35 Articles of Impeachment against President Bush

[Eleden]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich spent several hours on Monday declaring 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4167427.shtml

Kucinich accused Bush of executing a "calculated and wide-ranging strategy" to deceive the United States into going to War in Iraq. He also claims Bush has wildly abused his powers as President. Surprisingly these are the first articles of impeachment brought forth against Bush in his entire Presidency.

Obviously the Democrats aren't stupid enough to impeach President Bush because that would sabotage any shot they have at winning a landslide election this November. Just look at what happened to the Republicans in 1998 when they impeached Clinton. Besides, Nancy Pelosi has already stated that impeachment is off the table.

Still... if he can manage to score a wife this attractive...
http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Kucinich.jpg
he might be able to score a few committee votes in favor of impeachment.

[The Noob Avenger]

Stupid. He's done nothing to get impeached. This is just another extremist overreacting.

[Eleden]

Stupid. He's done nothing to get impeached. This is just another extremist overreacting.

I wouldn't want Bush impeached anyways. If Bush is kicked out of office than Cheney takes over... and that means America's one heart attack away from a Nancy Pelosi presidency. :nervous:

[n8lhf]

Stupid. He's done nothing to get impeached. This is just another extremist overreacting.

# Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
# Article VII - Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
# Article VIII - Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
# Article IX - Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
# Article X - Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

[xxlt]

Obviously the Democrats aren't stupid enough to impeach President Bush because that would sabotage any shot they have at winning a landslide election this November. Just look at what happened to the Republicans in 1998 when they impeached Clinton. Besides, Nancy Pelosi has already stated that impeachment is off the table.


This is what makes me sick about the Democratic Party (and the political process in America in general). The Democratic Party would rather do what is politically advantageous in this situation than what is right. Now before all the Republicans start whooping, just remember that the only reason Clinton was impeached was for political gain.

Eleden suggests there was a backlash against impeachment - I disagree - there was a backlash against that impeachment. Pelosi et al either lack the guts or the intelligence or both to do what is right. Lying under to oath to conceal a sexual affair is a far cry from invading a sovereign nation without cause and subverting the U.S. Constitution.

Party leaders refusing to consider impeachment is almost enough to make me want to see McCain elected. But that is kind of like saying I would rather see a mother lock her unruly children in a car and push it into a lake instead of making them sit in the corner. Neither may be a logical, natural and effective consequence, but at least the latter is not fatal.

[Jasonew6]

Doing "stuff you disagree with" is not grounds for impeachment.

Saddam violated the terms of the treaty he signed at the end of the first gulf war, and Bush decided not to put up with it anymore after 14 UN resolutions.

UN: "Mr Saddam, if you do not behave this time, we'll....
Saddam: "You'll what?"
UN: We'll slap another resolution on you!"
Saddam: "Ooh, I'm scared."
Bush: "Time to end this garbage."

[barryllium]

I wouldn't want Bush impeached anyways. If Bush is kicked out of office than Cheney takes over... and that means America's one heart attack away from a Nancy Pelosi presidency. :nervous:

A Cheney vs. Pelosi presidency is the toughest issue since Kevin Malone had to weigh double fudge brownies vs. Angela on The Office.

[BANJAXED]

A waste of time anyways - the election will be here before anything could and would ever happen. Kucinich is an idiot.

[xxlt]

Doing "stuff you disagree with" is not grounds for impeachment.

Saddam violated the terms of the treaty he signed at the end of the first gilf war, and Bush decided not to put up with it anymore after 14 UN resolutions.

UN: "Mr Saddam, if you do not behave this time, we'll....
Saddam: "You'll what?"
UN: We'll slap another resolution on you!"
Saddam: "Ooh, I'm scared."
Bush: "Time to end this garbage."

If that had any foundation in reality it would be great. It doesn't. Saddam was obeying the no fly zone, his armies were nowhere near the borders of neighboring countries, and U.N. inspectors were doing their work. It was more like this:

UN: Let the process work.
Saddam: Okey dokey
Bush: (Reminiscent of Slim Pickens straddling the bomb in "Dr. Strangelove" as it leaves the plane...) "YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAW!"

[thefo0]

A waste of time anyways - the election will be here before anything could and would ever happen. Kucinich is an idiot.

I've actually met the guy a few times, he's not an idiot, in fact I found him to be highly intelligent. I'm of the opinion that the charges are accurate and fair and that Bush led the nation into a war of choice with either weak or false intelligence reports.

I also think that Kucinich also understands that this will go nowhere. If I'm correct, there is only one other supporter of this in the House. But, I believe that he, and others, find it important to officially highlight how Bush led us into this war and how some of his actions were legally questionable.

[BANJAXED]

I've actually met the guy a few times, he's not an idiot, in fact I found him to be highly intelligent. I'm of the opinion that the charges are accurate and fair and that Bush led the nation into a war of choice with either weak or false intelligence reports.

I also think that Kucinich also understands that this will go nowhere. If I'm correct, there is only one other supporter of this in the House. But, I believe that he, and others, find it important to officially highlight how Bush led us into this war and how some of his actions were legally questionable.

Well congratulations - I'm happy for you, that your own opinion. He is an idiot for wasting time for a cause that nothing is going to come of. His report was for the impeachment of the President who's term is ending soon anyways. It was a wasted effort and he should have used it to help clean up other problems (I.e our nation's labor, education, criminal justice, economy?) as the chairman position of the Domestic Policy Committee.

[thefo0]

Well congratulations - I'm happy for you, that your own opinion. He is an idiot for wasting time for a cause that nothing is going to come of. His report was for the impeachment of the President who's term is ending soon anyways. It was a wasted effort and he should have used it to help clean up other problems (I.e our nation's labor, education, criminal justice, economy?) as the chairman position of the Domestic Policy Committee.

I find it humorous that you try to flippantly state that something is my opinion as a means of degrading my argument and then proceed to state your opinion.

This is a message board, a forum of discussion if you will. Most, if not all, comments on this board are simply opinions.

For you, something may be considered a waste of time while for another person it is vitally important and a means of attempting to get to the truth of a situation that has only hurt our country.

And, in terms of Kucinich's impeachment efforts, he has been attempting to bring this to the floor of the House for years and it is not just concerned with impeachment. If you look at the issues he puts the most interest/work in, you will see that they are largely domestic:

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentQuery.aspx?Year=2008

As you will see from some of his recent press releases, he has spent a great deal of time dealing with the housing crisis (a very important issue in the nation and NE Ohio).

[BANJAXED]

I find it humorous that you try to flippantly state that something is my opinion as a means of degrading my argument and then proceed to state your opinion.

This is a message board, a forum of discussion if you will. Most, if not all, comments on this board are simply opinions.

For you, something may be considered a waste of time while for another person it is vitally important and a means of attempting to get to the truth of a situation that has only hurt our country.

And, in terms of Kucinich's impeachment efforts, he has been attempting to bring this to the floor of the House for years and it is not just concerned with impeachment. If you look at the issues he puts the most interest/work in, you will see that they are largely domestic:

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentQuery.aspx?Year=2008

As you will see from some of his recent press releases, he has spent a great deal of time dealing with the housing crisis (a very important issue in the nation and NE Ohio).

I'm not trying to "flippantly" do anything to you. I had my own opinion you have your own opinion and I respect that. But it seems you've taken offense because you believe you are supremely "right" and I'm completely wrong about you're ol'buddy. I'm sorry, I dont live in DC so I must be ignorant. You must've gained your surpreme political wisdom by association. :rolleyes:

[kevin28_1962]

If that had any foundation in reality it would be great. It doesn't. Saddam was obeying the no fly zone, his armies were nowhere near the borders of neighboring countries, and U.N. inspectors were doing their work. It was more like this:

UN: Let the process work.
Saddam: Okey dokey
Bush: (Reminiscent of Slim Pickens straddling the bomb in "Dr. Strangelove" as it leaves the plane...) "YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAW!"

the only reason Saddam was obeying the "no-fly zone" was because they didn't have anything to fly. I was over in Kuwait and Turkey in support of Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch and we had aircraft being targeted and shot at all the time, which of course didn't make it into the news.

[thefo0]

I'm not trying to "flippantly" do anything to you. I had my own opinion you have your own opinion and I respect that. But it seems you've taken offense because you believe you are supremely "right" and I'm completely wrong about you're ol'buddy. I'm sorry, I dont live in DC so I must be ignorant. You must've gained your surpreme political wisdom by association. :rolleyes:

Thank you for recognizing that national intelligence drops once one leaves the beltway. :sarcasm:

[devils advocate]

U.S. aircraft coming under fire while flying over Iraq was in the news.In reality,it is comparable to throwing rocks at aircraft,though.How many planes were shot down?How would America react to Russian planes flying over her?Yeah,we wouldn't like it,let alone stand for it.

Being defiant is not necessarily a bad thing.Iraq was a soverign nation albeit weak,that is one reason we went in.Bush thought it would be over in a matter of days or weeks and in fact,announced victory only a short time after invading,hoping to flex his chest in victory and show that we can combat terrorism with might.Being sovereign,they had the right to protect themselves if they felt threatened.We as Americans do not see it this way and actually seen Iraq as a threat.I would like to know how exactly, they were a threat?

As far as impeachment goes,Bush, more than any other president that I am aware of,deserves to be impeached for, at the very least not doing what is best for this country during one of its most trying times.In fact,I challenge someone to list something Bush has done that has been a benifit.

The impeachment of Bush has merit and should be investigated.If Congress has the time to investigate MLB and Bill Clinton,surely it would behoove them to take a look at the Bush presidency,based on suspicion alone.It is the right thing to do.

[Jasonew6]

If that had any foundation in reality it would be great. It doesn't. Saddam was obeying the no fly zone, his armies were nowhere near the borders of neighboring countries, and U.N. inspectors were doing their work. It was more like this:

UN: Let the process work.
Saddam: Okey dokey
Bush: (Reminiscent of Slim Pickens straddling the bomb in "Dr. Strangelove" as it leaves the plane...) "YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAW!"

But he was not obeying the terms of the treaty to permit weapons inspectors unfettered access to the entire country, including his palaces. Why would the UN have needed to issue 14 resolutions if he was in compliance??

[EatonFan]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich spent several hours on Monday declaring 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4167427.shtml

Kucinich accused Bush of executing a "calculated and wide-ranging strategy" to deceive the United States into going to War in Iraq. He also claims Bush has wildly abused his powers as President. Surprisingly these are the first articles of impeachment brought forth against Bush in his entire Presidency.

Obviously the Democrats aren't stupid enough to impeach President Bush because that would sabotage any shot they have at winning a landslide election this November. Just look at what happened to the Republicans in 1998 when they impeached Clinton. Besides, Nancy Pelosi has already stated that impeachment is off the table.

Still... if he can manage to score a wife this attractive...
http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Kucinich.jpg
he might be able to score a few committee votes in favor of impeachment.

So, you would also conclude that Bill Clinton should be impeached for his war on Bosnia. Afterall, no war was declared there either. So, let's impeach them all.

[BANJAXED]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich spent several hours on Monday declaring 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4167427.shtml

Kucinich accused Bush of executing a "calculated and wide-ranging strategy" to deceive the United States into going to War in Iraq. He also claims Bush has wildly abused his powers as President. Surprisingly these are the first articles of impeachment brought forth against Bush in his entire Presidency.

Obviously the Democrats aren't stupid enough to impeach President Bush because that would sabotage any shot they have at winning a landslide election this November. Just look at what happened to the Republicans in 1998 when they impeached Clinton. Besides, Nancy Pelosi has already stated that impeachment is off the table.

Still... if he can manage to score a wife this attractive...
http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Kucinich.jpg
he might be able to score a few committee votes in favor of impeachment.

Good ol' Dennis' wife - "has her tounge pierced with a silver stud. When asked during her husband's 2008 presidential campaign if it would be removed if she became First Lady of the United States, she replied that she considered it too much a part of her to do so"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Kucinich

She married him for "love" :rolleyes:

[kevin28_1962]

U.S. aircraft coming under fire while flying over Iraq was in the news.In reality,it is comparable to throwing rocks at aircraft,though.How many planes were shot down?How would America react to Russian planes flying over her?Yeah,we wouldn't like it,let alone stand for it.

Being defiant is not necessarily a bad thing.Iraq was a soverign nation albeit weak,that is one reason we went in.Bush thought it would be over in a matter of days or weeks and in fact,announced victory only a short time after invading,hoping to flex his chest in victory and show that we can combat terrorism with might.Being sovereign,they had the right to protect themselves if they felt threatened.We as Americans do not see it this way and actually seen Iraq as a threat.I would like to know how exactly, they were a threat?



Firstly, not all firings upon the aircraft were reported in the news. This happened on a DAILY basis. I don't think you can compare AA fire coming up at your aircraft the same as someone "throwing rocks". I'm sure if your butt was in the seat you wouldn't like AA tracers heading up towards you. Secondly we had authority under the UN mandates that permitted our aircraft flying in the no-fly zone airspace.

Yeah you're right, they were such a weak sovereign nation, nevermind that they regularly used chemical warfare during the Iran-Iraq war. Or that they gased the Kurds in their own homeland. Dont forget that an Iraqii Mirage F1 fired two Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles and hit the USS Stark killing 35 US Navy sailors in 1987.

[Eleden]

A Cheney vs. Pelosi presidency is the toughest issue since Kevin Malone had to weigh double fudge brownies vs. Angela on The Office.

Dear god! Your tiger has mutated into six more tigers attached at the hip. :scared2:

Dear god! So have mine!

[The Noob Avenger]

Can I just clarify that this is not a war, as war was never declared?

Sort of like Korea, Vietnam or the first Persian Gulf war.

Oh, and Congress is even less popular than Bush right now, if thats even possible. It is a waste of taxpayers' money and a complete waste of time.

[Eleden]

She married him for "love" :rolleyes:

She can't help it.... she has an elf fetish.

[The Noob Avenger]

# Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
# Article VII - Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.-With congress' approval and funding
# Article VIII - Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.-Really? Who cares?
# Article IX - Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
# Article X - Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes- Okay, throw JFK, LBJ, and Nixon into that list, as well.

I must also note that everything Bush has done has been approved by congress and HE IS STILL RECEIVING FUNDING FOR IT. Impeach yourself Kucinich. You and the rest of Congress are the real reason this country is going to hell.

[Eleden]

I must also note that everything Bush has done has been approved by congress and HE IS STILL RECEIVING FUNDING FOR IT. Impeach yourself Kucinich. You and the rest of Congress are the real reason this country is going to hell.

Gotta agree with you there. The Democrats did exactly what I thought they'd do when they took power... showed only the slightest hint of a spine and continued funding the war.

[kevin28_1962]

http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Kucinich.jpg


she's hitable

[Eleden]

she's hitable

I remember in a Democratic Debate last year... Joe Biden was asked what his favorite thing about Dennis Kucinich was... and Biden replied "his wife."

Immediately following that Mrs. Kucinich and Michelle Obama got in a mud/oil wrestling fight... needless to say it was the most informative debate in history. :smirk:

[thefo0]

I remember in a Democratic Debate last year... Joe Biden was asked what his favorite thing about Dennis Kucinich was... and Biden replied "his wife."

Haha. I loved that!

I also remember that it was turn to the person to your left and say what you like best about them. Kucinich was at the very far end and he said (paraphrasing) that there was noone to the left of him.

Those two lines were probably the highlights from the debates for me. And then we had to deal with about 20 more and I quit watching.

[xxlt]

the only reason Saddam was obeying the "no-fly zone" was because they didn't have anything to fly. I was over in Kuwait and Turkey in support of Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch and we had aircraft being targeted and shot at all the time, which of course didn't make it into the news.

RE: In bold above - so exactly how much of a threat is a country with no planes that has "enemy" (you guys weren't dropping care packages, you were monitoring the air for planes you just said didn't exist, so really you were being used for intimidation more or less - don't you think?) planes flying over 40% of it?

Kevin, I think you know this, but for the numbskulls who don't I want to say for the record, I'm glad you didn't get shot! And, I am sure that getting shot at ******. But again, in the absence of Iraqi planes why did our Uncle Sam find it necessary to conduct ONW and OSW? I would've preferred you spent your time on the ground leaning against your plane and winking at Turkish and Kuwaiti babes. Or, better yet, on a base in out country, where I believe our military bases belong, but that is another story.

[xxlt]

But he was not obeying the terms of the treaty to permit weapons inspectors unfettered access to the entire country, including his palaces. Why would the UN have needed to issue 14 resolutions if he was in compliance??

I don't claim to understand UN protocol. (I also am not a member of the John Birch Society, just so that is clear.) All I know is the inspectors were saying that things were going well and they wanted to finish their inspections, and that is when they were rounded up and told to get the heck out because Armageddon's favorite son had decided an invasion sounded like the thing to do.

[xxlt]

Firstly, not all firings upon the aircraft were reported in the news. This happened on a DAILY basis. I don't think you can compare AA fire coming up at your aircraft the same as someone "throwing rocks". I'm sure if your butt was in the seat you wouldn't like AA tracers heading up towards you. Secondly we had authority under the UN mandates that permitted our aircraft flying in the no-fly zone airspace.

Yeah you're right, they were such a weak sovereign nation, nevermind that they regularly used chemical warfare during the Iran-Iraq war. Or that they gased the Kurds in their own homeland. Dont forget that an Iraqii Mirage F1 fired two Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles and hit the USS Stark killing 35 US Navy sailors in 1987.

And in 1987, before those men were even returned home for burial, would have been a splendid time to go to war against Iraq. Fifteen years later when there were more important things to do was not a good time to go to war against Iraq. But, at least the war profiteers made a dollar! And in America, that seems to be all that matters.

[xxlt]

Can I just clarify that this is not a war, as war was never declared?

Sort of like Korea, Vietnam or the first Persian Gulf war.

Oh, and Congress is even less popular than Bush right now, if thats even possible. It is a waste of taxpayers' money and a complete waste of time.

Someone please put up a sign next to the Vietnam Memorial explaining that war wasn't declared, so "what is the big deal?" about those 58,000 names etched in black. The KIA from Korea and the first Gulf War - hey they weren't really wars so who cares about them either? What a ridiculous thing to "clarify."

What difference does declaration of war make? Can the guys "stop lossed" and now doing there sixth tour in Iraq say, "Hey, I am not going to follow any more orders - I haven't seen a declaration of war..."?

Congress is less popular than Bush because for 6 years they enabled him and now they don't have the votes or the guts to stop him.

[kevin28_1962]

RE: In bold above - so exactly how much of a threat is a country with no planes that has "enemy" (you guys weren't dropping care packages, you were monitoring the air for planes you just said didn't exist, so really you were being used for intimidation more or less - don't you think?) planes flying over 40% of it?

You have a point there. I spoke in a generalization because they "realistically" didn't have a very threatening air force as their most of their fixed wing aircraft were either shot down or sitting over in Iran, but they did still have MiG's and they still did fly them but compared to our aircraft and our skilled pilots they weren't a very large threat. They also still had helicopter which they could use for ground attacks as well.

ONW we were there enforce the no fly zone and to defend Kurds and to deliver humanitarian aid to them.

OSW was ensuring Iraqi compliance with the UN resolution 688.

We did spend a lot of money on that in-between time frame but not as much as we are now.

Kevin, I think you know this, but for the numbskulls who don't I want to say for the record, I'm glad you didn't get shot! And, I am sure that getting shot at ******. But again, in the absence of Iraqi planes why did our Uncle Sam find it necessary to conduct ONW and OSW? I would've preferred you spent your time on the ground leaning against your plane and winking at Turkish and Kuwaiti babes. Or, better yet, on a base in out country, where I believe our military bases belong, but that is another story.


Thanks, I'm glad I didn't get shot too but my biggest threat would have been wandering too close to some Unexploded Ordinances (UXO). The base I was at in Kuwait was occupied by Saddams forces after they invaded. There was much damage there and a LOT of uxo's. (BTW, my personal opinion is that we should join the nations that are calling for a ban on cluster bombs, just because I've seen how much goes unexploded and remains a threat after the campaign is over). And just for the record, I didn't fly 'em. I fixed 'em. We used to have a saying; it takes a college degree to break 'em, but a high school education to fix 'em. I worked avionics maintenance.

RE the babes....I'm not saying there weren't any good looking ones but they were few and far between. They kept saying there were good looking girls behind every tree over there but I couldn't find any trees. :)

[The Noob Avenger]

Someone please put up a sign next to the Vietnam Memorial explaining that war wasn't declared, so "what is the big deal?" about those 58,000 names etched in black. The KIA from Korea and the first Gulf War - hey they weren't really wars so who cares about them either? What a ridiculous thing to "clarify."

What difference does declaration of war make? Can the guys "stop lossed" and now doing there sixth tour in Iraq say, "Hey, I am not going to follow any more orders - I haven't seen a declaration of war..."?

Congress is less popular than Bush because for 6 years they enabled him and now they don't have the votes or the guts to stop him.

I never said that those people's deaths were less justified. That is completely uncalled for.

I was drawing parallels between those conflicts and the conflict today. To attack me like that was just stupid.

[devils advocate]

Kevin,I did not intend to understate being fired upon.It was a poor attempt to convey the difference between our might,as shown in the first Gulf War and more or less the second war,although the people of Iraq have proved to be more resilient.I am no weapons expert but I'm quite positive those weapons you mentioned are nothing compared to the non-nuclear weapons we could use on them,again not underestimating the danger you experienced,just that compared to the U.S,Iraq is weak
One of the selling points of the first war was the 1987 bombing.As xxlt points to,then would have been the time to retaliate and relatively speaking,we did.
The permission to fly in the no-fly zone is exactly the type of behavior we wouldn't stand for if our roles were reversed.We would use the same arguements as to why it is wrong, and maybe,just maybe we would begin to fire upon those crafts,as they are perceived a threat.

[xxlt]

You have a point there. I spoke in a generalization because they "realistically" didn't have a very threatening air force as their most of their fixed wing aircraft were either shot down or sitting over in Iran, but they did still have MiG's and they still did fly them but compared to our aircraft and our skilled pilots they weren't a very large threat. They also still had helicopter which they could use for ground attacks as well.

ONW we were there enforce the no fly zone and to defend Kurds and to deliver humanitarian aid to them.

OSW was ensuring Iraqi compliance with the UN resolution 688.

We did spend a lot of money on that in-between time frame but not as much as we are now.




Thanks, I'm glad I didn't get shot too but my biggest threat would have been wandering too close to some Unexploded Ordinances (UXO). The base I was at in Kuwait was occupied by Saddams forces after they invaded. There was much damage there and a LOT of uxo's. (BTW, my personal opinion is that we should join the nations that are calling for a ban on cluster bombs, just because I've seen how much goes unexploded and remains a threat after the campaign is over). And just for the record, I didn't fly 'em. I fixed 'em. We used to have a saying; it takes a college degree to break 'em, but a high school education to fix 'em. I worked avionics maintenance.

RE the babes....I'm not saying there weren't any good looking ones but they were few and far between. They kept saying there were good looking girls behind every tree over there but I couldn't find any trees. :)

Kudos on the cluster bombs ban support!

[xxlt]

I never said that those people's deaths were less justified. That is completely uncalled for.

I was drawing parallels between those conflicts and the conflict today. To attack me like that was just stupid.

And in the "non war" in Vietnam ca. 58,000 U.S. soldiers ended up dying. Do you not see that part of the parallel?

[VCU Rams]

# Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
# Article VII - Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.-With congress' approval and funding
# Article VIII - Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.-Really? Who cares?
# Article IX - Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
# Article X - Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes- Okay, throw JFK, LBJ, and Nixon into that list, as well.

I must also note that everything Bush has done has been approved by congress and HE IS STILL RECEIVING FUNDING FOR IT. Impeach yourself Kucinich. You and the rest of Congress are the real reason this country is going to hell.

1) Congress' approval and funding was the result of false "intelligence" again pardon the pun.

2) Yeah, who cares about violating the UN, the opinion of all the other nations of the UN certainly don't matter.....as long as the US is in the "corral". Afterall we did get a "grand coalition" to go to battle with us. :rolleyes:

3) I guess you could care less about supplying our troops with ample body armor, as you dismissed that point entirely.

[barryllium]

Good ol' Dennis' wife - "has her tounge pierced with a silver stud. When asked during her husband's 2008 presidential campaign if it would be removed if she became First Lady of the United States, she replied that she considered it too much a part of her to do so"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Kucinich

She married him for "love" :rolleyes:

Well, she had been searching high and low for love - I guess now we just know which search worked!

[kevin28_1962]

Well, she had been searching high and low for love - I guess now we just know which search worked!

Ba Dum Dum. (it's hard making a drum noise in the forum)

[Eleden]

Haha. I loved that!

I also remember that it was turn to the person to your left and say what you like best about them. Kucinich was at the very far end and he said (paraphrasing) that there was noone to the left of him.

Those two lines were probably the highlights from the debates for me. And then we had to deal with about 20 more and I quit watching.

Anderson Cooper totally owned him when he said "I don't think we'll be able to find anyone further to the left than you"

[The Noob Avenger]

1) Congress' approval and funding was the result of false "intelligence" again pardon the pun.

2) Yeah, who cares about violating the UN, the opinion of all the other nations of the UN certainly don't matter.....as long as the US is in the "corral". Afterall we did get a "grand coalition" to go to battle with us. :rolleyes:

3) I guess you could care less about supplying our troops with ample body armor, as you dismissed that point entirely.

I've heard so many conflicting points of view on that, so I didn't want to put an uneducated opinion on it in that post. I've heard that it is because of Bush, because of Congress, because of other random people. I don't really know the truth behind it.

As far as congress, they can cut the funding for the conflict whenever they want to. They know the intelligence was faulty, so why not vote to end it?

The UN is worthless. There are so many hoops to jump through just to slap another country on a wrist. I would be scared for everyone if these people were in charge of stopping WWIII from happening.

I'm not a Bush supporter, but I don't think impeachment is even a big deal at this point. He has a few more months until a new election, if he is impeached and removed, then he just leaves and gets rich off of oil again. Huge punishment, huh?

If people are so hellbent on ruining him, they should wait until he is out of office and try to get him on war crimes, although they wouldn't really have much of a case.

[Eleden]

The UN is worthless. There are so many hoops to jump through just to slap another country on a wrist. I would be scared for everyone if these people were in charge of stopping WWIII from happening.


That's actually one of the reasons why the UN was formed. It was an attempt to bring the world community together to solve problems... IMO they've done a fairly good job of preventing WWIII... seeing as how it hasn't happened yet.

I wouldn't give them all the credit for preventing WWIII, but they've certainly done their part.

[The Noob Avenger]

That's actually one of the reasons why the UN was formed. It was an attempt to bring the world community together to solve problems... IMO they've done a fairly good job of preventing WWIII... seeing as how it hasn't happened yet.

I wouldn't give them all the credit for preventing WWIII, but they've certainly done their part.

They were pretty worthless during the cold war. What if the US or the USSR had slipped up? The UN would have been helpless.

There are no real conflicts today that are on WWIII scale. The middle east is a local issue, except for radicals that attack other countries. There are no powers that are bent on domination today.

[Eleden]

They were pretty worthless during the cold war. What if the US or the USSR had slipped up? The UN would have been helpless.

There are no real conflicts today that are on WWIII scale. The middle east is a local issue, except for radicals that attack other countries. There are no powers that are bent on domination today.

Give the Chinese five or ten years... I'm sure that'll change.

Although they're probably more interested in dominating every global market.

[n8lhf]

Well congratulations - I'm happy for you, that your own opinion. He is an idiot for wasting time for a cause that nothing is going to come of. His report was for the impeachment of the President who's term is ending soon anyways. It was a wasted effort and he should have used it to help clean up other problems (I.e our nation's labor, education, criminal justice, economy?) as the chairman position of the Domestic Policy Committee.
Or maybe he did it to get the attention of people. It's sure being discussed. One of the reasons that nothing will be done is a strategic move on the part of the Democrats. They can use this as leverage against Sen. McCain. "Look what a Republican president will get you." sort of thing.

[n8lhf]

I must also note that everything Bush has done has been approved by congress and HE IS STILL RECEIVING FUNDING FOR IT. Impeach yourself Kucinich. You and the rest of Congress are the real reason this country is going to hell.

Yeah, he's still receiving money that he got with false intelligence and who do you really think is going to stop funding and be labeled as someone that is not backing the troops.
I got tired of hearing people say that if you were against the war, you were against the troops. What a false statement. Someone may not agree with being there, but our troops are over there and they should get whatever they need to keep themselves safe. Oh, like, say bullet proof vests....which many in the National Guard units did not have and which had to be purchased and sent to them by their family members.

[barryllium]

Yeah, he's still receiving money that he got with false intelligence and who do you really think is going to stop funding and be labeled as someone that is not backing the troops.
I got tired of hearing people say that if you were against the war, you were against the troops. What a false statement. Someone may not agree with being there, but our troops are over there and they should get whatever they need to keep themselves safe. Oh, like, say bullet proof vests....which many in the National Guard units did not have and which had to be purchased and sent to them by their family members.

Great point here. I continue to say that you can support the troops without supporting the government that has sent them there.

[philhos]

Great point here. I continue to say that you can support the troops without supporting the government that has sent them there.

What if the troops overwhelmingly support the war (I'm not saying they do, just a what if)?

[thefo0]

What if the troops overwhelmingly support the war (I'm not saying they do, just a what if)?

In my opinion, that would not necessarily matter all that much.

My main goal would be to make sure that they have the right armor and supplies and that they come home safely. Although my political opinion may differ with some of the people who are fighting, I like to think that there is a joint interest in protecting their safety and bringing people home.

[barryllium]

What if the troops overwhelmingly support the war (I'm not saying they do, just a what if)?

It wouldn't make a difference, to me at least. I see supporting the troops as backing individuals, knowing that they are doing what they are told because that is what they have pledged to do. I see supporting the government as backing the reasons for sending troops where we send them. In distinguishing between the two, for me whether or not the troops support the war doesn't matter.

[Rayne]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich spent several hours on Monday declaring 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4167427.shtml

Kucinich accused Bush of executing a "calculated and wide-ranging strategy" to deceive the United States into going to War in Iraq. He also claims Bush has wildly abused his powers as President. Surprisingly these are the first articles of impeachment brought forth against Bush in his entire Presidency.

Obviously the Democrats aren't stupid enough to impeach President Bush because that would sabotage any shot they have at winning a landslide election this November. Just look at what happened to the Republicans in 1998 when they impeached Clinton. Besides, Nancy Pelosi has already stated that impeachment is off the table.

Still... if he can manage to score a wife this attractive...
http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Kucinich.jpg
he might be able to score a few committee votes in favor of impeachment.

Listen closely.....

Everything the president has done he did with the approval of congress. That whole balance of power thing keeps him from going willy-nilly. If you want to impeach Bush, you'll have to impeach congress too.

Secondly, this is sour grapes because the Dems are still torqued that the Reps got impeached their golden boy, Clinton. They're trying to get even.

Third, US intel as well as the intel of other nations AND the UN said Saddam had WMD. UN leader Koffi Annon actually said - on camera during the talk during the resolution - "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction for which he can not account".

He didn't decieve anyone. He followed his intel, as well as the intel from everyone else.

Build a bridge and get over it.

[barryllium]

Listen closely.....

Everything the president has done he did with the approval of congress. That whole balance of power thing keeps him from going willy-nilly. If you want to impeach Bush, you'll have to impeach congress too.

Secondly, this is sour grapes because the Dems are still torqued that the Reps got impeached their golden boy, Clinton. They're trying to get even.

Third, US intel as well as the intel of other nations AND the UN said Saddam had WMD. UN leader Koffi Annon actually said - on camera during the talk during the resolution - "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction for which he can not account".

He didn't decieve anyone. He followed his intel, as well as the intel from everyone else.

Build a bridge and get over it.

While I think what you are saying has some good points, it ignores the evidence that both the CIA and Defense Department has found that strongly suggests that the case for war was strengthened by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld directly manipulating information that was presented to congress. I know there is more to the articles of impeachment than this, but this is one point where congress may not be as culpable as the executive branch.

And, I know there are plenty of petty issues between Republicans and Democrats (with both sides being equally responsible and childish as the other), but something like this doesn't get to this point just because Democrats are trying to "get even".

[Rayne]

While I think what you are saying has some good points, it ignores the evidence that both the CIA and Defense Department has found that strongly suggests that the case for war was strengthened by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld directly manipulating information that was presented to congress. I know there is more to the articles of impeachment than this, but this is one point where congress may not be as culpable as the executive branch.

And, I know there are plenty of petty issues between Republicans and Democrats (with both sides being equally responsible and childish as the other), but something like this doesn't get to this point just because Democrats are trying to "get even".

So far as I know, Bush presented the information that was presented to him.

You can't honestly believe that the Dems aren't still ticked about Clinton being impeached. They want revenge. The grounds to do it just isn't there, but they continue to push.

And yes, both sides are being petty and we're the ones that are suffering.

[barryllium]

So far as I know, Bush presented the information that was presented to him.

You can't honestly believe that the Dems aren't still ticked about Clinton being impeached. They want revenge. The grounds to do it just isn't there, but they continue to push.

And yes, both sides are being petty and we're the ones that are suffering.

Look into the CIA's Kerr Group findings, as well as the Department of Defense's search into linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq. It pretty much makes Cheney and Rumsfeld look like they were the ones misconstruing the information - and while I don't believe it claims Bush was doing this, it also makes it sound like he knew it all was going on. Again, the evidence isn't conclusive (or else the impeachment would have already happened), but the evidence is fairly strong nonetheless.

I do believe the Democrats in our government are still ticked about Clinton being impeached, and I don't deny that they might indeed want revenge. I'm just arguing that these are not groundless claims they are making. As to whether or not these articles of impeachment would have been brought up if Clinton had not been impeached, that's a tough call for me. The evidence is pretty damning, but it's not fully conclusive, either. The revenge factor may be the "swing vote" as to which side of the fence you stand on, or it may not be. In the end, it's an opinion thing, and I don't really know what to think for sure.

Agreed - the American people continue to suffer due to the incompetence, pettiness and insecurity of several people in our government - all parties included.

[Rayne]

Look into the CIA's Kerr Group findings, as well as the Department of Defense's search into linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq. It pretty much makes Cheney and Rumsfeld look like they were the ones misconstruing the information - and while I don't believe it claims Bush was doing this, it also makes it sound like he knew it all was going on. Again, the evidence isn't conclusive (or else the impeachment would have already happened), but the evidence is fairly strong nonetheless.

I do believe the Democrats in our government are still ticked about Clinton being impeached, and I don't deny that they might indeed want revenge. I'm just arguing that these are not groundless claims they are making. As to whether or not these articles of impeachment would have been brought up if Clinton had not been impeached, that's a tough call for me. The evidence is pretty damning, but it's not fully conclusive, either. The revenge factor may be the "swing vote" as to which side of the fence you stand on, or it may not be. In the end, it's an opinion thing, and I don't really know what to think for sure.

Agreed - the American people continue to suffer due to the incompetence, pettiness and insecurity of several people in our government - all parties included.

Also keep in mind that good old fashioned politics may be coloring the Dems view as well.

Ditto with the Reps when they have a chance to get a Dem.

[barryllium]

Also keep in mind that good old fashioned politics may be coloring the Dems view as well.

Ditto with the Reps when they have a chance to get a Dem.

Yeah, I have little to no faith in politics at this point - and it's sad that I feel that way. In the end, there seems to be way too much "politics" in politics, and less trying to actually do their job - which would be representing the people that elect them, instead of the people that lobby/fund them. And the extremists on both sides of the party line certainly aren't helping things either.

[xxlt]

Listen closely.....

Everything the president has done he did with the approval of congress. That whole balance of power thing keeps him from going willy-nilly. If you want to impeach Bush, you'll have to impeach congress too.

Secondly, this is sour grapes because the Dems are still torqued that the Reps got impeached their golden boy, Clinton. They're trying to get even.

Third, US intel as well as the intel of other nations AND the UN said Saddam had WMD. UN leader Koffi Annon actually said - on camera during the talk during the resolution - "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction for which he can not account".

He didn't decieve anyone. He followed his intel, as well as the intel from everyone else.

Build a bridge and get over it.

Point one is false - he didn't do everything with the approval of Congress and what approval he did get was gotten through deception.

Point two - if it was "trying to get even" the impeachment proceedings would have started before the end of his first term or early in the second. The fact that they haven't started is proof that this isn't about getting even and that the Dems are a bunch of *insert plural of slang term for cats or a part of the female anatomy.*

Third point - about a million sources (Forrest Gump like hyperbole there) say Bush cherry picked intelligence and/or fabricated intelligence and/or told sources what he wanted them to tell him.

As far as building bridges, "Bushy" started burning them in 2000 and hasn't stopped since. It is going to take awhile to rebuild a bipartisan spirit in D.C. because he and the Republicans were such colossal *insert plural of term for what a thorn does to your finger* when they held the majority in Congress.

[philhos]

It is going to take awhile to rebuild a bipartisan spirit in D.C. because he and the Republicans were such colossal *insert plural of term for what a thorn does to your finger* when they held the majority in Congress.

I semi-agree here. While part of the problem with the partisianship of D.C. rests with the Republicans, much of the problem also lies with the Democrats as well. Since Bush was elected, I don't think I ever heard a single Democrat (outside of maybe Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman, both of whom aren't considered Democrats by Dems and Lieberman is now an Independent) say anything nice about Bush. Ever.

However, if you're truly interested in seeing bipartisanship in D.C., you must be in favor of McCain winning the election. He's crossed the aisle and worked with Democrats more than most Republicans and it's my understanding that Obama has NEVER worked with Republicans (at least, in the sense that he and a Repub cowrote a bill).

So, does this mean you're voting for McCain now? ;)

[barryllium]

I semi-agree here. While part of the problem with the partisianship of D.C. rests with the Republicans, much of the problem also lies with the Democrats as well. Since Bush was elected, I don't think I ever heard a single Democrat (outside of maybe Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman, both of whom aren't considered Democrats by Dems and Lieberman is now an Independent) say anything nice about Bush. Ever.

However, if you're truly interested in seeing bipartisanship in D.C., you must be in favor of McCain winning the election. He's crossed the aisle and worked with Democrats more than most Republicans and it's my understanding that Obama has NEVER worked with Republicans (at least, in the sense that he and a Repub cowrote a bill).

So, does this mean you're voting for McCain now? ;)

But will he continue to do this? He's already in full denial mode about the fact that he met with John Kerry 4 years ago to talk about being his VP - something he admitted then, but won't now. He seems to be disassociating himself as much as possible from Democrats right now. I agree he has a history of this, but he is currently either a) a staunch conservative Republican or b) lying about being a staunch conservative Republican.

[philhos]

But will he continue to do this? He's already in full denial mode about the fact that he met with John Kerry 4 years ago to talk about being his VP - something he admitted then, but won't now. He seems to be disassociating himself as much as possible from Democrats right now. I agree he has a history of this, but he is currently either a) a staunch conservative Republican or b) lying about being a staunch conservative Republican.

The answer is b) He is most definitely lying about being a staunch conservative Republican. McCain is only doing that in an attempt to portray himself as one to try to make sure he gets the conservative base on his side.

There's a reason many (if not most) Repubs are not overwhelmingly enamored with him.

But, based on history, McCain has shown more of a willingness to be bipartisan than Obama by a HUGE degree.

[barryllium]

The answer is b) He is most definitely lying about being a staunch conservative Republican. McCain is only doing that in an attempt to portray himself as one to try to make sure he gets the conservative base on his side.

There's a reason many (if not most) Repubs are not overwhelmingly enamored with him.

But, based on history, McCain has shown more of a willingness to be bipartisan than Obama by a HUGE degree.

I'm hoping your right - because if McCain isn't lying, I think I'd have even less respect for him (sad that politics has me thinking this).

In the end, though, I'd still rather have Obama working to change how DC works than McCain continue to work with the same broken system and change nothing. Just my opinion, though.

[philhos]

I'm hoping your right - because if McCain isn't lying, I think I'd have even less respect for him (sad that politics has me thinking this).

In the end, though, I'd still rather have Obama working to change how DC works than McCain continue to work with the same broken system and change nothing. Just my opinion, though.

But Obama will not change anything. There is extreme partisanship going on and has been for some time. He will not change that.
Our government has expanded and grown to be bigger than it should be. Obama will continue that trend.
There is a lot of shadyiness in Washington with behind-the-scenes dealing, earmarks, pork spending, etc. Obama will continue that (based on what he's done or not done while a senator).

Sure, Obama will do things differently than Bush (like raise taxes instead of cutting them). That's a given. But, I highly doubt he is going to change how DC works. And, FYI, I would have the same doubts if McCain spouted the same nonsense.

[barryllium]

But Obama will not change anything. There is extreme partisanship going on and has been for some time. He will not change that.
Our government has expanded and grown to be bigger than it should be. Obama will continue that trend.
There is a lot of shadyiness in Washington with behind-the-scenes dealing, earmarks, pork spending, etc. Obama will continue that (based on what he's done or not done while a senator).

Sure, Obama will do things differently than Bush (like raise taxes instead of cutting them). That's a given. But, I highly doubt he is going to change how DC works. And, FYI, I would have the same doubts if McCain spouted the same nonsense.

Every president changes things to some degree, though. For all of the "McSame" jokes about McCain, things will work differently under him than they did under Bush. Things will work differently under Obama than they did under Bush as well. In the end, (again, just my opinion), I'll take 4-8 years of things being different under Obama than they will be under McCain.

[n8lhf]

While I think what you are saying has some good points, it ignores the evidence that both the CIA and Defense Department has found that strongly suggests that the case for war was strengthened by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld directly manipulating information that was presented to congress. I know there is more to the articles of impeachment than this, but this is one point where congress may not be as culpable as the executive branch.

And, I know there are plenty of petty issues between Republicans and Democrats (with both sides being equally responsible and childish as the other), but something like this doesn't get to this point just because Democrats are trying to "get even".

Not to mention that some of the documents from the whole Valerie Plame/Niger/Iraq trying to get yellowcake uranium affair were forgeries.

[philhos]

Every president changes things to some degree, though. For all of the "McSame" jokes about McCain, things will work differently under him than they did under Bush. Things will work differently under Obama than they did under Bush as well. In the end, (again, just my opinion), I'll take 4-8 years of things being different under Obama than they will be under McCain.

I am perfectly comfortable stating that I believe the reason for you to be voting for Obama is that you agree with his policy positions more than you do with McCain.

However, many people are voting for him simply because of his "change" rhetoric. And, honestly, does no one see that, sure SOME things will change, but in the end, it will be more politics as usual; just now swinging to the left after having swung to the right?

[Rayne]

Point one is false - he didn't do everything with the approval of Congress and what approval he did get was gotten through deception.

Point two - if it was "trying to get even" the impeachment proceedings would have started before the end of his first term or early in the second. The fact that they haven't started is proof that this isn't about getting even and that the Dems are a bunch of *insert plural of slang term for cats or a part of the female anatomy.*

Third point - about a million sources (Forrest Gump like hyperbole there) say Bush cherry picked intelligence and/or fabricated intelligence and/or told sources what he wanted them to tell him.

As far as building bridges, "Bushy" started burning them in 2000 and hasn't stopped since. It is going to take awhile to rebuild a bipartisan spirit in D.C. because he and the Republicans were such colossal *insert plural of term for what a thorn does to your finger* when they held the majority in Congress.

Point one has to be true....he MUST have the approval of congress. The Constitution says he does. It's designed that way to keep our leader from being a king. If you don't believe me, call your local HS and talk to the gov't teacher.

I'm not saying it's ALL about getting even, but it's a motivator. The Reps put Clinton's legacy in the toilet...all he'll be remembered for is Monica. Period.

Point three.....a LOT of intel came from other nations. We don't control their intel. Nor did we control Koffi Annon when he said - on camera - "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction for which they can not account".

I suppose Bush is to blame for that too, huh?

People like you refuse to admit that there are others involved, including your precious Dems, and they're equally to blame.

While it may be more expedient to pin this on just one man, it may not be - in a manner of speaking - fair.

[barryllium]

I am perfectly comfortable stating that I believe the reason for you to be voting for Obama is that you agree with his policy positions more than you do with McCain.

However, many people are voting for him simply because of his "change" rhetoric. And, honestly, does no one see that, sure SOME things will change, but in the end, it will be more politics as usual; just now swinging to the left after having swung to the right?

You are correct that it his for his policies that I am voting for him. I don't completely dismiss the "change" rhetoric, though. I'm hopeful that he can create change. Do I expect everything to change? No. I don't really expect much to change at all. But I am hopeful he will actually try, because that's more than anyone else has seemed to do.

In the end, I understand the frustration with people voting for Obama simply because of the "change" idea - it's the same frustration I have with people that are voting McCain because they think our government is 100% perfect. Neither is really doing much to help their country by not taking a truly informed look at the candidates.

By the way - what's wrong with swinging to the left? :ninja:

[philhos]

You are correct that it his for his policies that I am voting for him. I don't completely dismiss the "change" rhetoric, though. I'm hopeful that he can create change. Do I expect everything to change? No. I don't really expect much to change at all. But I am hopeful he will actually try, because that's more than anyone else has seemed to do.

In the end, I understand the frustration with people voting for Obama simply because of the "change" idea - it's the same frustration I have with people that are voting McCain because they think our government is 100% perfect. Neither is really doing much to help their country by not taking a truly informed look at the candidates.

By the way - what's wrong with swinging to the left? :ninja:

Because the left is unnatural. The left is, dare I say it
http://www.funbumperstickers.com/images/mermaid_man.gif

[Eleden]

Listen closely.....

Everything the president has done he did with the approval of congress. That whole balance of power thing keeps him from going willy-nilly. If you want to impeach Bush, you'll have to impeach congress too.

Secondly, this is sour grapes because the Dems are still torqued that the Reps got impeached their golden boy, Clinton. They're trying to get even.

Third, US intel as well as the intel of other nations AND the UN said Saddam had WMD. UN leader Koffi Annon actually said - on camera during the talk during the resolution - "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction for which he can not account".

He didn't decieve anyone. He followed his intel, as well as the intel from everyone else.

Build a bridge and get over it.

Listen very closely...

Not once did I say I wanted Bush impeached...

Like I said earlier if he's impeached then Cheney becomes President, and that means America is one heart attack away from a Nancy Pelosi administration.

[philhos]

Listen very closely...

Not once did I say I wanted Bush impeached...

Like I said earlier if he's impeached then Cheney becomes President, and that means America is one heart attack away from a Nancy Pelosi administration.

Yeah, but for only 8 months. ;)

[EatonFan]

Yeah, but for only 8 months. ;)

8 months of Hell... is too long. :rotf:

[Rayne]

Listen very closely...

Not once did I say I wanted Bush impeached...

Like I said earlier if he's impeached then Cheney becomes President, and that means America is one heart attack away from a Nancy Pelosi administration.

I meant "you" collectively, Beavis. I do the same thing in the Smack forum. I tell Bat or Oasis that "they" missed the playoffs, too.

The Dems in congress would love to impeach Bush, as would a lot of people, but if you do then you have to hold congress responsible, too.

Hillary knows that and she hates it because she voted FOR the war. Obama voted against it.

[xxlt]

The answer is b) He is most definitely lying about being a staunch conservative Republican. McCain is only doing that in an attempt to portray himself as one to try to make sure he gets the conservative base on his side.

There's a reason many (if not most) Repubs are not overwhelmingly enamored with him.

But, based on history, McCain has shown more of a willingness to be bipartisan than Obama by a HUGE degree.

http://factbeat.com/get_story.php?id=263

The link above notes that Karl Rove wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial that Obama had never worked across party lines. Then the article goes on to note (and document) that Rove's claim is false. I have to admit I was shocked that Karl Rove would lie to advance his political agenda and that a fair and balanced newspaper like the (Rupert Murdoch owned) Wall Street Journal would print such a lie to advance their political agenda. I guess you just can't trust anyone. In the words of the Wicked Witch of the West, "What a world, what a world!"

[xxlt]

Sure, Obama will do things differently than Bush (like raise taxes instead of cutting them). .
for the wealthiest 10 to 20% of Americans. The other 80% of Americans will see no change or a tax cut. That inconvenient truth unravels the tax and spend boogeyman.

[xxlt]

I am perfectly comfortable stating that I believe the reason for you to be voting for Obama is that you agree with his policy positions more than you do with McCain.

However, many people are voting for him simply because of his "change" rhetoric. And, honestly, does no one see that, sure SOME things will change, but in the end, it will be more politics as usual; just now swinging to the left after having swung to the right?

It is this sort of dogged pessimism that, when coupled with apathy, virtually (but not absolutely) assures the further decline of America.

[EatonFan]

It is this sort of dogged pessimism that, when coupled with apathy, virtually (but not absolutely) assures the further decline of America.

It can go down further than this? :excited:

Seriously, what's so bad? We have our problems, but stepping back we do have much more freedom than many/most (maybe more than any other?) countries, we have enough to eat, our military is top notch, we are the most charitable country on the planet, and we do get along (there are a few exceptions) despite our differences. It has been our differences that have made us strong over the years.

[xxlt]

It can go down further than this? :excited:

Seriously, what's so bad? We have our problems, but stepping back we do have much more freedom than many/most (maybe more than any other?) countries, we have enough to eat, our military is top notch, we are the most charitable country on the planet, and we do get along (there are a few exceptions) despite our differences. It has been our differences that have made us strong over the years.

We are 5% of the world's population but consume 25% of its resources. Our infant mortality rates have increased while education rates and wages (adjusted for inflation) have declined for the last 40 years. The absolute rich get richer and everyone else treads water or gets poorer. A good chunk of people are uninsured and that chunk gets bigger everyday. We have a large homeless population - many of whom are military veterans. There about 40 other countries where people live longer with a better quality of life and are better educated. We have the biggest budget deficit in the history of civilization. We incarcerate a larger percentage of our population than any other country in the world. The majority of people in the last two Presidential elections didn't vote for the corrupt imbecile who has served as our President and alienated virtually the entire world (had to throw that one in for my friends on the other side of the aisle). Our environment and our infrastructure are not being maintained properly. With no exit strategy and no end in sight for the war in Iraq, there are those - including the President - who would have us invade Iran. Osama bin Laden is still unaccounted for. The dollar is declining. Homeowners and lenders are at a loss to deal with the mortgage crisis. Our kids are supposed to look up to the "few, the proud, the Marines" and one of them made a video of himself tossing a puppy off a cliff in a country that our country illegally invaded. There are people who no longer go to church because they can't afford the gas to get there.

Yeah, you're right. Everything is...


"Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everything that's wonderful is what I feel..."

[EatonFan]

We are 5% of the world's population but consume 25% of its resources.

Been doing this for years. It's now that you have an issue with this? Why not 35 years ago?

Our infant mortality rates have increased while education rates and wages (adjusted for inflation) have declined for the last 40 years.

Our healthcare system is screwy, but no one can agree on what to do! I'll give you that! (See that other thread you started for my response on the wage thing)

The absolute rich get richer and everyone else treads water or gets poorer.

Is it really surprising to anyone that this occurs? The rich know how to manage money. Now taxing the mega-rich we've debated and both have come to the conclusion that they could pay some more, but that's really not the answer. The answer is in better jobs and industry isn't it?

A good chunk of people are uninsured and that chunk gets bigger everyday.

See the two items above -- healthcare and wages. Same issue.

We have a large homeless population - many of whom are military veterans.

Healthcare. Mental care. A lot of things stem from this. I see a trend. Anyone who reads this board could be homeless in two months. All it would take would be a severe accident and poof: Homeless. Think it can't happen? Think again. Medical is the #1 reason for bankruptcy and homelessness.

There about 40 other countries where people live longer with a better quality of life and are better educated.

Ummmm... go there??? Try to fix what we have??? Yell we're 41 !! We're 41 !! several times in a row? It may make you feel better...

We have the biggest budget deficit in the history of civilization.

This one we totally agree on...

We incarcerate a larger percentage of our population than any other country in the world.

At least they aren't homeless? Seriously, should we just release these people? Convicted criminals? A lot of those other countries just shoot 'em.

The majority of people in the last two Presidential elections didn't vote for the corrupt imbecile who has served as our President and alienated virtually the entire world (had to throw that one in for my friends on the other side of the aisle).

Well. That's just not true. 62M to 59M in 2004. 50.5M to 51M in 2000. I'd say Bushy is up by about 2.5M votes. Australia likes us. Plus... i like their accent. G'Day mate.

Our environment and our infrastructure are not being maintained properly.

I know. This website is conservative, but it does give a lot of facts. The environment is doing well over the last 35 years. http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/002188.html (http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/002188.html) Our infrastructure is mostly State level. Of course, there is Federal funding of major highways, but still... State run and managed.

With no exit strategy and no end in sight for the war in Iraq,

Who says? McCain CLEARLY (tongue in cheek) gave an exit date. May 2108. While I think this was true at first, I do not believe it to be now. I believe if the Iraqi government and military hit certain goals, we would pull troops more and more rapidly. The exit strategy largely depends on these goals, but not a timetable.

there are those - including the President - who would have us invade Iran.

You're just making that up! He's never said he wants to invade Iran. Now, Hillary did. But not Bush. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428 (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428)

Osama bin Laden is still unaccounted for.

We know exactly where he is. He'll be shot about three weeks before the election. Don't you read the blogs??

The dollar is declining. Homeowners and lenders are at a loss to deal with the mortgage crisis.

Banks and borrowers. Who to blame.... whoooo to blame???? Banks for lending money to unworthy borrowers and inflating the price of the house so they get the loan OR borrowers for living well beyond their means and signing on for a loan they had no business signing on to.... Hmmmm.... Tough one. :hmm:

Our kids are supposed to look up to the "few, the proud, the Marines" and one of them made a video of himself tossing a puppy off a cliff in a country that our country illegally invaded.

See Busamboy's posts and his comments.

There are people who no longer go to church because they can't afford the gas to get there.

Faith my friend. Faith. :Blogo: Bengals to the Superbowl!!!!

Yeah, you're right. Everything is...


"Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everything that's wonderful is what I feel..."

Dang. I'm depressed. Thanks.

[jmccracky]

This is the best country. We rule. No doubt about that. However, if we don't talk about the things that are going wrong, then we're not doing our jobs as American citizens. I hate the whole "Hush hush! The president has a hard job to do" sentiment. Bush has been a horrible president. Doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. A lot of people in America are upset with how this current administration has handled things. Say, that going into Iraq was a good thing and that everyone agrees, and let's say that Bush and Co. had good intentions (which I'm skeptical about). It doesn't automatically delete the very fact that our Economy is going downhill (at a very fast pace). And what about how the rest of the world views us?

Blah. I dunno. I don't care if you support Bush, Gore, Clinton, JFK, McCain, or even Nixon. The economy is going downhill at a VERY fast rate. I know....all the Bush supporters want to blame Clinton for our country's woes and that he didn't do anything. What a LOAD of krapp. Even if you're a Bush supporter, hold him accountable. If he is such a great president, then he could've fixed what Clinton didn't do. Or whatever. :rolleyes:

Freedom is a word that strikes emotion. So when an administration continually harps about "freedom", but has no idea what freedom is about (Patriot Act and all the fear!), then have them read what the Washingtons, the Franklins wrote about and talked about. Ugh. :angry::ninja:


And as far as the whole home owner loans.......yeah, that is the fault of people who took the loans to provide a house for them and their families. Yeah right. Got it. Blame them. Makes sense? Especially when there is an overwhelming amount of families that took out those home loans and are now paying the price. I got it. Let's just place the blame on American families. Don't question our government.

The whole point of being a republican is not whether you are a God fearing abortion hater. The whole point is to not let the Government rule the whole country. That is exactly what Bush and Company wanted. Small government. Bush is the total opposite.
I'm liberal, and I will probably vote democrat this year. But I will say that I voted for Bush in 2000, and would have voted for McCain this year if he was the same guy he was in 2000. I like small government. Except for health care. We need to do something about that, so that way 72 year old grandma's that are sweet and paid their debt to our country by raising good kids and working all of their lives, can afford their medication.

Blah. :angry:

[kevin28_1962]

for the wealthiest 10 to 20% of Americans. The other 80% of Americans will see no change or a tax cut. That inconvenient truth unravels the tax and spend boogeyman.

here's my thoughts on taxes. I see a lot of people complain about taxes and how much they have to pay then I see them complain that the government needs to do this and do that, etc. I see government funding being dropped on programs that really should be funded more and then they waste so much on pork barrel spending.
I personally dont mind paying my fair share of taxes. What really disgusts me is that you have people who make a huge amount of money more than me who pay relatively a smaller amount of taxes (proportionately). I think the tax codes is made to benefit the rich because it is written by the rich. With my limited knowledge of the tax system, I think we should go to a flat tax system. To me that seems like it is a more fair system. The more you make the more you pay and the burden doesn't lie heavily upon the lower middle class.
Along with that, they need to reduce wasteful spending. There are many sites on the internet that show how wasteful our government is. Part of this problem is business as usual within Capital Hill. I have two word for that....TERM LIMITS.

[xxlt]

Dang. I'm depressed. Thanks.

35 years ago I was 7. I still probably could see the problem with our selfish and wasteful society. I was more interested in Reds and Bengals box scores, but I think I understood that greed and waste were bad.

[barryllium]

It can go down further than this? :excited:

Seriously, what's so bad? We have our problems, but stepping back we do have much more freedom than many/most (maybe more than any other?) countries, we have enough to eat, our military is top notch, we are the most charitable country on the planet, and we do get along (there are a few exceptions) despite our differences. It has been our differences that have made us strong over the years.

It's true that we have it better off than most countries - but comparing us to those countries puts us in a position to simply meet or slightly exceed their potential. While I agree it's good not to take for granted all we do have, it's still very important to look at what is wrong, and what we can be doing better.

For anyone with a lot of time on their hands, over the past few weeks I put together an 11 page response to the "Americans are spoiled brats" article (the one that was the topic of a thread a month or so ago) for a discussion at my work this past week. Here's a link to it - http://ilsserver.latino.nd.edu/Response_to_Statement.pdf, it's a bit on the extreme side, but it points out some things that a) most people don't know/understand and b) other people choose to ignore. Have fun!

[EatonFan]

This is the best country. We rule. No doubt about that. However, if we don't talk about the things that are going wrong, then we're not doing our jobs as American citizens. I hate the whole "Hush hush! The president has a hard job to do" sentiment. Bush has been a horrible president. Doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. A lot of people in America are upset with how this current administration has handled things. Say, that going into Iraq was a good thing and that everyone agrees, and let's say that Bush and Co. had good intentions (which I'm skeptical about). It doesn't automatically delete the very fact that our Economy is going downhill (at a very fast pace). And what about how the rest of the world views us?

Blah. I dunno. I don't care if you support Bush, Gore, Clinton, JFK, McCain, or even Nixon. The economy is going downhill at a VERY fast rate. I know....all the Bush supporters want to blame Clinton for our country's woes and that he didn't do anything. What a LOAD of krapp. Even if you're a Bush supporter, hold him accountable. If he is such a great president, then he could've fixed what Clinton didn't do. Or whatever. :rolleyes:

Freedom is a word that strikes emotion. So when an administration continually harps about "freedom", but has no idea what freedom is about (Patriot Act and all the fear!), then have them read what the Washingtons, the Franklins wrote about and talked about. Ugh. :angry::ninja:


1) And as far as the whole home owner loans.......yeah, that is the fault of people who took the loans to provide a house for them and their families. Yeah right. Got it. Blame them. Makes sense? Especially when there is an overwhelming amount of families that took out those home loans and are now paying the price. I got it. Let's just place the blame on American families. Don't question our government.

The whole point of being a republican is not whether you are a God fearing abortion hater. The whole point is to not let the Government rule the whole country. That is exactly what Bush and Company wanted. Small government. Bush is the total opposite.
I'm liberal, and I will probably vote democrat this year. But I will say that I voted for Bush in 2000, and would have voted for McCain this year if he was the same guy he was in 2000. I like small government. Except for health care. We need to do something about that, so that way 72 year old grandma's that are sweet and paid their debt to our country by raising good kids and working all of their lives, can afford their medication.

Blah. :angry:

1) What does the government have to do with a transaction between you and your banker?

I didn't just layout that the borrower was to blame, quite frankly I'd put the blame about 75% in the banker's corner. Now, the banks are being "stuck" with these below market value houses and I would not bail them out.

2) No disagreement there. Healthcare is our nation's No. 1 problem, and I'll stand by that statement until my dying breath. I have a plan if anyone cares to listen.

[EatonFan]

here's my thoughts on taxes. I see a lot of people complain about taxes and how much they have to pay then I see them complain that the government needs to do this and do that, etc. I see government funding being dropped on programs that really should be funded more and then they waste so much on pork barrel spending.
I personally dont mind paying my fair share of taxes.1) What really disgusts me is that you have people who make a huge amount of money more than me who pay relatively a smaller amount of taxes (proportionately). I think the tax codes is made to benefit the rich because it is written by the rich. With my limited knowledge of the tax system, I think we should go to a flat tax system. To me that seems like it is a more fair system. The more you make the more you pay and the burden doesn't lie heavily upon the lower middle class.
2) Along with that, they need to reduce wasteful spending. There are many sites on the internet that show how wasteful our government is. Part of this problem is business as usual within Capital Hill. I have two word for that....3) TERM LIMITS.

1) I bust this myth all the time. The rich pay more in taxes dollar-wise and percentage wise. A lot more. A flat tax system would hurt the middle class a LOT. See this IRS chart on the last page. Over $200,000 pay in total tax 52% of the total. Over $200,000 represents roughly the top 5% http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06inreturnbul.pdf and they pay 52% of the taxes. They make 30.5% of the total income in the country.

Now if you want straight percentiles, which is what I prefer to look at.... see this IRS compilation. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in07tr.xls

The top 5% in this chart (looking only at income tax and not FICA for instance) pays 58.82% of the total.

2) No argument there

3) Term limits yes. And the Prez s/b elected for 8 years with no re-election... automatically. He would then owe nothing to no one. He gets in and he doesn't have to care about sucking up to his supporters and give them favors to get re-elected. One time shot. He could actually let his conscience decide what is best. What a concept!!

[VCU Rams]

1) What does the government have to do with a transaction between you and your banker?

I didn't just layout that the borrower was to blame, quite frankly I'd put the blame about 75% in the banker's corner. Now, the banks are being "stuck" with these below market value houses and I would not bail them out.

Now I am hardly as well versed in the financial field as you seem to be, although hopefully I will be soon. :thumbsup: But shouldn't the gov't accept atleast some blame for not having restrictions in place to protect us from corrupt lending practices. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[eakephas]

# Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
# Article VII - Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
# Article VIII - Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
# Article IX - Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
# Article X - Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Even if you buy it, none of that is an impeachable offense.

[xxlt]

Even if you buy it, none of that is an impeachable offense.

Feel free to contribute to the Bush legal defense fund (which is probably already accepting donations) but I disagree. I think they are all impeachable offenses. Obviously, if the articles are advanced the Bush legal team will argue your position.

[jamiethelanky]

Even if you buy it, none of that is an impeachable offense.
Yes, all they've got to do with is the saving of soldiers' lives. Let's concentrate on the important things for impeachment, like presidents getting oral from interns... :rolleyes:

[tbone77]

Stupid. He's done nothing to get impeached. This is just another extremist overreacting.

I would impeach Bush. He has done a lot of damage: he started a $3 trillion dollar war, which has cost over 4,000 American lives so far, a refugee crisis, annual $300 billion deficits....He has done almost nothing to make us more energy independent. He has not captured Bin Laden. And Bush's "war on terror" has made the world a more terrifying place. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-the-war-on-terror-made-the-world-a-more-terrifying-place-438190.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01terror.html

Cheney is also unfit to be president (i.e. to have the power to start wars). He still has deferred salary and stock options from Halliburton (even though he plans to donate his war profits to select charities). Halliburton also gives over 99% of their campaign contributions to Republicans in return for no-bid contracts. It is unethical. It should be illegal. Bush and Cheney should be fired.

But most politicians don't have the guts to demand such accountability.

In America you can send all the soldiers you want into battle without the right armour. Just don't fool around with the interns, and you will be ok.

[Rayne]

Yes, all they've got to do with is the saving of soldiers' lives. Let's concentrate on the important things for impeachment, like presidents getting oral from interns... :rolleyes:

See, that's what you say when you don't live here and you buy what the media told you.

What got Clinton impeached was lying under oath. That's called perjury. He ought to know that, he graduated from Oxford - the most elite place in the world for law.

Perjury is a felony and that's why we impeached him. Had he told the truth, we couldn't have.

[tbone77]

See, that's what you say when you don't live here and you buy what the media told you.

What got Clinton impeached was lying under oath. That's called perjury. He ought to know that, he graduated from Oxford - the most elite place in the world for law.

Perjury is a felony and that's why we impeached him. Had he told the truth, we couldn't have.

Yea too bad Bush and his advisors (including that disgraced charlatan and accused Iranian spy, Ahmad Chalabi) weren't under oath in the lead up to the Iraq War. Those are the kind of lies that really damage the country and the world. Those are the lies that deserve impeachment. But I guess it doesn't count when your hand isn't on the bible.

[Rayne]

Yea too bad Bush and his advisors (including that disgraced charlatan and accused Iranian spy, Ahmad Chalabi) weren't under oath in the lead up to the Iraq War. Those are the kind of lies that really damage the country and the world. Those are the lies that deserve impeachment. But I guess it doesn't count when your hand isn't on the bible.

Sound bites aren't sworn testimony. ;)

[Eh-Nam]

# Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
# Article VII - Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
# Article VIII - Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
# Article IX - Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
# Article X - Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes


I love Cincinnati but some people really need to read more and not from there Republican websites I am talking 3rd party stuff.
I was a Die Hard Republican, but after years and years of watching the middle class die under Bush I don't think this country can handle 4 more years of McCbush.
Under McCain and his tax breaks for the wealthy Xon Mobile will get 1.2 billion bucks in tax breaks.
95% of the US is made of the Middle and lower class, Stimulus checks would help us but if you give a guy that already has 500.000 bucks He is not going to notice it like The middle class family would.

[xxlt]

1) What does the government have to do with a transaction between you and your banker?

I didn't just layout that the borrower was to blame, quite frankly I'd put the blame about 75% in the banker's corner. Now, the banks are being "stuck" with these below market value houses and I would not bail them out.

2) No disagreement there. Healthcare is our nation's No. 1 problem, and I'll stand by that statement until my dying breath. I have a plan if anyone cares to listen.

Here's an idea - let's further deregulate banking and health care!

[Eh-Nam]

1) I bust this myth all the time. The rich pay more in taxes dollar-wise and percentage wise. A lot more. A flat tax system would hurt the middle class a LOT. See this IRS chart on the last page. Over $200,000 pay in total tax 52% of the total. Over $200,000 represents roughly the top 5% http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06inreturnbul.pdf and they pay 52% of the taxes. They make 30.5% of the total income in the country.

Now if you want straight percentiles, which is what I prefer to look at.... see this IRS compilation. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in07tr.xls

The top 5% in this chart (looking only at income tax and not FICA for instance) pays 58.82% of the total.

2) No argument there

3) Term limits yes. And the Prez s/b elected for 8 years with no re-election... automatically. He would then owe nothing to no one. He gets in and he doesn't have to care about sucking up to his supporters and give them favors to get re-elected. One time shot. He could actually let his conscience decide what is best. What a concept!!

The thing you are forgetting is the Bush McCain tax cuts(Stimules - Checks)
Under McCbush, The Wealthy will benefit more than the middle and lower would.
and there is more middle and lower class people than higher class.

[tbone77]

1) I bust this myth all the time. The rich pay more in taxes dollar-wise and percentage wise. A lot more. A flat tax system would hurt the middle class a LOT. See this IRS chart on the last page. Over $200,000 pay in total tax 52% of the total. Over $200,000 represents roughly the top 5% http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06inreturnbul.pdf and they pay 52% of the taxes. They make 30.5% of the total income in the country.

Now if you want straight percentiles, which is what I prefer to look at.... see this IRS compilation. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in07tr.xls

The top 5% in this chart (looking only at income tax and not FICA for instance) pays 58.82% of the total.

2) No argument there

3) Term limits yes. And the Prez s/b elected for 8 years with no re-election... automatically. He would then owe nothing to no one. He gets in and he doesn't have to care about sucking up to his supporters and give them favors to get re-elected. One time shot. He could actually let his conscience decide what is best. What a concept!!

But how can we ignore FICA??

FICA is like a regressive tax!!

[jamiethelanky]

See, that's what you say when you don't live here and you buy what the media told you.

What got Clinton impeached was lying under oath. That's called perjury. He ought to know that, he graduated from Oxford - the most elite place in the world for law.

Perjury is a felony and that's why we impeached him. Had he told the truth, we couldn't have.
So why don't you impeach Bush? After all, there is good evidence he's lied about torture, he's lied about soldier's deaths for political gain, he's lied about WMDs.

And why not his daddy? He lied about taxes...

If it's only lying you care, about then why ignore Bush's lies?

[philhos]

The thing you are forgetting is the Bush McCain tax cuts(Stimules - Checks)
Under McCbush, The Wealthy will benefit more than the middle and lower would.
and there is more middle and lower class people than higher class.

The wealthy pay A LOT MORE in taxes than the middle and lower class. Of course tax cuts are going to benefit them more, THEY PAY MORE IN TAXES. :wacko:

[Rayne]

So why don't you impeach Bush? After all, there is good evidence he's lied about torture, he's lied about soldier's deaths for political gain, he's lied about WMDs.

And why not his daddy? He lied about taxes...

If it's only lying you care, about then why ignore Bush's lies?

Were they under oath, Jamie? See, that's the difference.

By the way, Clinton himself said that presidents should be impeached when they lie to the public....of course, Nixon was president and I guess the rules change when HE'S sitting in the oval office.

[kevin28_1962]

....of course, Nixon was president and I guess the rules change when HE'S sitting in the oval office.

or when she was kneeling in front of him. :rotf:

[xxlt]

Were they under oath, Jamie? See, that's the difference.

By the way, Clinton himself said that presidents should be impeached when they lie to the public....of course, Nixon was president and I guess the rules change when HE'S sitting in the oval office.

And Bush won't take an oath. (Rumor is that if he touches a Bible his skin starts to melt.)


I find it fascinating that theoretically Bush could walk into your living room, kill your family, and walk out. You could report the killings and Bush could deny them. Well, he would be lying - but not under oath - so no harm no foul would be your conclusion. Right?

[EatonFan]

Now I am hardly as well versed in the financial field as you seem to be, although hopefully I will be soon. :thumbsup: But shouldn't the gov't accept atleast some blame for not having restrictions in place to protect us from corrupt lending practices. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Yes. They do have restrictions in place. Unfortunately, banks are a profit motivated business and are driven by sales which in a bank's case are: Loans. The more loans they can make the more money they make. I dislike banks with a passion. You talk about dinging the lower / lower-middle classes. They rip them with fees, higher loan rates, and incredulous closing costs.

This whole housing crisis goes back to several issues:

1) Education. We have virtually no financial courses taught in our schools. Those that are taught are not required and the kids just simply can't relate to them... as they have no bills to pay, no regular paycheck to budget, no mouths to feed, etc. We have to get our young people to wise up! Our savings rates are horrendous. This is not a function of how much money you make, it's a function of your spending and saving habits. People always press the "If I only made $XXX more money I'd be fine." button. Millionaires are made not through inheritances, not through winning the lottery, not through making $5M per year, or being sports stars. They are made by discipline. They do not spend more than they make, they live within their means, they save 10-15% of their gross income, they pay themself first, they are exceptionally thrifty -- They know a bargain. 2/3 of them are self employed. And it takes a long, long time 30 years or more. Read the book "The Millionaire Next Door". It's eye opening.

2) Banks have created their own bed. They hire appraisers to appraise houses that they are going to loan against. Problem? The bank tells the appraiser what it must appraise for. So, the appraiser goes and adjusts the appraisal to meet that number -- even though it is likely inflated by several thousands of dollars. Why? Because at the next closing the bank will hire who to appraise the next house? Yes. That same appraiser. If he doesn't appraise to the bank's number... he loses out on a steady stream of future business, and worse that business goes to his competitor. That's about as backasswards as you get. Then to top that off the bank bends over backwards to get people who should not be lent money (bad credit risks) a loan by jacking up closing costs (which inflates the house price even more!) and pressing the people into a bigger house than they can really afford.

How should it work? First, an appraiser should be independent. Period. The appraiser should be hired solely by the borrower and chosen by the borrower. The appraisal should be done and given to the borrowers ONLY. The bank does NOT get to see it. Then the borrower can make an informed decision to buy or not to buy. But who pays the appraiser? The bank does if they require an appraiser. If the borrower then proceeds, the bank can put the appraisal fee on the closing to be reimbursed. If not, the borrower walks away, and the bank pays the appraisal and gets to see it then and only then.

Second, there should be a requirement of at least 5% down on any property. This will prevent so called, predatory lending as the banks can not loan money to people who can not afford it. Additionally, they can not inflate the purchase price as the 5% will act as a buoy to those tactics. Plus both borrower and lender will reap the benefit of a 5% equity in the house immediately and protect both parties in the event of a RE market slowdown.

3) ARMS. No not those things that connect into your shoulders. I'm talking about Adjustable Rate Mortgages. Banks offer these to people who: Don't understand them, and push them to people on the "lending bubble". When the prime rate goes up... the ARM rate goes up... When the rate goes up... the payment skyrockets and bang. Those people lose their homes. The banks are then stuck with an overvalued home and the house of cards that the bank created... Falls.

4) Healthcare. What does healthcare have to do with the real estate crunch? Because it's becoming a larger and larger % part of everyone's budget. Plus, one mishap, disease, or accident and pow... You are out of work, with no insurance (if your employer offered it in the first place), and the house payment can not be made. Brutal. :scared3:

[xxlt]

RE: Post 103. From time to time Eaton and I agree about a thing or two. I agree with virtually everything in post 103. This could be a sign of the apocalypse. I probably shouldn't have said that because now the army of science and the army of faith will want to argue in this thread about whether there will be an apocalypse. :lol:

[kevin28_1962]

This whole housing crisis goes back to several issues:

1) Education. We have virtually no financial courses taught in our schools. Those that are taught are not required and the kids just simply can't relate to them... as they have no bills to pay, no regular paycheck to budget, no mouths to feed, etc. We have to get our young people to wise up! Our savings rates are horrendous. This is not a function of how much money you make, it's a function of your spending and saving habits. People always press the "If I only made $XXX more money I'd be fine." button. Millionaires are made not through inheritances, not through winning the lottery, not through making $5M per year, or being sports stars. They are made by discipline. They do not spend more than they make, they live within their means, they save 10-15% of their gross income, they pay themself first, they are exceptionally thrifty -- They know a bargain. 2/3 of them are self employed. And it takes a long, long time 30 years or more. Read the book "The Millionaire Next Door". It's eye opening.

Parents need to take a vested interest in the teaching of their children. They shouldn't rely on schools to "educate" their kids with the all things they need to know. I do wish that schools did teach something along the line of finances (my son had to take a financial course, freshman year at Lebanon High School but it was nothing in-depth).

[barryllium]

RE: Post 103. From time to time Eaton and I agree about a thing or two. I agree with virtually everything in post 103. This could be a sign of the apocalypse. I probably shouldn't have said that because now the army of science and the army of faith will want to argue in this thread about whether there will be an apocalypse. :lol:

I also pretty much agree with everything Eaton had to say. Well posted, Eaton.

Parents need to take a vested interest in the teaching of their children. They shouldn't rely on schools to "educate" their kids with the all things they need to know. I do wish that schools did teach something along the line of finances (my son had to take a financial course, freshman year at Lebanon High School but it was nothing in-depth).

This is a great addendum to Eaton's post - as it doesn't negate anything he says, but adds an important point. For all of time, school has (to some degree) been daycare - but for the most part the time has been well used. But many parents are relying more and more on the school (and other influences) to raise their children - when they need to be the primary caretakers of their own children instead. It's crazy that that point needs to be made to anyone, but it's sadly true. And if you don't believe me, ask any teacher you know.

[philhos]

I also pretty much agree with everything Eaton had to say. Well posted, Eaton.



This is a great addendum to Eaton's post - as it doesn't negate anything he says, but adds an important point. For all of time, school has (to some degree) been daycare - but for the most part the time has been well used. But many parents are relying more and more on the school (and other influences) to raise their children - when they need to be the primary caretakers of their own children instead. It's crazy that that point needs to be made to anyone, but it's sadly true. And if you don't believe me, ask any teacher you know.

How much smarter would our kids be overall, if only more parents take a more vested interests in their children's education?

[EatonFan]

How much smarter would our kids be overall, if only more parents take a more vested interests in their children's education?

Amen. Parents have to take a lot of time and attention to teach their children. Unfortunately it's somewhat of a loop. If the parents weren't taught the basics of finances, then they can't teach the kids, then the kids do stupid financial things, then they become parents.... By the time the original parents start to realize how finances work, they are a lot of times in too deep.

My wife is a teacher and ohhhhhhh, how it makes a difference if the parent shows just a little interest in their child's education... Especially during the time that my wife teaches, 8th grade. You can have wonderful parents who attend teacher conferences every year, but when kids leave elementary it's like a switch is turned off and parents don't come! Teenagers are hard to deal with. I understand. I'm the parent of one.

Thanks to all the kudos. This and healthcare is my #1 topics of interest in our society. :thumbsup:

[barryllium]

How much smarter would our kids be overall, if only more parents take a more vested interests in their children's education?

Much smarter. Of course, not all parents (the ones that work 2 jobs) get that opportunity. Change is much needed on the individual, local, state, and federal levels. At each level, only so much can be changed to make a difference, and no one level alone can fix all the problems.

[Rayne]

And Bush won't take an oath. (Rumor is that if he touches a Bible his skin starts to melt.)


I find it fascinating that theoretically Bush could walk into your living room, kill your family, and walk out. You could report the killings and Bush could deny them. Well, he would be lying - but not under oath - so no harm no foul would be your conclusion. Right?

Murder is illegal so no, he wouldn't get away with it. Besides, he has people that do that for him.

Bush took an oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, forgein and domestic - he took it in 2000 and 2004. He had to touch a Bible to do it.

It's about breaking the law, man. Clinton did and paid for it. Bush didn't.

[barryllium]

Murder is illegal so no, he wouldn't get away with it. Besides, he has people that do that for him.

Bush took an oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, forgein and domestic - he took it in 2000 and 2004. He had to touch a Bible to do it.

It's about breaking the law, man. Clinton did and paid for it. Bush didn't.

I heard he touched a Qur'an instead of a bible :ninja::lol:

[kevin28_1962]

I heard he touched a Qur'an instead of a bible :ninja::lol:

I heard it was a Maxim magazine with a fake covering to make it look like a bible.

[Rayne]

I heard it was a Maxim magazine with a fake covering to make it look like a bible.

That was Clinton. Women were Clinton's weakness, not Bush's.

[kevin28_1962]

That was Clinton. Women were Clinton's weakness, not Bush's.

That's right...what was I thinking?

[xxlt]

I also pretty much agree with everything Eaton had to say. Well posted, Eaton.



This is a great addendum to Eaton's post - as it doesn't negate anything he says, but adds an important point. For all of time, school has (to some degree) been daycare - but for the most part the time has been well used. But many parents are relying more and more on the school (and other influences) to raise their children - when they need to be the primary caretakers of their own children instead. It's crazy that that point needs to be made to anyone, but it's sadly true. And if you don't believe me, ask any teacher you know.

Yet, as noted in other posts, when you are working 60+ hours a week trying to keep from going into hock, that doesn't leave a lot of time to nurture and educate the offspring.

[Rayne]

Yet, as noted in other posts, when you are working 60+ hours a week trying to keep from going into hock, that doesn't leave a lot of time to nurture and educate the offspring.

Depends upon why you're working that hard. If you're doing it just to keep up with all the latest gadgets and toys, you shouldn't have the gadgets and toys to begin with.

If you're working that hard to raise and feed the kids, maybe you shouldn't have had the kids. If you can't raise them right, you shouldn't have had them.

[Eleden]

Depends upon why you're working that hard. If you're doing it just to keep up with all the latest gadgets and toys, you shouldn't have the gadgets and toys to begin with.

If you're working that hard to raise and feed the kids, maybe you shouldn't have had the kids. If you can't raise them right, you shouldn't have had them.

Some parents don't have a choice in the matter.

I've seen a lot of families who had decent paying jobs when their kids were toddlers... but then lost them when their factory closed down. Now they're working 40-50 hours at Kroger to put food on the table.

Still there are families out there that have time to spend actually parenting their children... but choose not to. If you have the time to invest in your children but refuse to... then stop reproducing. <_<

[Danno]

Some parents don't have a choice in the matter.

I've seen a lot of families who had decent paying jobs when their kids were toddlers... but then lost them when their factory closed down. Now they're working 40-50 hours at Kroger to put food on the table.

Still there are families out there that have time to spend actually parenting their children... but choose not to. If you have the time to invest in your children but refuse to... then stop reproducing. <_<


Hey! Thats how we get our pay increases 'round here! :smirk:

[Rayne]

Some parents don't have a choice in the matter.

I've seen a lot of families who had decent paying jobs when their kids were toddlers... but then lost them when their factory closed down. Now they're working 40-50 hours at Kroger to put food on the table.

Still there are families out there that have time to spend actually parenting their children... but choose not to. If you have the time to invest in your children but refuse to... then stop reproducing. <_<

It's about about WHY you're pulling those hours. If you're doing it to keep up with the Jonses, it's wrong.

But ps....if you can't afford to have kids you shouldn't have them.