Abuse of power

[PaulS]

Look at how much you post and insult the Pres. Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?

I agree that there are kooks on both sides. It seems to me (as someone who voted for Pres. Bush for his first term) that the insults and complaints have bc more mainstream from the right.

So why/how did we get into Iraq? Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime?

Don't you think getting us into a war would raises someone's hackles a lot more than providing them w/health insurance?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Look at how much you post and insult the Pres. Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?

So why/how did we get into Iraq? Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime?

True. But what I do is a reflection of me, it doesn't say anything about everyone else who happens to vote the same way as me. You have posted that Tea Baggers are racist. i don't hold anyone else accountable for that statement, just you.

"Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?"

I didn't realize the question was limited to those who post here?

"So why/how did we get into Iraq?"

You don't know? The vast, vast majority of our leaders in DC authorized the use of force, because the vast, vast majority of them (including your party's next nominee for President, Hilary Clinton) were certain they had WMDs.

"Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime"

It wasn't a lie, that's for sure. There's a big difference between being wrong, and lying. Did Hilary lie when she said Iraq had WMDs, and when she authorized the use of force?

It's fair to hold Bush accountable for his incorrect conclusion, but a large majority in DC (including Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards) also looked at the same intelligence, and consluded that the invasion was justified.

So why is Bush criticized (which is fair), and those Democrats who reached the exact same conclusion as Bush, get a free pass? Hmmm?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True. But what I do is a reflection of me, it doesn't say anything about everyone else who happens to vote the same way as me.No but it is indicative of how the internet has made it easier for every Tom, #^&#^&#^&#^& and Harry to insult anyone they want. Is there any difference bt some troll who can't post anything more intelligent than insulting a Pres. name and a TV talking head besides the size of their audience? You have posted that Tea Baggers are racist. i don't hold anyone else accountable for that statement, just you.We all have seen the signs and until the leadership told their members to tone it down, the signs were very common at the early protests. You admitted that yourself previously.

"Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?"

I didn't realize the question was limited to those who post here? Well the poster didn't state he was talking about the general public or here so I'll give you that one. But it is indicative of what has happened over the last # of years.

"So why/how did we get into Iraq?"

You don't know? The vast, vast majority of our leaders in DC authorized the use of force, because the vast, vast majority of them (including your party's next nominee for President, Hilary Clinton) were certain they had WMDs.

"Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime"

It wasn't a lie, that's for sure So then it was the biggest intelligence failure of our lifetime?. There's a big difference between being wrong, and lying. Did Hilary lie when she said Iraq had WMDs, and when she authorized the use of force?She voted on what she was told - and the intelligence (or lack of intelligence) was all wrong.

It's fair to hold Bush accountable for his incorrect conclusion, but a large majority in DC (including Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards) also looked at the same intelligence, and consluded that the invasion was justified.

So why is Bush criticized (which is fair), and those Democrats who reached the exact same conclusion as Bush, get a free pass? Hmmm?

BC, it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on.

Again, I'll ask -don't you think people are more justified about getting us into a war based on bad intelligence (and I think it went beyond that to some lies and some ignoring anything that didn't fit in w/the what the admin. wanted) and trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

BC, it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on.

Again, I'll ask -don't you think people are more justified about getting us into a war based on bad intelligence (and I think it went beyond that to some lies and some ignoring anything that didn't fit in w/the what the admin. wanted) and trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?

Oh, the signs at tea party ralies mean that tea partiers are inherently racist?

A few signs among large groups. And we know for a fact, that some of th epeople holding those signs, were planted by liberal groups to fool people exactly like you into concluding exactly what you concluded...that a group that believes in fiscal responsibility, is racist, despite the fact that said groupo has endorsed monority candidates who support their agenda. You've been played for a sucker by those on you rside. If someone did that to me, I'd be upset, but that's just me.

"it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on"

Correct, and the large majority of people who looked at that evidence, arrived at the same conslusion he did. He didn't lie or manufacture evidence...if he did, I'd be the first one calling for his impeachment and arrest. He was wrong. Many, many people were wrong. They were equally wrong.

"I think it went beyond that to some lies "

The "Bush lied, people died" slogan makes for a great bumper sticker. There's no proof of it. You're entitled to your beliefs. Many people think 9/11 was an insoide jobm many people think Obama wasn't born here. All are very weak conslusions, IMHO...

"trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?[/"

Again, it's demonstrably false that only your side wants to insur emore people. My side wants to do it too, we just have a dfferent approach (using exchanges and vouchers, getting more people into good jobs, enacting tort reform, which unlike Obamacare would actually decrease costs and let more people get insurance).

Getting more people access to healthcare, in and of itself, is a good thing. Making free birth control (specifically for use in recreational sex) a part of that, and exempting union employees from taxes on cadillac plans becaiuse they happen to vote for democrats, and forcing Christians to abandon their religious beliefs in the process, is not a good thing.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on"

Correct, and the large majority of people who looked at that evidence, arrived at the same conslusion he didThe admin ignored any bit of evidence that contradicted their view - curveball, aluminum tubes, etc. . He didn't lie or manufacture evidence..We really don't know that and that is why I asked the question. So who does the fault rest with - people who voted on info. which was incorrect or the people who developed that info.?.if he did, I'd be the first one calling for his impeachment and arrest. He was wrong. Many, many people were wrong. They were equally wrong.

"I think it went beyond that to some lies "

The "Bush lied, people died" slogan makes for a great bumper sticker. There's no proof of it. You're entitled to your beliefs. Many people think 9/11 was an insoide jobm many people think Obama wasn't born here. All are very weak conslusions, IMHO...So I guess it is that the admin had the biggest intelligence failure of our generation if not since our countries founding. Thanks

"trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?[/"

Again, it's demonstrably false that only your side wants to insur emore people. My side wants to do it too, we just have a dfferent approach (using exchanges and vouchers, getting more people into good jobs, enacting tort reform, which unlike Obamacare would actually decrease costs and let more people get insurance).

Getting more people access to healthcare, in and of itself, is a good thing. Making free birth control (specifically for use in recreational sex) a part of that, and exempting union employees from taxes on cadillac plans becaiuse they happen to vote for democrats, and forcing Christians to abandon their religious beliefs in the process, is not a good thing.

So what legislation has "your side" (since I guess it is either your side or my side) proposed? They have voted what - 55?? times to canc. the ACA but I haven't seen any alternatives.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So what legislation has "your side" (since I guess it is either your side or my side) proposed? They have voted what - 55?? times to canc. the ACA but I haven't seen any alternatives.

What chance would GOP-led legislation have of passing, when Harry Reid controls the Senate committees? Come on...

Now that the GOP has both houses, as you say, it's on them to put forth some common sense legislation, make Obama veto it all, then see how he likes being called an obstructionist...if the GOP doesn't make good use of this majority, they deserve to get the boot...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What chance would GOP-led legislation have of passing, when Harry Reid controls the Senate committees? Come on...
What chance is there of an ACA appeal have?
Now that the GOP has both houses, as you say, it's on them to put forth some common sense legislation, make Obama veto it all, then see how he likes being called an obstructionist...if the GOP doesn't make good use of this majority, they deserve to get the boot...

If the case that the USSC will rule in the next few weeks about the Fed run exchanges turns out like the Repubs. want, they will have to come up with some alternative for everyone whose insur. is canc.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Don't you think getting us into a war would raises someone's hackles a lot more than providing them w/health insurance?

"providing" ????

Providing? or forcing Obama care upon us after many false promises
another example of abuse of power

[Fly Rod]

Sorry Jim BUT Repubs do not have enough votes in senate to oust Obamacare....would pass in the house but no further.

[JohnR]

Well - I guess you can compare Benghazi and ACA - there was intelligence on both predicting significant failures that were ignored by the administration.

D'oh!

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Well - I guess you can compare Benghazi and ACA - there was intelligence on both predicting significant failures that were ignored by the administration.

D'oh!

And then you should read this...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...e-amicus-brief

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And then you should read this...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...e-amicus-brief

So crony capitalism is GOOD. Especially for giant corporations.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

"providing" ????

Providing? or forcing Obama care upon us after many false promises
another example of abuse of power

So why isn't any legislation that passes forcing something on us and wouldn't that then be an abuse of power? I thought the SC took up this question?