Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
He knows it's a loan (I hope). He's just decided it should be called something different to make it sound better........like his president does with everything that stinks.
>>>so many things to worry about<<<
And so many things for Bush republicans to celebrate...
"We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.
And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.
And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?
This President now has his blank check. He lied to get it. He lied as he received it. Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/page/3/
Fittingly.......the people who think this is the greatest thing that's happened to america since Bush got elected are the same ones who thought the country was finished with a blow job in the oval office. Only positive here is that the supply of these freaks is down to 30% and dwindling.
>>>Oh, So there isn't an actual loan...<<<
The Chinese are buying US treasury bonds which means they give the US government cash in exchange for an i.o.u piece of paper that says they will be paid such and such until they are paid back. If that's not a loan, then what is it?
>>>Besides, the man made $700,000 in profits in 2004 on that one sale of land that, according to his disclosure statements, he didn't even own at the time.<<<
Ever wondered why conservatives have a reputation for being stupid? Capt. Ed's piece is a good example among many others. Again......for the fifth time, Reid DID own the land at the time of the sale but held title as partner in an LLC as opposed to individual unless something has changed from last week.
Is this how simple minds on the hard right work? If the deed did not indicate the name "Reid", he obviously could not have owned the land?
Other than that, I hope they find real criminal issues to nail Reid with and why not Nancy Pelosi too while they're at it. As far as I'm concerned they've both been criminally negligent in fighting Bush's dictatorial ambitions.
>>>Peg, Do you have a link showing we borrowed money from China?<<<
"The U.S. budget deficit is financed by borrowing. More and more of that money comes from China, now the United States' second-largest lender, after Japan. China's investment in U.S. government debt has more than tripled in the past five years, from $71 billion in 2000 to $242 billion in 2005."
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200510u/nj_schneider_2005-10-25
So radical islam is a major influence on how the FBI operates? Since we're at war with radical islam, wouldn't that make the FBI director an enemy combatant?
>>>the Blame Game.....<<<
Bush Inaugural to Focus on Personal Responsibility
Aired January 20, 2001 - 9:46 a.m. ET
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/20/smn.19.html
>>>I hope all you Neo-Con fuckers are proud as hell.<<<
Proud, clueless and wrong all at once. Proud because they're clueless and wrong because they think this could never ever apply to them. It probably never will but to support even the remote possibility that US citizens can legally be stripped of all their judicial rights at the whim of a president's mood of the day is treasonous imo.
"OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
TURLEY: It does. And it‘s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn‘t rely on their good motivations.
Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.
It couldn‘t be more significant. And the strange thing is, we‘ve become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, “Dancing with the Stars.” I mean, it‘s otherworldly."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15317473/
Turley is right. This is huge and the country (including this board for the most part) yawns and scoffs. Who would have thought the greatest democracy on earth would self destruct from within?
>>>the fbi is a tool of the left. and the saudis<<<
and Hugo Chavez?
>>>why should he resign, there isnt even a hint of wrong doing<<<
Maybe it's too early to resign but don't you hope there's a hint of wrong doing considering the fact that the FBI raided 6 homes on Tuesday in search of evidence against Weldon?
You're not bothered by the idea of federal agents ransacking citizens homes without any hint of wrong doing?
"The FBI raided the homes of Rep. Curt Weldon's daughter and a close friend Monday as it investigates whether the congressman improperly helped the pair win lobbying and consulting contracts.
Agents searched four locations in the Philadelphia area and two in Jacksonville, Fla., said Debbie Weierman, an FBI spokeswoman in Washington."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/16/politics/main2093680.shtml
>>>as long as my country is being taken over by Fascists<<<
Another cornerstone laid today:
Bush Signs Terror Detainee Bill
"The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."
"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.
The bill also eliminates some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.
The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/17/terror/main2097186.shtml
Would someone please explain how this can be interpreted as anything other than dictatorial powers.
Congress passes unconstitutional law
Arlen Specter: "I'd be willing, in the interest of party loyalty, to turn the clock back 500 years, but 800 years goes too far."
Sunday, October 8, 2006; B02
Congress Behaving Badly
By Dahlia Lithwick and Richard Schragger
While the language of addiction has become the catch-all excuse for bad personal behavior of every sort, it's worth invoking in one more context: the constitutional one. Please do forgive the U.S. Congress its atrocious behavior. It's not a bad institution, per se. It's merely addicted to judicial review.
Just days ago, we watched as several senators voted for a bill to redefine the treatment, detention and trials of enemy combatants, even as they expressed doubts about its constitutionality. The measure to set up military tribunals for enemy combatants contains, among other constitutional infirmities, a provision to strip courts of their power to review the constitutionality of the detentions. A number of senators contested this provision, which would suspend the writ of habeas corpus for current and future detainees, but the amendment that sought to excise it from the final bill failed by a vote of 51 to 49.
Before that vote, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, announced, "I'm not going to support a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional . . . that suspends a right that goes back to 1215," and the Magna Carta. He added, "I'd be willing, in the interest of party loyalty, to turn the clock back 500 years, but 800 years goes too far."
Specter's justification for then voting for a bill he deemed unconstitutional? "Congress could have done it right and didn't, but the next line of defense is the court, and I think the court will clean it up."
There is some irony in this congressional willingness to see the Supreme Court as a kind of constitutional chambermaid -- an entity that exists to clean up after Congress smashes the room. It is especially ironic when it is articulated by members of Congress who like to invoke judicial restraint as a constitutional value. But it is beyond ironic, and approaching parody, when Congress asks the court to clean up a bill it knows to be unconstitutional, when the bill itself includes a court-stripping provision.
Criticizing the court for overturning the laws passed by Congress -- as Specter did repeatedly during the confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- is fair. But crying "judicial activism" at the same time you rely on the courts for political cover when you're too timid to defy the electorate -- or your president -- is hypocritical.
Why should the Supreme Court defer to a Congress that adopts laws it suspects are unconstitutional? And what should we think of those elected officials who would take so cavalier an attitude toward their oath to uphold the Constitution?
Members of Congress take the same oath as Supreme Court justices do, after all. And Congress regularly asserts its institutional capacity to interpret the Constitution -- to act on an equal footing with the Supreme Court in deciding the constitutionality of a law. Moreover, the justices are supposed to assume that Congress never intentionally adopts an unconstitutional law, and you need attend oral argument for only a few moments to know how seriously they take that charge. So how is it possible that an oath-bound member of Congress can support a law that he or she believes violates the Constitution?
Congress gives in to the temptation of passing bills that are of questionable constitutionality because it's easy and convenient. Political expediency seems to trump constitutional principle. The elected branches need never defy the popular will if the courts are available to do so instead. And those members of Congress who insist that the courts should stay out of Congress's business should recognize Congress for the enabler it has become. It's a two-way street: The courts work with what Congress sends them and sometimes Congress purposely sends them unconstitutional legislation, because it is politically expedient to do so.
That's why lawmakers who know that legislation to ban flag burning violates the First Amendment regularly trot it out anyway. It is an easy way to mollify voters, while letting some other branch grapple with what the Constitution requires. As a bonus, lawmakers then can blame the courts for usurping the will of the electorate, turning an ordinary political pander into an Olympic-worthy double-pander.
So instead of pointing fingers at the court, let's call the whole relationship what it is: dysfunctional. For all its railing against the court, Congress sometimes relies on it to achieve substantive aims. The court, sheltered from political fallout, can sometimes afford to be brave when Congress cannot. But this suggests that cries of "judicial activism" from the Congress should be suspect. As is the case in any dysfunctional relationship, Congress has a vested interest in being upheld when it wants to be, and struck down when it needs to be bailed out.
The popular debates about the terms and parameters of judicial activism or restraint must be understood in institutional terms. Congress behaves strategically. When it is convenient, members of Congress will praise and advocate judicial restraint, and when it is not, they will hope for "activist" judicial intervention. Specter's argument during the Alito and Roberts hearings bears this out. It distressed him not that the court was too activist in striking down acts of Congress, but that it was too activist in striking down the wrong acts of Congress. Yet this judicial backstop serves his goals when he is unwilling to make the call.
The strategic use of the court reduces accountability, it corrupts the lawmaking process, and it is deeply cynical. Lawmakers should take their constitutional obligations seriously. And if they do not take their own obligations seriously, then they have no right to criticize the judicial branch when it does.
Should the Supreme Court bail out Congress for the unconstitutional provisions of the new detainee legislation? Once again, it has no choice. But the real question is whether the public should bail it out. We can always choose not to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/07/AR2006100700917.html
or:
"George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.
These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1185.shtml
It is and it also blows the neocon argument that "a liberated muslim is a peaceful muslim" out of the water.
Bush buys 98,842-acre farm in northern Paraguay?
If true, why would someone of Bush's wealth plan for retirement in a foreign country best known for giving shelter to Nazi war criminals?
"During a trip to Paraguay in 1954 Mengele met another key contact, Alejandro von Eckstein. He was then a captain in the Paraguayan army, and he cosponsored Mengele's bid for Paraguayan citizenship in 1959."
http://www.posner.com/articles/mengele.htm
Bush Buys Land in Northern Paraguay
Buenos Aires, Oct 13 (Prensa Latina) An Argentine official regarded the intention of the George W. Bush family to settle on the Acuifero Guarani (Paraguay) as surprising, besides being a bad signal for the governments of the region.
Luis D Elia, undersecretary for the Social Habitat in the Argentine Federal Planning Ministry, issued a memo partially reproduced by digital INFOBAE.com, in which he spoke of the purchase by Bush of a 98,842-acre farm in northern Paraguay, between Brazil and Bolivia.
The news circulated Thursday in non-official sources in Asuncion, Paraguay.
D Elia considered this Bush step counterproductive for the regional power expressed by Presidents Nestor Kirchner, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
He said that "it is a bad signal that the Bush family is doing business with natural resources linked to the future of MERCOSUR."
The official pointed out that this situation could cause a hypothetical conflict of all the armies in the region, and called attention to the Bush family habit of associating business and politics.
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={EBA55617-2676-4091-ABBC-20650EB6FEE1}&language=EN
>>>A free and democratic Iraq, even maybe a prosperous Iraq
threatens the existence of every regime in the Muslim world<<<
And what makes you think that would have any effect on the radicals - the reason for the w.o.t? Assume every muslim regime in the world becomes a prosperous democracy. Their religion wouldn't change, nor would the potential for radical factions. Don't believe it? Most of the London plotters arrested recently were born and raised in the UK, each having spent their entire life in a democracy.
"Most of the suspects are second- or third-generation British citizens of Pakistani descent"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
>>>where, other than Iraq, could we train and equip 300k muslims (or more) to fight the Muslim radicals ?<<<
They're being trained and equipped to fight a civil war we helped them start. That's progress in the w.o.t?
Your entire argument is absurd. You say the terrorists we're chasing belong to a global network of cowards that aim to kill as many americans as possible. Then you say these cowards somehow are drawn to Iraq from all corners of the world hoping to kill at least one of 130,000 americans in Iraq. If they are cowards and want to kill americans in the greatest numbers possible, why would they choose to take on 130,000 of the worlds best trained soldiers instead of 300,000,0000 unarmed civilians here at home? Our borders are too well guarded LOL?
>>>I think it's more complicated to explain on a message board.<<<
Not really. Your own posts contain most of the dots and it only seems complicated because you connect them using guidance from clueless conservative media clowns. For example.......you said: "We are at war with Muslim radicals who have no specific country and want you and all Americans dead." Exactly right so why haven't you questioned why Iraq is the "central front" in the w.o.t?
You recognize that Islamic extremists have global presence and want to kill as many americans as possible and yet you haven't questioned why these terrorists are expected to congregate in Iraq where 130,000 heavily armed americans hang out rather than crossing our open borders and start killing off 300,000,000 unarmed or lightly armed americans. And did Limbaugh or Hannity ever tell you that 90% of the "terrorists" US troops are fighting in Iraq are Iraqi civilians who became terrorists after their country was invaded?
>>>Muslim radicals who have no specific country<<<
Oh.....so the brilliance with Iraq is that US troops attract the world's terrorists, keeping them from striking elsewhere (like London, Madrid and Saudi Arabia)? If that's what it's about then why not lease some land in the Sahara desert and set up camp there? No civilians will be killed and the Iraqis can rebuild in peace.
Saw that. But according to hap, even redeployment (cut and run) is now consistent with Bush's stay the course strategy because staying the course will eventually lead to redeployment (cut and run) through natural progression or continuous military reevaluation. But only if a republican says so. It's just that simple.
>>>that would be because I read the transcript<<<
Would you mind sharing that transcript? Would be interesting to read it for two reasons:
1. You say Warner's statement affirms Bush's stay the course strategy but that's not how it has been reported.
2. If every single newsmedia - including conservative ones - have falsified Warner's quotes then I'd like to bring that to their attention with hard proof.
rollingrock....... not that you care but I never thought you had the faintest idea what the hell you're talking about.
Every word you post here is verbatim O'Reilly, Rush, Bush/Cheney or Hannity material. If you think I'm wrong you can always prove it with some independent thoughts for a change. Like explaining why you think the war in Iraq is so important to america's freedom. How does a third world country with a dime store army, no air force, no navy, no long range bombers, no WMD and prior to the war - no international terrorists - pose a threat to the survival of the worlds only superpower?
And spare me the tales of terrorism sponsorship since even the CIA has now crushed the Iraq/Al Qaeda link and the only traces remaining may be the financing of few local suicide bombers SH sent wandering across the border. Hardly a global threat to democracy.
>>>Warner said no such thing<<<
"Returning from a recent trip to the region, Sen. John Warner said the military had done what it could, and if after three months the Iraqis have made no progress to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction, then Congress will have to make some “bold decisions.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15155638/
How do you do it? Pretending everything you dislike is made up and everything you like is really happening?
Nonsense. Warner said the military has done it's part and you say that's exactly what Bush means too with stay the course? If that's the case, wouldn't some elaboration be in order by now........like "the military has done it's part in Iraq and this is what comes next"?
>>>So far, the exact timing of that zoning change has not yet come to light, but the coincidence looks very suspicious.<<<
LMAO. Isn't that the basis for the entire argument against Reid.......that he benefitted from a zoning change of a property he owned. But they're unsure of the timing of it so all they can say is that it's a "suspicious coincidence". What if the zoning change had been considered before he even bought the land?
By the way........why do you refuse to include links to the stories you post?
>>>doe this sound like a disagreement with Bush ?<<<
Afraid it does. Bush wants to stay the course = no change. Warner wants to reassess in 60-90 days and take bold action unless things improve. You see no difference in those two strategies?
Also......this should send shivers down your spine:
"Thus far, I think we've been largely in concert with the administration as to their objectives. But I do believe, as you say, the next 60 to 90 days are critical."
Translation: Things better start improving or the senate will no longer be a rubber stamp institution for Bush's Iraq policy.
>>>that would be you stating that Warner disagrees with the CIC and the liberal MSM running wild with the word "side-wise"<<<
And this?
"He said the military had done what it could and that Congress must make some "bold decisions" if, after three months, progress is not made by the Iraqis to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/6/111353.shtml?s=lh
That's in line with Bush's assessment of Iraq?
>>>how about posting a link to Warner's disagreement with the CIC<<<
"Sen. John Warner on Thursday offered his darkest assessment yet of Iraq, saying the war there was "drifting sideways" without a commitment from its government to disarm militias.
Warner, a Republican and Bush loyalist, made his comments to reporters upon returning from a recent trip to the region.
He said the military had done what it could and that Congress must make some "bold decisions" if, after three months, progress is not made by the Iraqis to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/6/111353.shtml?s=lh
Gets worse. It's also unacceptable to THINK certain things. Since governments tend to fix things they consider unacceptable, how does Bush intend to control american's thought process, including the thought process of his former secretary of state?
"Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?
THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html
>>>then twisting arms to get the zoning changed is questionable<<<
I know nothing about the circumstances surrounding the zoning change. Do you? Was he even involved in pushing it through? If he bulldozed it through using influence and intimidation then I'm with you. If it was decided the rezoning was beneficial to the community he represents and he happened to reap from it then I don't know what your gripe is.
>>>Your leap form "I've already said too much" to acdcepting blame is a large one<<<
Don't think so. He admits he said things he shouldn't have said which means he did contribute to some extent which in turn means he can't be called completely "blameless". That's all I said. Calling Rove completely blameless implies he had no involvement in the entire episode which obviously isn't true since he admits as much himself.
>>>selling it to a developer and gaining windfall profits 3 years after he had already sold it???<<<
He didn't sell it outright the first time. He changed the way he held title in the property from personal to corporate. Standard stuff......completely legal and ethical (for a change). The only thing he screwed up was related to senate disclosure rules.
"In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJ8I00.html
>>>Your friend supplied links where you say he wasn't "blameless"<<<
Rove himself says he's not blameless so what's the problem with me saying it?
"White House senior adviser Karl Rove, after telling Time reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 that the wife of an administration critic worked for the CIA, closed the conversation by noting "I've already said too much," Cooper said yesterday in recounting his testimony before a federal grand jury."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700755.html
Here cheapskate..........did the search for you. This is what came up for "Libby"
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/msgsearchbymember.asp?SearchStr=libby&SearchID=13957
And for "Rove":
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/msgsearchbymember.asp?SearchStr=rove&SearchID=13957
For the last time......point to the post where I say either one is guilty of outing Plame.
Thanks for proving my point. Sometimes you get support from the most unlikely sources.
>>>Of course, but you posted many times that you felt they were guilty but that there was not enough evidence under the standard of the statute to convict. You posted many times that you FELT they were guilty even though they weren't indicted under the statute<<<
That's simply not true. I have never said that I felt any one person was guilty of outing Plame. I have said that revealing the name of a CIA operative whose status is classified is a crime. Fitzgerald said as much himself. I have also said that it's a different story whether anyone will ever be charged with a crime since it's a difficult one to prove.
Time to put up or shut up eddy. Either you show me where I said these things or drop it and admit you're confused. Takes a big man to admit he's wrong so what will it be?
>>>Libby - last I heard - was guilty of lying under oath to the prosecution is not a true statement- he's just been indicted, not convicted.<<<
You're obviously right about that and I misspoke.
>>>So, you're now saying that Rove and Libby weren't guilty of outing Plame?<<<
So now? Implying I've said anything different in the past? Libby - last I heard - was guilty of lying under oath to the prosecution and I never suggested otherwise. Rove has been found guilty of blabbering to reporters about Plame as if she was a janitor with the CIA but it could not be proven that he was guilty of a crime. Also consistent with what I've said in the past. What's the problem?
>>>Should Reid be investigated?<<<
Why do you keep asking? I already answered you once and you ignored it. Do you know what you want him investigated for? Even the article you posted yourself states clearly that the only thing he appears guilty of is failing to disclose that he transferred title from Reid as an individual to an LLC to which he was a beneficiary. In other words, he still owned the same property.......only under a different name. Again.......what do you want him investigated for?
Tough to get an answer to that one isn't it? You'd think it would be easy for those who support him but instead it's torture they'd rather walk away from. I know you've asked it a lot........did anyone ever respond?
>>>If you are saying that a small plane can fly under the radar in NYC post-911<<<
"Under the radar" is not the issue. Planes can legally fly at low altitudes under "visual flight rules" which means they are identified by radar but navigate by visually identifying landmarks and are not required to communicate with air traffic control. Much of the airspace around the country including New York allows this.
>>>Theoretically, terrorists could carry a load of TNT in a small plane and inflict serious damage to a large building.<<<
You bet..