 |
Today President Bush addressed the issues at hand, obscene oil prices, foreclosures, food increases, credit crunch, big brother spying, and economic woes in his usual "tactical" method, "It's not my fault...it is all Congress' fault".
Does your congressman agree to take the blame?
No I heard my esteemed Senator Charles Chucky Schumer demagogue and try to blame the oil companies
By the way .President Bush was correct in taking Congress to task for their FISA, energy policy and the Colombia Free Trade Agreement decisions/lack of action .
I heard much of the news conference. George W. Bush is "the Reasonable President" in my estimation. He states his position or view succinctly in a matter-of-fact manner. As for Congress, three issues: 1) energy - Congress fails to authorize drilling in ANWR; 2) Congress fails to give the President the authority he wants to protect innocent American lives; and 3) the President wants $108 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan; Pelosi stalls.
My representatives agree with the president, thankfully.
Latest studies by EIA states that even if Congress gave the go ahead to pump oil from ANWR crude would would commence in 2013 peak by 2025 and at best product 875K per day, and at escalating demands we would still need to import 2/3 of our oil from abroad saving us 50 cents a barrel.
Not much.
If we allow government to peak into our innocent personal lives, we give up liberties that we enjoy as a free nation under our constitution. I don't think government should be allowed to micro-manage our free society.
The majority pays for the minority.
$108 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan without an agenda for ending a preemptive war does not make sense.
Irresponsible accountability.
My favorite piece of nonsense he belched out today was that CONGRESS SHOULD BUILD NEW OIL REFINERIES... Jeeze, I thought that was the job for the Oil Companies who made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in profits last year.
Guess that's proof positive Bush's Administration is a Fascist regime. The government and Big Business entwined and operating for their own aggrandisement but to the detriment of the middle class citizens... and using militarism forwarding their agenda and profits! THE VERY PRACTICE AND DEFINITION OF FASCISM. :)
But why with all this sacrifice and warfare don't we have control of the oil??
Bush and the NeoCon Fascists are bumbling idiots, that's why.
Actually the oil companies would love to expand refining capacity. However ;government over regulation ;litigation , and NIMBY attituded preclude that . It has been a problem since the last refinery was built... over 30 years ago .
But had we began drilling in the mid-90s when it was first proposed it would already be on line . It would be PART of the solution.Quote:
Latest studies by EIA states that even if Congress gave the go ahead to pump oil from ANWR crude would would commence in 2013 peak by 2025
Face the facts ;alternatives will not be viable any time soon and demand is growing as Asian markets grow. There is no solution that does not involve increasing output.WE should be exploring anywhere there is a chance that new sources may be found. Look at Brazil .They will be awash in oil revenue as soon as they can begin to exploit their new find. WE on the other hand will not drill off the Fla coast even though a short boat cruise reveals Chinese drilled rigs getting ready to pump oil for Cuba. It is insanity ! You go to the Russian side of the Arctic and you can walk across the rigs in the Barents sea.
Long term yea maybe alternatives that aren't as big a disaster as ethanol appears to be may emerge.
Therefore, the nation's solution to energy and fighting terrorism is put our collective head up where the sun don't shine; continue with energy dependence, build economic barriers (encouraging warfare), and run from threats of terrorism. And call Bush irresponsible?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBaAd
There are definitely fascist tendencies (not traditions, thankfully) in the U.S.; the difference being the Democrats want to speed it up and the GOP wants to drag its feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
McCain moves to middle on health care - Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin - Politico.com
Are you in favor of a national health insurance plan? National health insurance is fascism, by definition. " ...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."* So, let's nationalize medical care, and ban smoking and french fries. You may be more of a fascist than you thought.
*Modern History Sourcebook: Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932
As quoted by republican Ron Paul "Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and preemption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?"
Nicely said.
To continue:
"The ware on terrorism has no more meaning than if one wants to wage war against criminal gangsterism...it is vague... The Iraquis and Sadam had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us... Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history not the cause of pure liberty."
Not only is Bush irresponsible, he is using "his" special interests and our sons and daughters to fight "his" war to gain political and economic advantages that feed his oil aficionados.
Your money and mine.
To continue the irresponsibility:
The Security and Prosperity Partnership as dreamed up of the 3 amigos Calderon(Mexico), Bush and Paul Matin(Canada) is moving ahead without congressional approvals. Another attempt to create a free flow union similar to European style union to create a common currency called "Amero".
Big business and Federal Reserve control - Bush's buddies too.
Is it acceptable for Bush and his administration to proceed without approval of Congress or debates or public voice of this country? As Dobbs said "They are now creating a brave new Orwellian world".
Trust in this administration?. no thanks.
Ron Paul committed political suicide with his foreign policy. He should have consulted someone like Steve Forbes, before he pulled out the knife. Dobbs doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground.
Total expenditures on the war to defeat jihadistan consumes less than 2% of the annual GDP . By contrast Vietnam cost 12% of the GDP to prosecute. You can say a lot about the war one way or the other ,but you can't say it has been an economic burden. I will remind you that a single attack on the US on 9-11-2001 cost the US an est. $639.3 billion
George you are right in being critical of the McCain mishmosh list of healthcare proposals. The difference between his and the Dems proposals amounts to plunging into nanny statism or creeping towards it.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Oh, yes I can! Borrowing trillions HAS an economic impact - a BIG one. Buy gold. It's cheap now.
excon
Not knocking Paul's intelligence, but his knowledge of U.S. history appears to be lacking. It is his irresponsible view of U.S. diplomacy that cost him my vote and many others, in my opinion. If the U.S. were empire building, we could have annihilated Iraq. Your house of cards is built upon sand, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBaAd
You have also trotted out a well-worn canard: "The Iraqis and Sadam had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us...." No one ever said the Iraqis participated in the 9/11 attack. As reported 11/11/2002, "Iraq's parliament meets today to consider the UN resolution on the resumption of weapons inspections. Under terms of the resolution that was approved unanimously by the Security Council, Iraq has until Friday to accept new, much more intrusive conditions for the inspections. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other Bush administration officials have warned that if Iraq fails to comply, military action will follow." tap://wy.neper.orc/programs/morning/transcripts/2002/nov/021111.edwards.tamal
You can believe whatever version of the facts you wish and have your own opinion; I am not quarreling with that. But I will make every attempt to correct the record when I see it intentionally misrepresented or sloppily stated.
It is international knowledge that Bush went to war without UN approval and never had intended to wait for an approval:
"Thanks to a formerly secret memorandum published by the London Sunday Times on May 1, during the run-up to the British elections, we now have a partial answer to that question. The memo, which records the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair's senior foreign policy and security officials, shows that even as President Bush told Americans in October 2002 that he "hope[d] the use of force will not become necessary"—that such a decision depended on whether or not the Iraqis complied with his demands to rid themselves of their weapons of mass destruction—the President had in fact already definitively decided, at least three months before, to choose this "last resort" of going "into battle" with Iraq. Whatever the Iraqis chose to do or not do, the President's decision to go to war had long since been made.
The Secret Way to War - The New York Review of Books
More "for the record"
Iraq and War - Comparison of Views
US War Without UN Approval Would Be Seen as Illegal
It is all sorry history now.
Since when is UN approval required ? We were justified just because the terms of our cease fire with Iraq post Desert Storm was violated by them 100s of times in many ways. We tried to get UN involvement so they could try to salvage a degree of legitmacy ;that their resolutions actually mean something.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:13 PM. |