Bush must face reality...

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

IMHO real critiques, why not play up the 17 UN resolutions trying to sanction Saddam, and his constant violations of the no fly zone and testing of UAV's a clear violation of the UN resolutions banning him from r&d'ng weaponry like that.

Don't get me started on violating UN resolutions. Currently, israel is standing in violation of over 70 resolutions - the most any country has ever had passed against it, but nothing happens. Why? Every time someone says we need to punish them for their bad acts, America has stepped in and stopped the proceedings.

Now trying to claim that a handful against Saddam is enough to start a war, well, in that case attacks on israel would be more than justified.

Yes, keep going in circles over wmd's and Bush lied etc, etc.? But what about some other things?

Those are pretty big things. Hundreds of thousands have died because of those lies. The environment has been damaged irreparably because of bush. to simply acknowledge this, and gloss over it like 'sure everyone has heard that' doesn't do the topic justice.

It's like glossing over Katrina. Yeah, there was a flood, big deal, we heard about it. Or WW2, Yeah there was a war, so what?

This man has caused more damage to people around the world, in many countries than any other single human to date.

His lies have cost the lives of thousands. His disregard for other nations has lowered the world view of America to a point that had never been seen.

He has done more to hurt the population of American than any other President in the history of the country. He has taken away more rights than any other American politician in history.

Your 'so what' attitude is ill concieved at best. To think people can just 'get over' such attrocities merely because you feel the news media talks about them too much is a crime within itself.

You do a disjustice to any of the victims who were killed in Iraq by trying to gloss over the war while its still in full swing.

Just because you don't want to hear about it doesn't mean its not going on. As we speak, people are dying because of the lies. Until that changes, don't expect people to be able to put it all behind them so quickly.

[ArtificialOne]

Stern, did you really read my post? Get your head examined. As for him being the worst human in history... please.. I think thousands of tortured islanders and chinese, deathcamp survivors, and millions of dead russians would disaggree.

[raggedyanne]

At least he hasn't publicly locked up the muslim-americans like they did with the japanese- americans during WW2. Then there's this little thing called Guantanamo . . .

[ArtificialOne]

Maybe we should have locked up german americans during ww2.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lslips.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm

On, camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...can_internment
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_c...ng_World_War_2

On suspended rights during wartime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47051

I'm not much concerned over what Bush has done over the war as far as what he done in the way of rights. I do think that Iraq wasn't planned well and we missed the opurtunity after Desert Storm when there was a significant population of people who wanted change.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n14910359

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...june98/iraq_4-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Wa...quences27.html


A little off topic but a good read as to why people are blaming the west for attrocities.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilit...dArticle=12218

My biggest gripe about Bush and the congress on both sides is this horrible trade deals their doing. Bush has done nothing but add on to a bad deal. See Nafta
http://economics.about.com/od/foreig...nton_trade.htm

Some who hate big business will love this info, but my concerns are with the palying field being uneven and allowing companies to move over seas to exploit these loopholes. Note this was done under the Clintons, and Bush has only added crap onto more crap with further bad trade deals. I was hoping he'd be tough and redo Nafta and regulate China better through the WTO. At least china has done better in increasing it's currency value.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/...ency_7-21.html

This should increase the fairness in trade between us. About the only good thing in trade Bush has accomplished.

[CptSternn]

From the bush files today...

Bridge Hero Gets Offer: Paid Tuition

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/us...89cfc1&ei=5087

Among the dozens of wrenching accounts to come out of the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, the actions of 20-year-old Jeremy Hernandez were a bright spot: Trapped in a tipping school bus with 50 children, he kicked open the back door and began helping them one by one to safety.

Within a day, news outlets across the country were repeating the story of the school bus, along with a sad footnote — that Mr. Hernandez had recently been forced to drop out of an automotive repair program because he could not afford the $15,000 tuition.

That has changed. On Saturday, Mr. Hernandez learned that Dunwoody College of Technology had offered him a full scholarship toward a degree in applied science. He has also received offers of help from dozens of strangers across the country, said Molly Schwartz, communications director for Pillsbury United Communities, which employed him as a gym coordinator for one of its summer programs.

“We’re all very emotional about this,” Ms. Schwartz said. When she sat with Mr. Hernandez on Friday and read him e-mail messages from across the country, she said, “His eyes are just getting bigger and bigger — ‘California. You’re kidding.’ When we told him about the Dunwoody thing his eyes just got really wide.”

Mr. Hernandez was not available to comment on the offer; Ms. Schwartz said he left town for northern Minnesota late on Friday, overwhelmed by the attention and concerned that his co-workers were being overlooked. He spent the weekend fishing. When President Bush’s staff contacted him to request a photo opportunity, “He was just, like, ‘Nope,’ ” she said.


You have to love this. The newest hero who saved dozens of childrens lives get a call from the President of the US...and turns it down.

It really says something when the average Joe given the opportunity doesn't even want to speak to or meet the current President.

Classic.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

From the bush files today...

Bridge Hero Gets Offer: Paid Tuition

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/us...89cfc1&ei=5087

Among the dozens of wrenching accounts to come out of the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, the actions of 20-year-old Jeremy Hernandez were a bright spot: Trapped in a tipping school bus with 50 children, he kicked open the back door and began helping them one by one to safety.

Within a day, news outlets across the country were repeating the story of the school bus, along with a sad footnote — that Mr. Hernandez had recently been forced to drop out of an automotive repair program because he could not afford the $15,000 tuition.

That has changed. On Saturday, Mr. Hernandez learned that Dunwoody College of Technology had offered him a full scholarship toward a degree in applied science. He has also received offers of help from dozens of strangers across the country, said Molly Schwartz, communications director for Pillsbury United Communities, which employed him as a gym coordinator for one of its summer programs.

“We’re all very emotional about this,” Ms. Schwartz said. When she sat with Mr. Hernandez on Friday and read him e-mail messages from across the country, she said, “His eyes are just getting bigger and bigger — ‘California. You’re kidding.’ When we told him about the Dunwoody thing his eyes just got really wide.”

Mr. Hernandez was not available to comment on the offer; Ms. Schwartz said he left town for northern Minnesota late on Friday, overwhelmed by the attention and concerned that his co-workers were being overlooked. He spent the weekend fishing. When President Bush’s staff contacted him to request a photo opportunity, “He was just, like, ‘Nope,’ ” she said.


You have to love this. The newest hero who saved dozens of childrens lives get a call from the President of the US...and turns it down.

It really says something when the average Joe given the opportunity doesn't even want to speak to or meet the current President.

Classic.

Honestly, why would the "average Joe" want to meet the President? At least, in an incident that did not involve the President whatsoever?

Additionally, Bush should have waited a week or two. Becoming a national celebrity is not something that just everyone takes in stride. Some people need to take some time off in order to assimilate everything.

I'm not supporting Bush, I'm just saying that I don't think your anti-Bush sentiment here is valid.

[ArtificialOne]

True, but stern will stop at nothing, let alone lack of actual facts to bash Bush or america. Sounds like the guy was in shock from all the attention and maybe being modest.

[Cappinator]

Nah, I think he was sitting at home next to the phone thinking "I hope that sucka calls so I can turn his ass down... oh this is gonna be great..."

Respect for what he did, despite my silliness up there.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

First off - your economy sucks. The dollar is at the lowest point it has ever been against the Euro. Before bush took office, one Euro was worth .80 USD. Today, its the opposite. Sure, the stock market is almost at 14,000, but thats because foriegn investors are buying up American stocks because the dollar is so devalued. Thats not a good thing mate, contrary to what someone might have sold you on.

I've been eBaying like mad - getting everything at half price almost here. - I can't complain.


Where exactly did you get your information on 'debt' and 'deficit'. When bush took office, there was a multi-billion dollar surplus. He pissed that away and now there is a multi-dollar debt and deficit - neither existed before him. Claiming he somehow made them 'decrease' is ludicris. They didn't exist befor he took office. The news last week that the deficent is decreasing is not any type of good news. It's like a man digging a hole in your back yard, then offering to fill it for you. He made that debt, if he 'reduces' it, it still doesn't change the fact he totally lost the surplus.

You don't manage your own checking account do you?

If you start with $2000, end up with -$2000, then are able to swing it so you have -$1800, it still doesn't mean your doing good.




Thats because everything they do they are blocked on party lines by the republicans. We saw this last week with the war vote. You can't tie someones hands then claim they aren't working.



The fact you end your statement, once again a statement without any backing, with 'I think' shows your pulling this out of thin air. You really should google more before making such broad statements which you obviously are so ill informed on.

FDR, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Wilson, Lincoln - you think these are unpopular Presidents? You think they are, or were, ever looked on as unfavourable? That myth was propaganda that the right-wing started pushing right about the time people realised bush lied.

The thing is, most Americans, like yourself, never bothered to fact-check that statement. Like much of the other shite the bush admin has spewed, the American people take it in and reguritate it without ever looking in to the facts themselves.

sternn you are my hero


I don't think we should impeach Bush though, I think we should impale him on a rusted spear and watch him writhe in pain, same with the rest of the cabinat

[Wormboy]

Alright well I'm going to try to poke through the rubble of this disaster of a debate to say a few of my opinions at which time i will recede into the darkness and let the slug-fest between Sternn and AO continue.

1) From the perspective of politics, Hitler wasn't that bad of a leader, at least for a while. He did manage to turn a war torn, depressed, crushed country into a super power in only a few years. He WAS a bigoted maniac who killed countless of innocent lives, but still.
2) Bush is the biggest disaster of a president we have ever had. The economy was great before Bush, it's in the shitter now.
3) FUCK FOREIGN POLICY, FUCK FOREIGN COUNTRIES
at least in terms of the debate of the quality of a president. If you are to be a good president, make sure this country is doing amazing, and ignore all other countries. Invading Iraq? Are you kidding? Not only were there no Weapons, but there was NO GOOD REASON TO INVADE. Let Sadam kill 2 million Iraqi people for all I give a shit, eventually he'll just be the leader of four people, so what? America shouldn't care what happens to other countries, it isn't our job to police the world.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by Wormboy

From the perspective of politics, Hitler wasn't that bad of a leader, at least for a while.

You have a pretty warped view of politics then if you deem it acceptable to set fire to parliamentary buildings in order to frame opposition groups that are quickly banned thereafter while all civil liberties are stripped from citizens in the same political action. That being done of course right before democratic elections that, without surprise, suddenly usher in the Nazi party - paving the way for Hitler's dictatorship within 24 hours of him being appointed Chancellor. THEN one year later being responsible for carrying out a massive house cleaning of your own internal security organizations through multiple extrajudicial executions (aka assassinations) to prevent a popular coup. Let's set aside the eugenics programs of forced euthanasia and sterilization, government sponsored book burnings, and all the other fun stuff the Nazi party brought to Germany in the 30s.

Man, I'd hate to see what a bad leader is to you.

Bush is the biggest disaster of a president we have ever had. The economy was great before Bush, it's in the shitter now.

Nevermind, I suppose you just answered that thought.

If you are to be a good president, make sure this country is doing amazing, and ignore all other countries. Invading Iraq? Are you kidding?

I knew when I started reading this point, you were going to thoughtfully skip over Afghanistan. I'll take it you'll concede to the fact that Afghanistan could not be ignored. Russia and Iran were even ready to go to war with the Taliban for some time, or carry out strikes in that country just as the US had in the 90s.

America shouldn't care what happens to other countries, it isn't our job to police the world.

Who does police the world? The UN? As of recently, sanctions are about the only thing they discipline anyone with. Large-scale military action like in Kosovo or Desert Storm is likely never to be seen again. That being said, what is to prevent true aggression from one country to another? When I ask that, I mean what is to really stand in the way? Especially if Security Council members are on different sides of the conflict by some measure? No UN mandate. By and large, the world isn't policed and that's the problem that leads to these kinds of conflicts.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

You have a pretty warped view of politics then if you deem it acceptable to set fire to parliamentary buildings in order to frame opposition groups that are quickly banned thereafter while all civil liberties are stripped from citizens in the same political action. That being done of course right before democratic elections that, without surprise, suddenly usher in the Nazi party - paving the way for Hitler's dictatorship within 24 hours of him being appointed Chancellor. THEN one year later being responsible for carrying out a massive house cleaning of your own internal security organizations through multiple extrajudicial executions (aka assassinations) to prevent a popular coup. Let's set aside the eugenics programs of forced euthanasia and sterilization, government sponsored book burnings, and all the other fun stuff the Nazi party brought to Germany in the 30s.

Man, I'd hate to see what a bad leader is to you.


Nevermind, I suppose you just answered that thought.


I knew when I started reading this point, you were going to thoughtfully skip over Afghanistan. I'll take it you'll concede to the fact that Afghanistan could not be ignored. Russia and Iran were even ready to go to war with the Taliban for some time, or carry out strikes in that country just as the US had in the 90s.


Who does police the world? The UN? As of recently, sanctions are about the only thing they discipline anyone with. Large-scale military action like in Kosovo or Desert Storm is likely never to be seen again. That being said, what is to prevent true aggression from one country to another? When I ask that, I mean what is to really stand in the way? Especially if Security Council members are on different sides of the conflict by some measure? No UN mandate. By and large, the world isn't policed and that's the problem that leads to these kinds of conflicts.

None should police the world, no one should think themselves that important

about the hitler thing, you sir ... are perfectly right, I overlooked those facts and i retract my statement

yes, i concede to Afghanistan, that was fair game

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by Wormboy

None should police the world, no one should think themselves that important

Well, my point here was in that no one effectively does. THAT's what leads to unilateral action against pariah states, not that the US is fulfilling that role in any sense.

Basically, if you've got beef with someone, it's pretty much up to you to take action, be it right or wrong. Russia did it to Chechnya. Libya attempted to do it to Chad. Ethiopia did it to Somalia. Iraq did it to Iran. Syria and Israel did it to Lebanon. The list goes on and on of wars in a dog-eat-dog world.

The way foreign conflicts work now is out of the "street justice" ethos on a global scale.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Well, my point here was in that no one effectively does. THAT's what leads to unilateral action against pariah states, not that the US is fulfilling that role in any sense.

Basically, if you've got beef with someone, it's pretty much up to you to take action, be it right or wrong. Russia did it to Chechnya. Libya attempted to do it to Chad. Ethiopia did it to Somalia. Iraq did it to Iran. Syria and Israel did it to Lebanon. The list goes on and on of wars in a dog-eat-dog world.

The way foreign conflicts work now is out of the "street justice" ethos on a global scale.

true i suppose but still doesnt justify the US going to war with random countries like Iraq

[MaguMan]

Agreed. Wasn't trying to make that point - just examining why things are the way they are.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Agreed. Wasn't trying to make that point - just examining why things are the way they are.

yeah you;re right on every point, still ya know?

[MaguMan]

It's all a matter of perspective.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Wormboy

3) FUCK FOREIGN POLICY, FUCK FOREIGN COUNTRIES
at least in terms of the debate of the quality of a president. If you are to be a good president, make sure this country is doing amazing, and ignore all other countries. Invading Iraq? Are you kidding? Not only were there no Weapons, but there was NO GOOD REASON TO INVADE. Let Sadam kill 2 million Iraqi people for all I give a shit, eventually he'll just be the leader of four people, so what? America shouldn't care what happens to other countries, it isn't our job to police the world.

What most people don't know is that at any given time there are at least 14 on-going conflicts around the globe. As we speak, civil war in parts of Africa like the former Congo region is taking hundreds of lives a month, even more than we see in Iraq, and has been for years now.

No one is offering to 'liberate' these people.

Same goes for a dozen other areas around the world. The difference, these areas are poor, with no resources like oil. So government death squads fight the rebels year round, for decades, and no one pays attention or offers to help.

That is, until the find oil, like in Nigeria. No one cared about the civil war that had been ragin' there for decades until they found oil. Now the government is backed by the US/UK. The current government is known for torture, abuse, murder, and of course sending out death squads to kill off anyone who questions the government and the oil companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa

Before anyone suggests bush invaded to somehow help 'liberate' a group of people who never asked to be 'liberated', one must ask why was it that so many other groups, larger groups with more immediate need and a much bigger threat at hand were passed over when the bush administration choose the Iraqi people to 'help'.

On a good note, as I said before, there has never been a place in history that was invaded and was able to be held indefinitely. All imperial forces eventually will be beat by the native people indigenous to the area.

In Vietnam, the US forces were pushed out and the 'enemy' took over the government.

In N. Ireland, the UK pulled out its forces after turning over control of the government to the same forces they fought for 38 years.

It's only a matter of time before the US/UK is forced to pull out of Iraq. The question is, how much money can the war-hawks make on this cash bonanza before they pull the plug on the operation.

[raggedyanne]

Has anyone read this week's "Economist"?

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_ID=9621579

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

What most people don't know is that at any given time there are at least 14 on-going conflicts around the globe. As we speak, civil war in parts of Africa like the former Congo region is taking hundreds of lives a month, even more than we see in Iraq, and has been for years now.

No one is offering to 'liberate' these people.

Same goes for a dozen other areas around the world. The difference, these areas are poor, with no resources like oil. So government death squads fight the rebels year round, for decades, and no one pays attention or offers to help.

That is, until the find oil, like in Nigeria. No one cared about the civil war that had been ragin' there for decades until they found oil. Now the government is backed by the US/UK. The current government is known for torture, abuse, murder, and of course sending out death squads to kill off anyone who questions the government and the oil companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa

Before anyone suggests bush invaded to somehow help 'liberate' a group of people who never asked to be 'liberated', one must ask why was it that so many other groups, larger groups with more immediate need and a much bigger threat at hand were passed over when the bush administration choose the Iraqi people to 'help'.

On a good note, as I said before, there has never been a place in history that was invaded and was able to be held indefinitely. All imperial forces eventually will be beat by the native people indigenous to the area.

In Vietnam, the US forces were pushed out and the 'enemy' took over the government.

In N. Ireland, the UK pulled out its forces after turning over control of the government to the same forces they fought for 38 years.

It's only a matter of time before the US/UK is forced to pull out of Iraq. The question is, how much money can the war-hawks make on this cash bonanza before they pull the plug on the operation.

I had some idea to the fact there are horrible things going on in the world that was to the people who said we need to help the Iraqis. As for the whole people around the world dying thing... don't give a shit, at all, ever. I don't care if every person in Asia, Africa, and half of Europe dies, honestly. A million deaths is a statistic to me, and the death of a stranger a triviality. I don't care about anyone I don't know, and even some I do, so the whole human suffering is falling on deaf ears with me.

[CptSternn]

White House fights disclosure

http://news.**********/s/ap/white_ho...68OrRbeSes0NUE

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department said Tuesday that records about missing White House e-mails are not subject to public disclosure, the latest effort by the Bush administration to expand the boundaries of government secrecy.

Administration lawyers detailed the legal position in a lawsuit trying to force the White House Office of Administration to reveal what it knows about the disappearance of White House e-mails.

The Office of Administration provides administrative services, including information technology support, to the Executive Office of the President.

The office has prepared estimates that there are at least 5 million missing White House e-mails from March 2003 to October 2005, according to the lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a private advocacy group.

In court papers seeking to end the case, the Justice Department said the White House Office of Administration has no substantial authority independent of President Bush and therefore is not subject to the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

Most of the White House is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but certain components within it handle FOIA requests, including the Office of Administration, which issues annual reports on the number of FOIA requests it processes each year.

The 2006 annual report says the Office of Administration processed 65 FOIA requests.

The White House has said it is aware that some e-mails may not have been automatically archived on a computer server for the Executive Office of the President.

The e-mails, the White House has said, may have been preserved on backup tapes.

"The Office of Administration is looking into whether there are e-mails not automatically archived; and once we determine whether or not there is a problem, we'll take the necessary steps to address it," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

The first indication of a problem came in early 2006 when special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald raised the possibility that records sought in the CIA leak investigation involving the outing of Valerie Plame could be missing because of an e-mail archiving problem at the White House.

The issue came into focus early this year amid the uproar over the firing of U.S. attorneys. It turned out that aides to Bush improperly used Republican Party-sponsored e-mail accounts for official business and that an undetermined number of e-mails had been lost in the process.

The Justice Department Web site, which lists all FOIA contacts inside the government, identifies seven units inside the Executive Office of the President as responding to FOIA requests, including the Office of Administration.

The Office of Administration "has certainly acted like an agency in the past," said Meredith Fuchs, general counsel to the National Security Archive, a private group advocating public disclosure of government secrets.

Fuchs' organization filed a request in February 2006 after Fitzgerald revealed that e-mails might be missing. When the Office of Administration finally denied the private group's request in June of this year, the office said it was not an "agency" as defined by the Freedom of Information Act and was therefore not subject to the law's requirements.

The administration has been resisting disclosure of information on an array of fronts.

In September 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney's lawyer instructed the Secret Service that it "shall not retain any copy" of material identifying visitors to the vice president's official residence. The lawyer, Shannen Coffin, wrote the letter as The Washington Post sought copies of Cheney's visitors.

The letter regarding the vice president's residence was in addition to an agreement quietly signed between the White House and the Secret Service when questions were raised about visits to the executive compound by convicted influence peddler Jack Abramoff.

That agreement, which didn't surface publicly until late last year, said White House entry and exit logs were presidential records not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

When the agreement was signed in May 2006, a number of private groups and news organizations had filed FOIA requests with the Secret Service in an effort to identify how many times Abramoff or members of his lobbying team visited the White House.




This should bother everyone. The bush administration has fought to tap everyones phone, monitor their internet and reading habits, and to be able to spy on everyone without a warrant.

At the same time, these people argue they want no one looking over their shoulder into what they are doing.

At the root of this argument is the controversy that the bush administration colluded with oil executives to write government policy, for laws pertaining to the health of the American people and the laws the govern the use of protected lands.

Why is it the bush administration doesn't want the people, the American people who he is *supposedly* representing knowing exactly who he is meeting with? I mean, if McDonald's is writing the policy that the government is using to govern the food safety, don't you think the people who have to abide by the laws have a right to know who wrote the policy?

Why is the bush administration fighting so hard to hide who they do business with? Making their own bodyguards destroy evidence of which companies the bush administration meet with, making their secretaries destroy all evidence and swear them under threat of national security to secrecy, doesn't that seem a bit off?

If my government is getting advice on re-writing medical policy from an insurance company, I want to know. Thats just a bad thing to have happen. The bush administration knows this, which is why they are trying so hard to keep the people, the American people which they are supposed to be representing in their best interests, keeping those people in the dark while the groups they are supposed to be protecting us from meet secretly with the government to write laws they know will harm the health of the American public.

All in the name of money, *not* in efforts to help Americans.

Why would a president need to hide who he meets with? What exactly is he trying to hide? Why is it the American people don't get outraged by this? He was elected by them and is supposed to be accountable to them. The bush administration has found a way to make themselves above the law, above the common man. In after doing so is now doing what is best for themselves, in secret, hiding their actions, hiding who they are colluding with.

If I still lived in America, I would want to know why the president needs to meet in private and hide his communications with business leaders, and I would want to know how exactly that is in my best interest.

What good is the freedom of speech, if your government keeps so many secrets from you?

When anyone in government goes through such lengths to keep their actions a secret from their own people, it's safe to say they are not acting in the best interests of those people. If they were, they would be having press conferences telling of their great deeds. The fact they are so secretive about their actions as they pertain to to the American people is a red-flag that what they are doing is, well, wrong, immoral, and/or illegal.

As the saying goes...'Democracy dies behind closed doors'

[raggedyanne]

True. When you really look at it, Bush is worse than Nixon. At least Nixon hadn't replaced the entire government with yes men so that no one could get him in trouble. Hillary clinton isn't much better. Doesn't anyone else remember when that maid found those "lost" papers?

[CptSternn]

Hilary is worse than that. There have been many articles on her health care reforms, but the movie Sicko really brings the point on this by going through the whole fiasco she created just a few months back when she became Senator.

In a nut-shell - she was elected Senator on her campaign promise to reform the US health care system. She organised many top level people she was put in contact with through her husband to arrange this. She had costs, polices, procedures, everything in place to revamp the US health care system and make it affordable to everyone. She started going public with this and telling the country of how this could be achieved.

The US health care industry lobbyists put together a BILLION dollar fund to STOP her from telling people about her system. They spent millions getting other congressional leaders to thwart her efforts. In the end, they had a meeting behind closed doors with her personally.

After that, she scrapped the plan, and refused to talk about it. She then became the cheerleader FOR the current system, claims it doesn't need to be changed, and also at the same time became the largest recipient of health care related lobby monies in the American Congress. The health care lobbyists gave her millions, and she scrapped all her work and shut her mouth.

They go through this in great detail in Sicko.

[raggedyanne]

I love that movie. The extent that companies and agencys will go to to not have to spend any money are absolutley mind boggeling.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

blah blah blah just a few months back when she became Senator.

A few months back? She assumed office as a Senator in 2001.