What in Nancy Pelosi smoking?

[harold_bush]

I agree and disagree here. As I said in another post the Republican is split on party philosophy and this is a great example of that. McCain didn't want Palin as you said. It was well rumored that he wanted Lieberman, but when the far right got a wiff of that they started to bail. The far right pretty much forced their will on McCain to choose Palin, but I really doubt that the far right would have backed McCain if he didn't choose a candidate that they aproved of. In that aspect, the Republican party is on the right track imo. I don't think you are going to see a wishie washie candidate from the GOP in 12, it's going to be closer to a hardliner imo.

I'm not disagreeing here, but this is something I've never understood. To me it seems like you could totally alienate the hard core right and hard core left and it not really matter. Even is McCain went with Lieberman, is the far right going to get pissed and vote for Obama? I guess the argument is that they won't vote at all, but is there anything that supports the fact that they actually don't vote.

I'm far more conservative than McCain, and didn't think much of him as a politician. That said, he could have picked Hilary Clinton as his VP candidate and I still would have voted for him over Obama/Biden under the lesser of two evils theory. No way I try to make a point and just not vote......essentially helping a far more leftist person (Obama) get into office. That's is just stupid to me.

[BearDown]

I'm not disagreeing here, but this is something I've never understood. To me it seems like you could totally alienate the hard core right and hard core left and it not really matter. Even is McCain went with Lieberman, is the far right going to get pissed and vote for Obama? I guess the argument is that they won't vote at all, but is there anything that supports the fact that they actually don't vote.

I'm far more conservative than McCain, and didn't think much of him as a politician. That said, he could have picked Hilary Clinton as his VP candidate and I still would have voted for him over Obama/Biden under the lesser of two evils theory. No way I try to make a point and just not vote......essentially helping a far more leftist person (Obama) get into office. That's is just stupid to me.

People are tired HB. People are tired of voting for their party and the party is not delivering. Just like me this past election, I voted Nader, and people were telling me that I was wasting my vote. Looking at what's going on right now, it's my turn to ask. did I? As a matter of fact I was 1 of some 20 + people that helped get Nader on the Florida ballot. If I wouldn't of had a 3rd choice I wouldn't have voted for either McCain or Obama. We get the same shit over and over again and there are a lot of us that are tired of it. Bush had a majority in the House and the Senate for his first 6 years and did nothing to push the right's agenda either. Promise everything, give nothing. The two party system needs to be broken. My hope is that there will be a Ron Paul type candidate running in 2012 as a Indenpendent.

[harold_bush]

People are tired HB. People are tired of voting for their party and the party is not delivering. Just like me this past election, I voted Nader, and people were telling me that I was wasting my vote. Looking at what's going on right now, it's my turn to ask. did I? As a matter of fact I was 1 of some 20 + people that helped get Nader on the Florida ballot. If I wouldn't of had a 3rd choice I wouldn't have voted for either McCain or Obama. We get the same shit over and over again and there are a lot of us that are tired of it. Bush had a majority in the House and the Senate for his first 6 years and did nothing to push the right's agenda either. Promise everything, give nothing. The two party system needs to be broken. My hope is that there will be a Ron Paul type candidate running in 2012 as a Indenpendent.

I agree with you, people including myself are very frustrated. I just don't know that we are ever going to get an independant in the White House, not in the forseeable future. Every election it seems like 75% of us are just voting for the lesser of two evils, not a candidate we really support. Politics is such a vile game that to make it to the top you have to get in bed with some questionable people, meaning the best candidates just aren't going to run and subject themeselves to all the shit.

We are stuck with the two party system, but the two party system sucks ass. 99% of politicians on both sides just vote party line in order to not rock the boat. Almost all politicians are self serving and don't give a crap about the people that elected them. Both sides know that if they go against the party they will get black balled (see Zell Miller) and are committing political suicide. As a result nothing ever gets done. Both sides disagree w/ what the other side says even if deep down the actually agree. The sad thing is we can come in here and scream and fight all we want, but 20 years from now the same shit will be happening.

[husker]

those are two of the best posts i have seen and i agree 100%!

[insidethe8thpol]

People are tired HB. People are tired of voting for their party and the party is not delivering. Just like me this past election, I voted Nader, and people were telling me that I was wasting my vote. Looking at what's going on right now, it's my turn to ask. did I? As a matter of fact I was 1 of some 20 + people that helped get Nader on the Florida ballot. If I wouldn't of had a 3rd choice I wouldn't have voted for either McCain or Obama. We get the same shit over and over again and there are a lot of us that are tired of it. Bush had a majority in the House and the Senate for his first 6 years and did nothing to push the right's agenda either. Promise everything, give nothing. The two party system needs to be broken. My hope is that there will be a Ron Paul type candidate running in 2012 as a Indenpendent.

I agree with you, people including myself are very frustrated. I just don't know that we are ever going to get an independant in the White House, not in the forseeable future. Every election it seems like 75% of us are just voting for the lesser of two evils, not a candidate we really support. Politics is such a vile game that to make it to the top you have to get in bed with some questionable people, meaning the best candidates just aren't going to run and subject themeselves to all the shit.

We are stuck with the two party system, but the two party system sucks ass. 99% of politicians on both sides just vote party line in order to not rock the boat. Almost all politicians are self serving and don't give a crap about the people that elected them. Both sides know that if they go against the party they will get black balled (see Zell Miller) and are committing political suicide. As a result nothing ever gets done. Both sides disagree w/ what the other side says even if deep down the actually agree. The sad thing is we can come in here and scream and fight all we want, but 20 years from now the same shit will be happening.

2 great posts

No matter which side, they would sell their daughters down the drain for a few votes and a few bucks.

If you notice everytime on TV, the Professional Liar (my definition of a politician) cannot look into the screen and actually say something. Its always a script answer. They cannot be a man or woman and give us a straight answer.

[BigWeiner]

what site did you copy and paste this from? I'd like to see it.

I bunch of dumbasses posted this on their blogs, just do a google search. Here's a good response to it, copied and pasted from some random


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

---This does not say that Clinton believes Iraq has WMDs. It says that they need to be kept from having WMDs. I have the same argument for your first Madeline Albright quote. Further on that, she said it was a threat, which was, is, and always will be true. Note that she did not say they have WMDs but we need to be mindful of the fact that they might try.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

---This does not specify what "force" means...and if you want to laugh at that, at least I'm not arguing over the definition of "is". But seriously, an embargo is force. Some definitions for the word force can be found on the link below, and not all of them imply war.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

---every site that this is on only lists this quote (along with most -if not all - of the others you listed). Unfortunately, no context is provided (nor with any of the quotes you list) so it's obvious that the quote has only been used as proof that we should have gone to war...unfortunately, doing so is just plain silly if there's no context within which the quote was made.

---With regards to the Levin, Daschle, Kerry, and others comment: This does not say, "let's go to war", though it does advocate military force to pressure Iraq. This is faaar different from war. Additionally, it does not say they have WMDs but says, like we all know now and knew then, that Iraq was sketchy about it's desires and attempts to make WMDs. This is still not the same as saying WMDs are in existence. The same goes for Nancy Pelosi's comment. That something needs to be done is not the same as saying that the WMDs are in existence and therefore a full-scale war needs to be launched.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

---again, hyperbolizing is not the same as lying. Spending money on WMDs...yes, we know that at several points in Sadam's reign he spent money trying to develop nuclear capacity, though he mostly ended up with other types of weapons. This is not the same as having nuclear weapons, and nor is it just cause to side-step laws and procedures set in place at an International level due to speculation...hence Bush's need to lie about it.

Unfortunately, you have not placed anyone in checkmate. You took these quotes off of one site and made it appear as if you spent hours meticulously searching for each. Furthermore, Most of the quotes are without context, and are clearly just used in a lame attempt to "prove" that Bush didn't lie. Ultimately, none of these quotes (except for Sandy Berger) claim that Iraq had nuclear capabilites, and none of them advocate launching the war Bush launched.

No one is arguing that Sadam wasn't a nuisance, nobody said he wasn't dangerous, nobody said that he should be ignored. However, many do argue that the war wasn't justified (at least not to the degree it was launched), that Bush's administration purposly lied about Iraq's nuclear capacity to take us into said war, that there were guidelines for handling this situation (annoyingly enacted perhaps, but still agreed upon by us) which Bush completely circumvented, etc. All of this based on a lie that you have not debunked in any way. You really think that, 6 years later, you've stumbled onto something here? If this were legit, I'm sure your Republicans would have used the arguments during the election when attacking Obama's assertions that the war must be ended...ultimately, you should just be happy that Obama seems to be mimicking Bush's foreign policy...
Source(s):
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dic…

It's also pretty funny that your exact list can be found on the following link...methinks someone copied and pasted from a select few sites. http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/253066.ph…

[musclemann]

I bunch of dumbasses posted this on their blogs, just do a google search. Here's a good response to it, copied and pasted from some random


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

---This does not say that Clinton believes Iraq has WMDs. It says that they need to be kept from having WMDs. I have the same argument for your first Madeline Albright quote. Further on that, she said it was a threat, which was, is, and always will be true. Note that she did not say they have WMDs but we need to be mindful of the fact that they might try.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

---This does not specify what "force" means...and if you want to laugh at that, at least I'm not arguing over the definition of "is". But seriously, an embargo is force. Some definitions for the word force can be found on the link below, and not all of them imply war.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

---every site that this is on only lists this quote (along with most -if not all - of the others you listed). Unfortunately, no context is provided (nor with any of the quotes you list) so it's obvious that the quote has only been used as proof that we should have gone to war...unfortunately, doing so is just plain silly if there's no context within which the quote was made.

---With regards to the Levin, Daschle, Kerry, and others comment: This does not say, "let's go to war", though it does advocate military force to pressure Iraq. This is faaar different from war. Additionally, it does not say they have WMDs but says, like we all know now and knew then, that Iraq was sketchy about it's desires and attempts to make WMDs. This is still not the same as saying WMDs are in existence. The same goes for Nancy Pelosi's comment. That something needs to be done is not the same as saying that the WMDs are in existence and therefore a full-scale war needs to be launched.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

---again, hyperbolizing is not the same as lying. Spending money on WMDs...yes, we know that at several points in Sadam's reign he spent money trying to develop nuclear capacity, though he mostly ended up with other types of weapons. This is not the same as having nuclear weapons, and nor is it just cause to side-step laws and procedures set in place at an International level due to speculation...hence Bush's need to lie about it.

Unfortunately, you have not placed anyone in checkmate. You took these quotes off of one site and made it appear as if you spent hours meticulously searching for each. Furthermore, Most of the quotes are without context, and are clearly just used in a lame attempt to "prove" that Bush didn't lie. Ultimately, none of these quotes (except for Sandy Berger) claim that Iraq had nuclear capabilites, and none of them advocate launching the war Bush launched.

No one is arguing that Sadam wasn't a nuisance, nobody said he wasn't dangerous, nobody said that he should be ignored. However, many do argue that the war wasn't justified (at least not to the degree it was launched), that Bush's administration purposly lied about Iraq's nuclear capacity to take us into said war, that there were guidelines for handling this situation (annoyingly enacted perhaps, but still agreed upon by us) which Bush completely circumvented, etc. All of this based on a lie that you have not debunked in any way. You really think that, 6 years later, you've stumbled onto something here? If this were legit, I'm sure your Republicans would have used the arguments during the election when attacking Obama's assertions that the war must be ended...ultimately, you should just be happy that Obama seems to be mimicking Bush's foreign policy...
Source(s):
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dic…

It's also pretty funny that your exact list can be found on the following link...methinks someone copied and pasted from a select few sites. http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/253066.ph…

Where's the outrage at???? He took a budget surplus and smashed into a record defecit for what?It had to be the costliest death sentence in the history of the earth..........

Not to mention the thousands of american soldiers who lost their life. But some of his buddies did get rich tho...........

[Spark]

2 great posts

No matter which side, they would sell their daughters down the drain for a few votes and a few bucks.

If you notice everytime on TV, the Professional Liar (my definition of a politician) cannot look into the screen and actually say something. Its always a script answer. They cannot be a man or woman and give us a straight answer.

[flarendep1]

Where's the outrage at???? He took a budget surplus and smashed into a record defecit for what?It had to be the costliest death sentence in the history of the earth..........

Not to mention the thousands of american soldiers who lost their life. But some of his buddies did get rich tho...........

Yes and 9-11 was Bush's fault.

[musclemann]

Yes and 9-11 was Bush's fault.

no it wasnt flare.............MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[frankb03]

Frank, your not a bad guy, but Sara Palin is one of the worst political VP candidates I've seen in my life. If McCain would have gone with anyone else he would have had a shot. She really only catered to the far right; which he would have got anyway. All she did, was make him lose his credibility, and I know he regrets picking her as his VP. I know he was pressured into it.

She was more qualified as a VP than Obama is as a president.

I didn't say she was a viable candidate. I said she was more qualified as a VP than Obama was qualified as President of the United States. A governorship is akin to the presidency albeit on a much smaller scale. Obama was the first congressman elected as president since Kennedy.

[frankb03]

and you guys wouldve won if mccain wouldve picked a solid vice president choice.

Maybe not. Obama won primarily due to two reasons. First blacks turned out in record numbers. Ninety-five percent of blacks voted for Obama. Second, the female vote killed McCain/Palin. IMO the primary reason was petty jealousy. Why vote against the 2nd in command when the presidential candidate wasn't qualified for the position?

56 percent of women voted for Barack Obama compared with 49 percent of men or more than 8 million votes.

[frankb03]

Osama is still free

Is he? He might not be captured but I highly doubt in 8+ years he's freely walking the streets. If he wants to live in some cave or hut so be it. When's the last time Bin Laden surfaced? He's basically been rendered useless in the last 8 years.

Bush did what Bin Laden wanted by making it in a religious war against Islam.

Really? I guess Clinton succeeded by ignoring the attacks and not succumbing to Bin Laden's desire.

[frankb03]

I agree with you, people including myself are very frustrated. I just don't know that we are ever going to get an independant in the White House, not in the forseeable future. Every election it seems like 75% of us are just voting for the lesser of two evils, not a candidate we really support. Politics is such a vile game that to make it to the top you have to get in bed with some questionable people, meaning the best candidates just aren't going to run and subject themeselves to all the shit.

We are stuck with the two party system, but the two party system sucks ass. 99% of politicians on both sides just vote party line in order to not rock the boat. Almost all politicians are self serving and don't give a crap about the people that elected them. Both sides know that if they go against the party they will get black balled (see Zell Miller) and are committing political suicide. As a result nothing ever gets done. Both sides disagree w/ what the other side says even if deep down the actually agree. The sad thing is we can come in here and scream and fight all we want, but 20 years from now the same shit will be happening.

AMEN! I've been echoing this post for a few years. Our political system is a joke. Our politicians are a bigger joke. They all suck. If people truly want change they need to vote outside the 2 party system.

[harold_bush]

Maybe not. Obama won primarily due to two reasons. First blacks turned out in record numbers. Ninety-five percent of blacks voted for Obama. Second, the female vote killed McCain/Palin. IMO the primary reason was petty jealousy. Why vote against the 2nd in command when the presidential candidate wasn't qualified for the position?

56 percent of women voted for Barack Obama compared with 49 percent of men or more than 8 million votes.

Yeah, this is the great thing about the race argument libs try to make. If you are white and didn't vote for Obama you are racist, but oddly enough I've never heard ONE person make the reverse argument......that black people are racist that didn't vote for McCain. The numbers make it clear that race was much more of a determining factor for black voters than white voters. 55% of white voters supported McCain, 96% of black voters voted for Obama. 43% of whites voted for Obama, while 3% of black voters voted for McCain. 3%!!!!!!