chiefly FBI, raided inside an Arab nation, essentially kidnapping one of the ringleaders of that first attack. Clinton damn well did act. But he was also being distracted at
the time by republiCON's $70 million whitewater investigation that
found him guilty of getting a blowjob. Every time he made any move
militarily against terrorism, he was slandered by the right wing
press-- Clinton was a warmonger when he sent missiles after Osama,
didn't you know???
You really believe that don't you? The FBI? Right. Uh Huh...Sure....
Ramzi Ahmed Yousef or Ramzi Mohammed Yousef (also transliterated as Ramzi Yusuf, Ramzi Youssef) (Arabic: رمزي يوسف), birth name possibly Abdul Basit Mahmoud Abdul Karim (Arabic: عبد الباسط كريم) and also known by dozens of aliases,[1][2] is a Kuwaiti of mixed Pakistani and Palestinian descent who was one of the planners of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He was arrested at an al-Qaeda safe house in Islamabad, Pakistan in 1995 by a joint task force of American FBI and Pakistani police and was extradited to the United States. He was tried in New York City in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and along with two co-conspirators was convicted of planning the Oplan Bojinka plot. Yousef stated, "Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government." He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Yousef's uncle is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior al-Qaeda member.
He ordered the bombing of a pill factory and chickened out after three days in the other skirmish, because of poll data that the bombings were driving down his approval numbers. Look it up.
your ignorance is utterly astonishing but self-imposed. Obviously *you* haven't looked anything up. Do you know how to conduct a google search?
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html
*2001 memo to Rice contradicts statements about Clinton, Pakistan*
*Larry Womack
*Published: Tuesday September 26, 2006
A memo received by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly after she
became National Security Advisor in 2001 directly contradicts statements
the Secretary made to reporters yesterday, RAW STORY
<http://rawstory.com> has learned.
"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice told
a reporter for the /New York Post/ on Monday. "Big pieces were missing,"
Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because
without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."
Rice made the comments in response to claims made Sunday by former
President Bill Clinton, who argued that his administration had done more
than the current one to address the al Qaeda problem before the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. She stopped short of calling the
former president a liar.
However, RAW STORY <http://rawstory.com> has found that just five days
after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from
counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000
document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and
Prospects." This document devotes 2 of its 13 pages of material to
specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation
in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The strategy document includes "three levers" that the United States had
started applying to Pakistan as far back as 1990. Sanctions, political
and economic methods of persuasion are all offered as having been
somewhat successful.
Other portions of the passages relating to Pakistan marked as
"operational details" have been redacted from the declassified memo at
the CIA's request.
The document also includes broader strategic approaches, such as a "need
to keep in mind that Pakistan has been most willing to cooperate with us
on terrorism when its role is invisible or at least plausibly deniable
to the powerful Islamist right wing."
The document makes it clear that the Clinton Administration recognized
the problem that Pakistan posed in mounting a more sweeping campaign
against bin Laden: "Overt action against bin Laden, who is a hero
especially in the Pushtun-ethnic border areas near Afghanistan," Clarke
speculated in late 2000, "*would be so unpopular as to threaten
Musharraf's government."* It notes that, after the attack on the USS
Cole, Pakistan had forbidden the United States from again violating its
airspace to attack bin Laden in Afghanistan.
The memo sent by Clarke to Rice, to which the Clinton-era document was
attached, also urges action on Pakistan relating to al Qaeda. "First [to
be addressed,]" wrote Clarke in a list of pending issues relating to al
Qaeda, is "what the administration says to the Taliban and Pakistan
about ending al Qida sanctuary in Afghanistan. We are separately
proposing early, strong messages on both."
The document has been a source of controversy before. Rice contended in
a March 22, 2004 Washington Post piece that "no al Qaeda plan was turned
over to the new administration."
Two days later, Clarke insisted to the 9/11 Commission that the plan had
in fact been turned over. "There's a lot of debate about whether it's a
plan or a strategy or a series of options, but all of the things we
recommended back in January," he told the commission, "were done after
September 11th."
The memo was declassified on April 7, 2004, one day before Rice herself
testified before the 9/11 Commission.
Excerpts from documents relating to the situation follow:
#
Pages 11-13 of the Clinton-era document sent to Rice from Clarke,
detailing Pakistan's role in the al Qaeda problem. The plan was referred
to by Clarke, and later by Rice in public statements:
#
Page 2 of memo from Clarke to Rice, urging "early, strong messages" to
Pakistan on the al Qaeda problem. The Clinton "plan" was attached to
this memo:
........
CIA lawyers warned Clinton officials that a killing attack on bin laden would stir a whirlwind of hatred against the US; he was advised to capture, not kill bin laden until courtroom proof was gathered that bin laden was anything more than a moneyed blowhard muslim.
You raise lots of issues with lots of ill-formed opinion without offering the first shred of evidence to back up your assertions. When are you going to begin shredding *me* in this debate? Do you seriously
want to delve into the stories of some of these "dangerous terrorists"
held in Gitmo?
You know, when you're right...you're right. I can't compete with someone that quotes sources of information, but refuses to cite those sources so that verification can be made.
sonny, I provided cites for my sources till you began to whine they weren't legitimate without providing even one cite that contradicted any statement I had made.
You win...
Seriously, Tony, you should become better informed.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: ~Tony~
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- References:
- Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: CNJ
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: tscottme
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: gringo
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: ~Tony~
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: gringo
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: ~Tony~
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: Zeke
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: ~Tony~
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: gringo
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: ~Tony~
- Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- From: ~Tony~
- Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- Prev by Date: Re: Merry Christmas MTT
- Next by Date: Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- Previous by thread: Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- Next by thread: Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety
- Index(es):
