Arlen Specter switching parties from GOP to Dem (Upd)

Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, has announced today that he will be officially switching parties and joining the Democrats in the senate. Specter has basically been a Democrat for years but is worried about being primaried by an actual Republican in 2010.

The news from Breitbart:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that will also push Democrats closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement could come later in the day or Wednesday.

Specter, 79 and in his fifth term, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said the White House as well as leaders in both parties had been involved in discussions leading to his move.

With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party’s 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster.

Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat.

“I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate,” he said in the statement.

“I don’t have to say anything to them. They said it to me,” Specter said, when asked in a Capitol corridor about abandoning the GOP.

This is the Pennsylvania Republican Party trying to hold Specter accountable for his liberal positions and specter simply refusing to answer to the people of his own party, or what used to be his party.

Fox News report:

This announcement, of course, comes just days after Specter adamantly said he would not switch parties:

In a March 17th interview with The Hill, Specter said he absolutely would not switch parties:

“[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.”

“I’m not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions.”

“I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I’m afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That’s a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.”

Way to stick to your unequivocal statements Senator Specter, I’m sure the people of Pennsylvania will appreciate meaning what you say and saying what you mean, unless it’s inconvenient a month later.

Of course, as mentioned, this will give way to a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority in the senate meaning socialized health care, increased taxes and anti-business policies are forthcoming thanks to Arlen Specter.

In fact, one wonders if Specter might get axed anyway come 2010 considering he’s one of those ancient politicians who is incapable of making a living outside of Washington.

That is the game awful politicians like Specter play. When the people attempt to hold you accountable, you just screw them and switch parties to avoid it. Specter is the epitome of weaselly politicians who care only for their own self-interests, not those of the people who pay their salaries. \

Update

The expected chorus of voices whining about the GOP becoming “too conservative” has begun singing, Politico reports:

Two leading Republican moderates say Sen. Arlen Specter’s decision to become a Democrat highlights the hostility moderates feel from an increasingly conservative GOP.

“You haven’t certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,” said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate.

Snowe said the party’s message has been, “Either you’re with us or you’re against us.”

Her frustration was shared by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who slammed right-wing interest groups for pushing moderates out of the party.

So let me get this straight. Snowe and Graham are angry that the Republicans are becoming “too conservative” when the party just got done losing with Senator John McCain as the Presidential nominee? So to win elections, do they suggest that we should run a Democrat as our nominee?

In fact, principle be damned! Why don’t we dissolve the Republican Party and all become Democrats, that way the liberal Republicans won’t feel offended by people with principle.

Furthermore, don’t any of these politicians remember what the Democrats did to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut? They ran Lieberman out of the party using the primary system to Ned Lamont! How quickly we forget and how pathetic it is to watch liberal Republicans clamor on about the party being “too ideological” and then embracing the Democrats who have chastised people like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman because they’re not terribly liberal.

Newsflash to liberal Republicans: The media use you as tools to bash the Republican Party!

  • bones

    As you said, he’s basically been a democrat for years now. When his allies are as much his enemies as the opposing party, you can’t blame him for wanting to make peace with one of the sides. And honestly, reconciling with the GOP probably would have required much greater compromise than the path he ultimately chose.

    Lieberman choice to become an independent took serious guts, and I’ll give it to him for his cajones. But as career choices go, breaking ties with your allies without gaining friends is a not a good one.

  • chip

    ?Arlen Specter problem is that he was a district attorney and like all the others DA of which the place is
    loaded with he is a deal maker not a defender of the law.

  • D.D.Mao

    This is a good news for Pat Toomey for a number of reasons the most important being now he can focus on spending money on the general election as opposed to fighting “Benedict Arlen” in the primaries. Spector made a promise to the GOP before the last election (after winning a primary by a nose) to tame down his liberal leaning in order to get financial support.Spector was trailing in the polls this time and saw the hand writing on the wall and made his move.It was EXPECTED much earlier than this.

    Chip……Are you a Penn. native?

  • Chip, welcome, and I couldn’t have said it better. That’s just it, he’s not a defender of the law, although that is his profession.

    Today is a great day for conservatives and Republicans, we just shed some dead weight. Woohoo.

  • Path

    Now, once Al Franken gets his right to come to the senate the dems will finally have a 2/3 majority and all you ‘conservatives’ can go cry to grandma. If you people keep on choosing Channey, Newt, and Limbaugh as your party leaders you will remain a sideline party. It even looks like the Green party will do better than you. And the best part is, You don’t even get why, its all a big sad joke to all of us and it goes right over your head. We’re going to have fun reforming all the things you mesed up the last 40 years. Energy, Healthcare, Tax reform, Education, Military. Its going to be fun.

  • JD

    I am glad to hear another Rep. moving over to the Dems. Next it will be Rush.

  • Quoting Path:

    “We’re going to have fun reforming all the things you mesed up the last 40 years. Energy, Healthcare, Tax reform, Education, Military. Its going to be fun.”

    Path, I’m pretty sure you meant “socializing,” not reforming. See reforming something like health care would mean actually working toward the best solution for everyone, not more government control and care-rationing under Obama’s abysmal plan.

    Reforming taxes usually means simplifying them and lessening the tax burden, not doubling them and making them more complex as Obama is currently doing. Reforming taxes might also mean giving all businesses incentives to hire, however, Obama is doing the exact opposite by promising tax hikes.

    Reforming education might mean looking to solutions which produce positive results like the school vouchers in Washington, DC. Instead Obama is canceling that program, despite it’s overwhelming success and pleas from the Democrat-controlled DC school board, city council and Mayor’s office. Reform might mean doing something other than giving teacher’s unions carte blanche control or providing parents more choices but Obama is doing the opposite which means lower educational standards. I guess when liberals say “reform education” they actually mean “make kids dumber” so they keep voting Democrat.

    Reforming the military might mean investing money in new technologies and ensuring our veterans get the care they deserve. Instead Obama has found ways to cut defense spending and even floated the idea of making veterans pay out of pocket for their care. Then again, we all know that when liberals say “reform the military” they actually mean “dismantle the military.”

    Reforming energy might mean using the oil, coal and natural gas on our own soil to keep energy prices affordable and foreign dependence at a minimum. Instead just today, the EPA at the direction of Obama, pulled a permit for a new coal-fire energy plant in New Mexico. When Obama says he wants to “reform” energy, he really means he wants to make fossil fuel energy more expensive than “green” energy so he can force us to change. Sounds like stellar “reform” to me!

    See Path, you’re mistaken when you use the word “reform” and try to claim that Obama wants to use working solutions to make the country better. Obama wants to “reform” the country in a socialist image, which government-dependent people count on.

    Those of us who do not depend on Obama or the government’s help in getting out of bed and putting on our shoes aren’t as pleased with these “reforms” you speak of.

    So yes, Path, you liberals are going to “reform” a lot of things by making them worse and costing us more money, way to go!

  • JD

    Path – “all you ‘conservatives’ can go cry to grandma.”

    Welcome to the site Path… and, Yes, you are right. Conservatives are definitely doing a lot of crying to grandma.

    You will hear alot of crying on this site but don’t let they crying scare you away.

  • JD,

    By “crying” do you mean arguing points which you’re unable to coherently rebut? Sure seems like it.

  • JD

    Yes, Nate, Yes.

  • Path, you prove your ignorance with no facts. Typical Liberal, not shocking. I’m pleased to hear that your excited about paying high taxes and waving your red flag. Good times ahead.

    JD, I’m glade you have a new little liberal friend to hang with. Now the two of you can gang up on me and dish about what that awful Conservative Gal said. Bring it on libs.

  • Bill Hedges

    Clinton fought balanced budget. Was only when Republicans took control and 3 or 4 purposed over-budgets failed, did Clinton finally accept balance budget. Newt won his balanced budget. Yes, Newt is a BAD Man.

    Limbaugh is a party leader ? Nooo. He just kicks the butts of Democrat news commentators. Never ran for office.

    I don’t cry to my Grand Ma. My house is paid for, have several sources of income, debt free, and savings. Hope you do. You’ll need money.

    I don’t think Rush and O’Reilly will go Democrat. They would have small amout of viewers like other Democrats commentators. O’reilly been # 1 for over 100 months.

    You think your total direct and indirect taxes will be low if you make less than $250,000 ? Your nuts. After 100 day in office estimate debt now is $10 trillion. More than ALL PRESIDENTS. Does not count health care, social security, etc problems. Adding illegals to these problems you think will
    help ? Good luck. Obama has not addressed the cause of our economic disaster,sub-prime. Or Dodds or Frank.

    You are totally going to enjoy the accumulative increase of products and services due to GREEN TAX

    Oh yes. You won. He is living up to his campaign promises. Oh yes. I am happy for you. Enjoy

    You will love Cap and trade. Am sure you have studied it

    Reagan Recession was as bad as now. He gave us longest Bull Market. Though tax cuts. Which stimulate private growth and employment. Obama’s debt won’t. Will give us a long future of mysery.

    Path if you lose your job, you can go to work for Obama’s Aunt.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I am no fan of the Republican Party after it tried to gloss over McCain’s record, but the other big party has many times more money and doesn’t even pretend to care about values!! The official values of the “Democratic” Party (which is not democratic when it uses mass manipulation and intimidation) are “tolerance”, being “green”, losing your principles for the sake of expediency, and making everyone into a victim of oppression. It’s Hegel’s idea of an endless revolution, which Karl Marx and much of America have adopted. Isn’t it time to just say “Stop the madness” and turn back the tide? It can be done!

  • Bill Hedges

    JD

    Maybe you can point out what you call “crying”

  • Path

    Nate, Should we just completely due away with the government? Thats what it sounds like your saying. Or whats the appropriate size of government? See the government is supposed to keep the private sector in line because it is not perfect. Churchill once said Democracy is the worst form of government besides all the rest. The same is true with capitalism. Thats why we as a country put limits on it. They are profit driven and don’t care about the rest of us. And thats fine i get that We just need a referee on our side to protect us. We also need things the private sector cannot provide. Should we just let the private sector provide our military strength. hell no! What about roads? police, firemen? These things the government provides us costs money so they have this thing called taxes. We used to have them as high as 90% in the highest bracket. Over the last 60 years they have steadily gone down to 33%. Were we a socialist country during the 50s? I don’t think so, and we won’t be at 39% either. This country cannot survive on coal and gas the rest of its life. We need to make changes and the government has to lead because the private sector won’t due because of the risk. Sure it will cost a lot up front but over time it will pay for itself. What doesn’t? Should I not go to college because I can’t pay for it out of pocket? No, I get loans, that every smart investor does.
    And Bill, I do plan to get a government job soon. I’m signing up for the Army just like my dad and his dad.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    Bwfore I start taking on each and every one of you points, tell the the meaning on..

    ” Churchill once said Democracy is the worst form of government besides all the rest”

    I’m not aure you understand by your following sentances

    “The same is true with capitalism. Thats why we as a country put limits on it. They are profit driven and don’t care about the rest of us”

  • Path

    Even the best things in life are far from perfect and we have to work hard to make them better. Unbridaled capatalism does not work. Thats why need government.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    Working for Obama’s Aunt is not a government job

    Is your 601pm eplaination of Churchill’s quote ?

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    I hope it is not. No where close

  • Path

    Its not an explaination the churchill quote more to do with how it was similar to how capitalism works. It’s not the best but we do use it and its better than complete centeralized control. I’m arguing that we need a little of both

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    I hope it is not. No where close

    “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

    Churchill

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    Your partial quote destroyed your ideas

  • Path

    Answer my other questions then

  • Bill Hedges

    Pthe quoted Churchill

    Churchill once said Democracy is the worst form of government besides all the rest

    Acutal quote

    “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

    Churchill

    Should not try to change quote to make your ponts. Exact quote is best way

    Seems dishonest what you did . Especially when reading within context used

  • bones

    Bill, I don’t see how partial quotations destroy ideas. They can misportray them.

    Anyway it seems to me that no one here disputes that our country needs a certain amount of government services and regulation, and I haven’t heard anyone say that we don’t need capitalism.

    The dispute is and continues to be over just what roles our government can take to our country’s benefit. Both this president and our last happily expanded our government in a big way. They just had very different ideas on where to apply that expansion.

    Maybe one day we’ll see a president who believes in small government again, I’m waiting.

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    He used misquote to make his point. There are rules concerning that.

    Answering his statement will be as easy as discovering true quote

    I knew he quoted wrong because it made no sense. Church made sense.

  • Path

    Ok, i’ll make my own quote then by ME “Capitalism is the worst form of economics, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”I know churchill probably wouldn’t agree with me, I was just using a familiar outline. Now, can you answer my questions or not? How much can the government regulate before it reaches socialism? At what level of taxation? What services would you cut? Do you really think we need to spend more on military than every other nation on the world put together?

  • Bill Hedges

    bones and Path

    I will respond to Path statement after I eat. Except tainted material associated with quote. That will be treated with disdane
    ………………………………………………
    DEMOCRACY: Democracy and Churchill

    “Kurt Gaubatz recalls Churchill’s famous dictum: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)”

    RH:
    “The timing of this famous remark is significant. Churchill won the war, but in the election of July 1945, he was defeated. At the time I thought the public showed gross ingratitude, but I am willing to accept the interpretation that Churchill was not the man to organize the peace.”

    “When the news came out, Churchill was taking a bath (was there ever a statesman who spent more time in the bath?) He remarked “They have a perfect right to kick me out. That is democracy”. When he was offered the Order of the Garter, he asked “Why should I accept the Order of the Garter, when the British people have just given me the Order of the Boot?”.

    “He returned to power in 1951. The remark about democracy was made when he had lost power and had every reason to be bitter. Fortunately he kept his sense of humor even in the most trying circumstances.”

    Ronald Hilton – 09.05.03

    Source will follow in next comment so this can be seen now

  • Bill Hedges
  • Path

    Bill I don’t care what you have to say about the context of that quote. I already understand post WWII history. I was simply providing a familiar outline. Nothing is ever perfect and can always be imoroved. I’m sure he would agree with me on that. I have to get to work anyways i’ll be back in a few hours.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    Rules against this to

    “Ok, i’ll make my own quote then by ME “Capitalism is the worst form of economics, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”
    …..
    What is plagiarism?

    “You may have heard so many different definitions of plagiarism that you feel confused about exactly what it is. Despite all this variation, you can avoid the serious charge of committing plagiarism by adopting a conservative definition of the term and following the guidelines below. The UNC Honor Court defines plagiarism as “the deliberate or reckless representation of another’s words, thoughts, or ideas as one’s own without attribution in connection with submission of academic work, whether graded or otherwise”
    …..
    Source will follow in next comment so this can be seen now

  • Bill Hedges
  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    You have displayed there is a lot you think you know, but don’t.

    If you are at work, why are you here ? I won’t debate with someone at work, when I know.

    If interested I will give you links. I doubt you would read

  • Bill Hedges

    Path said

    ” Do you really think we need to spend more on military than every other nation on the world put together?”

    WRONG. wRONG. wRONG.

    Path, do you really want me to fact check You ? Do you bones ?
    …..

    World Wide Military Expenditures
    Country Military expenditures – dollar figure Budget Period
    World $1100 billion 2004 est. [see Note 4]
    Rest-of-World [all but USA] $500 billion 2004 est. [see Note 4]
    United States $623 billion FY08 budget [see Note 6]
    China $65.0 billion 2004 [see Note 1]
    Russia $50.0 billion [see Note 5]
    France $45.0 billion 2005
    United Kingdom $42.8 billion 2005 est.
    Japan $41.75 billion 2007
    Germany $35.1 billion 2003
    Italy $28.2 billion 2003
    South Korea $21.1 billion 2003 est.
    India $19.0 billion 2005 est.
    Saudi Arabia $18.0 billion 2005 est.
    Australia $16.9 billion 2006
    Turkey $12.2 billion 2003
    Brazil $9.9 billion 2005 est.
    Spain $9.9 billion 2003
    Canada $9.8 billion 2003
    Israel $9.4 billion FY06 [see Note 7]
    Netherlands $9.4 billion 2004
    Taiwan $7.9 billion 2005 est.
    Mexico $6.1 billion 2005 est.
    Greece $5.9 billion 2004
    Singapore $5.6 billion 2005
    Sweden $5.5 billion 2005 est.
    North Korea $5.0 billion FY02
    Iran $4.3 billion 2003 est.
    Pakistan $4.3 billion 2005 est.
    Belgium $4.0 billion 2003
    Norway $4.0 billion 2003
    Chile $3.9 billion 2005 est.
    Colombia $3.5 billion 2005
    Poland $3.5 billion 2002
    Portugal $3.5 billion 2003
    South Africa $3.5 billion 2005 est.
    Denmark $3.3 billion 2003
    Vietnam $3.2 billion 2005
    Algeria $3.0 billion 2005 est.
    Kuwait $3.0 billion 2005 est. [see Note 2]
    United Arab Emirates $2.7 billion 2005
    Egypt $2.5 billion 2005
    Malaysia $2.5 billion 2005
    Switzerland $2.5 billion 2005 est.
    Morocco $2.3 billion 2005 est.
    Czech Republic $2.2 billion 2004
    Qatar $2.2 billion 2005
    Thailand $2.0 billion 2005
    Angola $2.0 billion 2005 est.
    Finland $1.8 billion FY98/99
    Argentina $1.8 billion 2005
    Venezuela $1.6 billion 2005 est.
    Austria $1.5 billion FY01/02
    Romania $1.5 billion 2005
    Jordan $1.4 billion 2005 est.
    Indonesia $1.3 billion 2004
    Iraq $1.3 billion 2005 est.
    Hungary $1.1 billion 2002 est.
    New Zealand $1.1 billion 2005 est.
    Bangladesh $1.0 billion 2005 est.
    Yemen $992 million 2005 est.
    Syria $858 million N/A [see Note 3]
    Philippines $837 million 2005 est.
    Peru $829 million 2005 est.
    Nigeria $738 million 2005 est.
    Ireland $700 million FY00/01
    Cuba $694 million 2005 est.
    Serbia and Montenegro $654 million 2002
    Ecuador $650 million 2005 est.
    Bahrain $628 million 2005 est.
    Croatia $620 million 2004
    Ukraine $618 million FY02
    Sri Lanka $606 million 2003 est
    Libya $590 million 2005
    Sudan $587 million 2004
    Lebanon $541 million 2004
    Tunisia $440 million 2005
    Belarus $421 million 2006
    Slovakia $406 million 2002
    Uruguay $371 million 2005 est.
    Slovenia $370 million 2005 est.
    Bulgaria $356 million FY02
    Madagascar $329 million 2005 est.
    Botswana $326 million 2005 est.
    Azerbaijan $310 million 2005
    Ethiopia $296 million 2005 est.
    Brunei $291 million 2003 est.
    Kenya $281 million 2005 est.
    Cyprus $280 million 2005
    Gabon $254 million 2005 est.
    Oman $253 million 2005 est.
    Cote d’Ivoire $247 million 2005 est.
    Bosnia and Herzegovina $234 million FY02
    Luxembourg $232 million 2003
    Lithuania $231 million FY01
    Cameroon $230 million 2005 est.
    Kazakhstan $222 million FY02
    Eritrea $220 million 2005 est.
    Uganda $193 million 2005 est.
    New Caledonia $192 million FY96
    Dominican Republic $191 million 2005
    Turkmenistan $173 million 2005
    Guatemala $170 million 2005 est.
    El Salvador $162 million 2005 est.
    Estonia $155 million 2002 est.
    Equatorial Guinea $152 million 2005 est.
    Panama $150 million 2005 est.
    Namibia $150 million 2005 est.
    Armenia $136 million 2005
    Bolivia $130 million 2005 est.
    Macedonia, FYR $130 million 2005
    Zimbabwe $125 million 2005 est.
    Afghanistan $122 million 2005 est.
    Zambia $122 million 2005 est.
    Guinea $120 million 2005 est.
    Senegal $117 million 2005 est.
    Nepal $105 million 2005 est.
    Congo, Democratic Republic of the $104 million 2005 est.
    Benin $101 million 2005 est.
    Latvia $87 million FY01
    Congo, Republic of the $85 million 2005 est.
    Ghana $84 million 2005 est.
    Costa Rica $83 million 2005 est.
    Mozambique $78 million 2005 est.
    Burkina Faso $75 million 2005 est.
    Cambodia $74 million 2005
    Chad $69 million 2005 est.
    Liberia $67 million 2005 est.
    Trinidad and Tobago $67 million 2003
    Albania $57 million FY02
    Uzbekistan $55 million 2005
    Rwanda $54 million 2005 est.
    Honduras $53 million 2005 est.
    Paraguay $53 million 2003 est.
    Mali $50 million FY01
    Maldives $45 million 2005 est.
    Malta $45 million 2005 est.
    Niger $45 million 2005 est.
    Burundi $44 million 2005 est.
    Swaziland $42 million FY01
    Lesotho $41 million 2005 est.
    Burma $39 million FY97
    Fiji $36 million 2004
    Tajikistan $35 million FY01
    Bahamas, The $32 million 2005
    Nicaragua $32 million 2005 est.
    Jamaica $31 million 2003 est.
    Togo $30 million 2005 est.
    Djibouti $29 million 2005 est.
    Haiti $26 million 2003 est.
    Georgia $23 million FY00
    Mongolia $23 million FY02
    Somalia $22 million 2005 est.
    Tanzania $21 million 2005 est.
    Belize $19 million 2005 est.
    Kyrgyzstan $19 million FY01
    Mauritania $19 million 2005 est.
    Guyana $17 million 2005
    Papua New Guinea $17 million 2003
    Central African Republic $16 million 2005 est.
    Malawi $16 million 2005 est.
    Seychelles $15 million 2005 est.
    Sierra Leone $14 million 2005 est.
    Comoros $13 million 2005 est.
    Mauritius $12 million 2005 est.
    Laos $11 million 2005 est.
    Guinea-Bissau $9.5 million 2005 est.
    Moldova $8.7 million 2004
    Bhutan $8.3 million 2005 est.
    Suriname $7.5 million 2003 est.
    Cape Verde $7.2 million 2005 est.
    East Timor $4.4 million FY03
    Bermuda $4.0 million 2001
    Gambia, The $1.6 million 2005 est.
    San Marino $700,000 FY00/01
    Sao Tome and Principe $580,000 2005 est.
    Iceland 0
    Antigua and Barbuda $NA N/A
    Barbados $NA N/A
    Dominica $NA N/A
    Falkland Islands [Islas Malvinas] $NA N/A
    Faroe Islands $NA N/A
    French Guiana $NA N/A
    Gaza Strip $NA N/A
    Grenada $NA N/A
    Kiribati $NA N/A
    Marshall Islands $NA N/A
    Nauru $NA N/A
    Palau $NA N/A
    Saint Kitts and Nevis $NA N/A
    Saint Lucia $NA N/A
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines $NA N/A
    Samoa $NA N/A
    Solomon Islands $NA N/A
    Tonga $NA N/A
    Tuvalu $NA N/A
    Vanuatu $NA N/A
    West Bank $NA N/A
    Western Sahara $NA N/A

    Link will follow in next comment so this can been seen now

  • Bill Hedges
  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    Starting from begining

    ” ‘conservatives’ can go cry to grandma.”

    Provide Conservative quotes that shows “can go cry to gradma”

    Are you simple making fun of us. Should I make fun of you for your mistakes and ideas ? Is this conducive to good discussion ? Decide your fate with me now.

  • To respond to Path:

    “How much can the government regulate before it reaches socialism? At what level of taxation? What services would you cut? Do you really think we need to spend more on military than every other nation on the world put together?”

    When the rights of the individual are usurped in favor of the rights of the collective population, the government is moving toward socialism. When the government makes me pay my neighbor’s mortgage because my neighbor bought too much house, that is socialism.

    Government taxation becomes socialist in nature when you’re working 4 months out of the year to pay your tax bill. When you pay taxes on what goes in and what goes out, it is too oppressive. See, we have become used to a high level of social services so we seem to think that taxes aren’t that high. In reality, when the government takes $25 to $30 of every $100 you make, that is socialist in nature.

    Furthermore, we do not spend more than other nations as Bill pointed out.

    Path, do you realize we spend more now on education than any other point in history yet the results are going down hill.

    Also, Path, please address the question of why Obama canceled the Washington, DC voucher program when it was producing tremendously positive results? Parents had choices of where to send their children to school which made public schools compete.

    The services which need to be cut are the services which discourage people from making sacrifices and working hard. Government programs which cause people to put off getting another job because they have it too good on unemployment benefits. People don’t work as hard when they know the government is there to bail them out.

    Path, I salute you for your decision to join the military, there is no greater honor and thank you for your choice to selflessly sacrifice for your country. I am in awe of anyone who chooses that route, thank you for your future service.

    However, I’m wondering what you think about Obama’s decision to cut military spending? You do realize that defense spending also consists of military pay? Soldiers aren’t paid enough as it is, I believe we should end wasteful spending and increase military pay.

  • Path

    thats not plagiarism. I said I got it from churchill I just changed some words and said that was from me. i’ll concede on the military spending point, however there is still a lot of wasteful spending in the military. Look up military industrial complex.

    “When the rights of the individual are usurped in favor of the rights of the collective population”
    The individual does not have the right in infringe on the rights of others. Coal production and burning is a prime example.

    “taxes”
    So are you saying we’ve always been ‘socialist’. Cause the taxes have been a lot higher before. Like I said in the fifties the highest bracket was 90% and that was one of the most productive decades besides the 90s.
    We have become used to a high level of social services because for the most part they work. There is always room for change but it has kept us very stable politically over the last 70ish years.If we would have had 25% unemployment for too much longer without government intervention the people would simply revolt. And the outcome would not be good for anyone. China is slowly learning that lesson.

    “education”
    Throwing money at a problem is never a good solution. Education has many things going wrong that need a fix. Kids simply don’t care anymore and the parents are too busy working 2 jobs just to pay rent and put food on the table. Not all but i’d say a majority. We need better teachers, clear goals and other things i’m just not smart enough to come up with. What I’ve heard about the voucher program has sounded good and i disagree with obama for canceling it. “they have it too good on unemployment benefits.”
    Have you ever been on unemployment? Its not as nice as people make it sound. It provides just the basics to survive and its only for a limited time. Would you rather them be in the streets? If they can’t make money legally they will be forced to crime or go hungry. What has a higher cost to society?

    I know military is under the defense dept. Mr. Gates idea does not touch personal pay It just gets rid of wasteful projects leftover from the coldwar. We can spend a lot less and still be the best in the world.

    The go cry to grandma wasn’t pointed at anyone in particular. I probably shouldn’t of said it. But I just think its funny how republicans suddenly got concerned about wasteful spending and the size of government. Where have you been the last eight years? You had complete control for six years and what did you do? How much has this pointless war in iraq cost us? How many people have died?

  • Bill Hedges

    Nate
    “Path, please address the question of why Obama canceled the Washington, DC voucher program when it was producing tremendously positive results? Parents had choices of where to send their children to school which made public schools compete.”

    I don’t expect Path will answer this. I am sure you already know the answer, but let me give what I know.

    Teacher union gave a lot of money to Obama’s campaign. The Washington, DC voucher program cost less and provided higher education. All_ limited number_of vouchers were used. if no limits applied, regular schools could be in real economic trouble. Parents might want to flock to better schools. So Obama choice against better education for many minority children involved in this program.

    This capitalist style school system worked too good. It had to be shut down, just like our oil reserves. To follow Obama’s less than stellar agenda

    I may be wrong because I did not watch Obama at all doing campaign, but didn’t he campaign for vouchers because of great results like Washington D.C experienced ? Can we say he was for anything to get votes.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    Do you really want me to Iraq__Bush’s War…No

    It will turn out like your statement

    ” Do you really think we need to spend more on military than every other nation on the world put together?”

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    “The go cry to grandma wasn’t pointed at anyone in particular. I probably shouldn’t of said it”

    Probable not good enough. Want me to do such things.

  • Path

    I’m not obama. I don’t support everything he says or does. But how do you compare education with our oil? Our oil will not last forever and it is not the safest form of energy. We can do better. Have you ever been to a large Chinese city? Do you want air like that here?

    I am ready to defend that Iraq was pointless. Saddam was a bad guy but Bush was not protecting us. (http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html) He lied and tried to make a conection between Iraq and al qaeda when there was none. He even resorted to tourture when it wasn’t working out. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/ron-suskind-torture-emplo_n_190510.html) It led to the death of 4278 soldiers that did not need to die.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    I have no wish to belittle you. To debunk mistakes on this article would take me more hours than I wish to use. Might be my longest comment ever. I will answer Iraq. You can give me your two best statements for me to answer.

    The Dictator killed 100,000’s of his own people. With weapons of mass destruction. Bush was given bad intelligents of nuclear. United Nations approved as well as Congress. Each time funding was approved.

    Path says..”You had complete control for six years and what did you do? How much has this pointless war in Iraq cost us? How many people have died? ”

    Though out Americas history we have battled to help other Nations. Costing money and life. Thanks to our efforts a Nation has freedom it is grasp. That is a good thing. America can not do that in all Countries.

    Obama continues. ” pointless war in Iraq “. No.

    I did not bring up Dictator’s war on other Countries. And finical cost if he had control of oil in that region.

  • Path

    “The Dictator killed 100,000’s of his own people. With weapons of mass destruction. Bush was given bad intelligents of nuclear. United Nations approved as well as Congress. Each time funding was approved.”
    Weapons we gave him btw. We sure didn’t mind him being a ruthless dictator when he was selling oil and fighting iran. It wasn’t just nuclear he lied about, it was everything. Where are all those stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent? Bush ignored the evidence that told him otherwise. United Nations did NOT approve. France threated a veto. Thats why we had the ‘coalition of the willing’instead. Its also why Kofi Annan said “it (Iraq war) was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
    Bush had it in his head to invade iraq hours ater 9/11. He didn’t care about facts. He wanted revenge.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    You did mis-quote Churchill and drew wrong conclusion using his name. I guess question of your revised quote , as being
    plagiarism, might be better answered by Nate or Conservative Gal.

  • Path

    WTF? are you still dwelling on that quote?

    Should we invade every country that has a dictator? Why not also finish the job in Korea? (they really might have nukes)Or Sudan where they’ve already killed a half million people and displaced another few hundred thousand. We are not the police of the world. Hitler (Oh no i said it) was a different story and in no way is it comparable to today

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    My. My.

    path says this cause he did not read what I wrote_”Should we invade every country that has a dictator?”

    I said

    “”Though out Americas history we have battled to help other Nations. Costing money and life. Thanks to our efforts a Nation has freedom it is grasp. That is a good thing. America can not do that in all Countries.”

    Notice my last sentance

    ” America can not do that in all Countries.”

  • Path

    So how do you decide?

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    You have gone into every direction imaginable. Ones you see you are losing you drop. Heading into new direction. I don’t play that game.

  • Path

    Your doing the same thing. You haven’t been answering my questions.

    How do you form a decision to invade a country that will cost Trillions, kill thousands, and probably illegal?

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    I will answer this and go to bed

    “So how do you decide?”

    1. National Security
    2. Ability to win and time needed
    3. Cost in life and money
    4. Morality_ Is a judgement call

    Sure more should be added

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    You’re full of ….I am not going to spend 10 hours to answer all your directs in order to show what a …. you are making with your statements. Others will come in and discuss what you wrote.

    I told you to give me your 2 bests statement. Instead you add more.

    Good-nite.

  • Path

    1. National security.
    They lied about a conection between al qaeda and iraq. They lied about possible weapons he currently had and was planing on getting. Iraq was contained in Iraq.

    2.Ability to win and time needed. 3. Cost in life and money
    We can win anything. It just depends on if you want to spend the lives time and cost. Thats why I added 2 and 3 together. We are in the 6th year of this war, 4,278 soldiers dead and hundreds of thousands civilians killed and around a trillion spent. Bush was warned this would happen. Sunni and Shia do not get along in the region and iran has wanted in iraq since the early 80s. Thats why we armed Saddam in the first place. Remember? Thats also why we didn’t go all the way in the first gulf war. Dick Cheney explains it better than me so listen to him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

    4.Morality (Judgment call)

    Thats why we have laws because it is a judgment call. I doubt you read the downing street memo I linked above but here is the most important part:
    “Military action was now(July/02) seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
    This was 8 months before the war even started! They already knew the intelligence was wrong. They sold us a lie.

  • To quote Path:

    “I’m not obama. I don’t support everything he says or does.”

    Oh but you did say he’s going to reform “everything” and then you listed off several issues. I questioned you on them all and several you couldn’t defend and now say you don’t agree with everything Obama does.

    I’m just wondering then, so do you still think Obama is going to “reform” education or just throw money at it endlessly like Bush did?

    Path, the point is that when you think for yourself, it doesn’t sound like you support everything Obama says or does, it’s OK to admit that.

    You may disagree with the Iraq war, that’s a valid opinion as well. However, to make sweeping statements that Obama and liberals are going to “reform” everything for the better is a joke. We can look at what they’re doing and see that not everything is for the better, much of it is ideologically driven which means common sense and positive programs like the DC voucher program are trashed in favor of special interests like teachers unions.

    Also, on the topic of Iraq. You are stuck looking at memos from 2002, and that’s fine. However, it doesn’t help us now nor does it provide actionable solutions to victoriously end this conflict. Though it does appear things are looking good in Iraq, all things considered.

    Path, even if you get a person to agree with your view on the Iraq war, can you tell me what your solution is now? Can you tell me how you withdraw troops without the entire country collapsing? Can you tell me how you prevent Iran from basically becoming the power in the region when Iraq collapses after we withdraw?

    Answer those questions with substance and you’ll contributing to the solution, not dwelling on memos from 6 years ago.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    1 Who lied in your first 2 senteance. If you say Bush_ supply proof. Iraq was not contained. Dictator had eyes on region_did attack others. Shall I throw in mass murder of his own citizens
    2. Dick Cheney did a wonderful job explaing
    3. Missing
    4. ” But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”___Proof

    ” They already knew the intelligence was wrong. They sold us a lie”__Proof

    I have disproven many of our satements in short time you have been here. Time you prove your staements are factual

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    What downing street memo ??

    “Thats why we have laws because it is a judgment call”

    _Well you mentioned other Counries we could have gone to war with to help the people. Bush choice Iraq. “Laws” were followed, but choice was Bush. Not laws. Had Congress not wanted war in Iraq, they would not have passed. They did not “cry out” another Countries name

    After picking he got Congressal approval as required by law. Each budhet was passed. Bush vetoed one bill because of 1/3 PORK, but was revised and passed

  • Dreadsen

    Path

    It’s always entertaining to see Bill frustrate people. He’s not here to actually debate. He’s only here to defeat with tactics of frustration. If you don’t cross a t or dot an i he won’t let you live it down. And if you ever find a flaw or make a direct refutation of a point he’ll do what ever he can to avoid it if he’s wrong by trying to fluster you with something petty.

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    “Maybe one day we’ll see a president who believes in small government again, I’m waiting.”

    It won’t be long. Clinton was reigned in by Republicans being voted into power in Congress. Newt stopped expansion of government, shored up Social Security, and forced balanced budgets down Clinton throat.

    You think a minimum of $130,000 debt per man, woman and child will not change face of Congress ?

  • Bill Hedges

    Dreadsen

    That is why your statements hold no subtanace. Just generalites. No points on issues. Just insults.

    You the Man

  • Bill Hedges

    Dreadsen

    I did point out Path mis-quoting Churchill. Is that not crossing the “t’s” you are talking about ? Give your comment some depth. Give examples

  • Bill Hedges

    Dreadsen

    You seem to drop by and write a comment then flee. You comments when you actual use to write substance had flaws which when pointed out has brought you to where you are today. A hit and run commenter.

    I would enjoy your return.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    “Even the best things in life are far from perfect and we have to work hard to make them better. Unbridaled capatalism does not work. Thats why need government.”

    I agree.

    Bush and McCain asked for more regulation (2005 ?). Frank said all was well with F/F. Bill got stopped. Rest is history.

  • JD

    Path,

    Let me sum up what most conservatives are confused about on this site.

    Under normal circumstances cutting off one’s arm does not make a lot of sense, however, when you are trapped on top of a mountain with your hand caught between two rocks… do you wait to starve to death or cut off your arm and get to safty?

    You see desperate times call for desperate measures.

    Strict conservatives would be be found on the side of the mountain frozen to death or starved but god bless them…they will still have their arm!!

  • Bill Hedges

    JD

    No examples from comments. But colorful fantasy world you live in.

  • Path

    Good Morning All!

    Bill,

    “who lied in your first 2 sentence.” That why I linked to the DOWNING STREET MEMO. Try reading it.http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html Its not hard to google it either. Bush wanted military action without concern that the intelligence and facts where wrong. Thats called lying. What he does within is own country is bad but does not effect our national security.

    2. Dick Cheney did a wonderful job explaing
    3. Missing

    Can you not read? I put 2 and 3 together for a reason. They are basically the same thing. If Cheney thought it was such a bad idea back then why did he change his mind?

    4. Proof?
    Again. Can you Read?? DOWNING STREET MEMO.DOWNING STREET MEMO.DOWNING STREET MEMO.DOWNING STREET MEMO.DOWNING STREET MEMO. British Intelligence knew it was lie.

    Laws” were followed”
    BS. You are right, the republican controlled congress did not stand up to bush. But that does not mean we can go to war whenever we please. We still have international laws to follow. Treaties we sign with the UN are still considered law within the US and we have to follow them. The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, even called the war Illegal. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-01.htm

    “Bush vetoed one bill because of 1/3 PORK, but was revised and passed”
    Not sure what you mean here. Bush didn’t start using his veto until 06′ when the dems finally gained a majority.

    It won’t be long. Clinton was reigned in by Republicans being voted into power in Congress.”
    Do you really believe anyone in power wants less power? Why didn’t the republicans do it when they had control of the 2 branches of government?

    “Bush and McCain asked for more regulation (2005 ?). Frank said all was well with F/F. Bill got stopped. Rest is history.”

    Again the Rebuplicans had a majority until 06′. It doesn’t matter what frank had to say. they had plenty of time to fix it and they chose not to.

    Nate,

    it doesn’t sound like you support everything Obama says or does”

    I try not to blindly follow leaders. It tends to get people hurt. aka iraq.I got started on my rant on reform because the dems now of a filibuster proof majority. Remember the original point of the story? the dems can do pretty much anything now. And they will probably hang themselves just like the rebuplicans did between 00′-06′. I think its funny.

    “You are stuck looking at memos from 2002” “doesn’t help us now nor does it provide actionable solutions to victoriously end this conflict.”

    Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. What the Bush administration did was illegal and needs to be punished. However, now that we are there and made this mess we can’t just pack up and leave. that would just cause greater troubles down the road. The surge was a good idea along with other plans General Petraeus enacted. Obama seems to be listening to Petraeus and giving him what needs. This is a good thing. But we still shouldn’t of been there in the first place.

  • Path:

    “Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.”

    Take your own advice on Obama’s policies and you’ll see where we’re going wrong with regard to government spending and socialism. If you truly want to study history, examine why tax increases kill economic growth and big government kills private industry. Examine how educational spending is at an all time high and government involvement has only lowered test scores, not improved them.

    Of course we need to understand the history of the current Iraq war so we do not make the same mistakes in the future, nobody is disputing that. The Downing Street Memo is disputed with regard to authenticity and regard to grammatical meaning between US and UK English. However, it sounds like you have taken it hook, line and sinker so I’ll not go further on this front.

    Either way, you sounded very gung-ho about Obama at the beginning of this thread. Now you’re not so defensive of him. Perhaps you need to do some more research on Obama’s failed socialist policies which are doomed repeats of history before you preach about Bush with regard to repeating history.

  • Path

    http://g.imagehost.org/view/0613/16bm5gw

    Increased spending during a recession or depression works. The key is then pay off the debt when things get better. We are not so good at that.

    If you don’t trust the British how about our own CIA director? George Tenet “I believed that somebody was misconstruing intelligence”

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    “Increased spending during a recession or depression works”

    Name the President or Presidents
    …..
    Without heath care and improving Social Security other new spending, you are looking at minimum of $130,000 for every man, woman and child. More debt than all Presidents combined

  • Path

    Look at the graph I provided. It shows what happened during the Great Depression and how we got out.

    We need to reform healthcare in this country. We can do better than what we have now. We are no longer the best. I don’t have an answer on how but looking at europe and canada would be a start. We used to have the longest life expectancy and lowest infant mortality that is not the case anymore. A system that puts profits over people does not work.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    Spending did not work. World War got us out

  • Path

    Look at the graph we were getting out before the war even started. What is war anyways? Spending! Which can raise GDP when aggregate demand falls. Have you ever taken an econ class?

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    “Have you ever taken an econ class?”

    Good-Nite

  • Path,

    Try researching the fraud known as “Keynesian economic theory” before you tout the dis-proven lies about FDR’s spending fixing the recession.

    See the following articles and be enlightened:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html
    http://townhall.com/Columnists/CarlHorowitz/2009/03/21/obama_raising_keynes
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9931

    I will post some more later on the subject because I think it’s important to put to bed the notion that government spending brought us out of a recession. In fact, World War II was the reason growth and industry picked up, FDR’s Keyesian policies made it worse.

    Unfortunately John Maynard Keynes got the credit for fixing the Great Depression despite the incompetence of his socialist policies. Thus, sadly we’re all being persecuted by Obama’s reliance on them because history has been re-written in this area.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Responding to Nate’s 5:46 PM (Apr 29) comment:

    What’s worst of all is that Keynes convinced many present-day economists that the government can go into extraordinary debt in hard financial times, as if more money is what is necessary. Fellows like George Soros must be laughing because there is surely not a lack of money! It just goes to a small few like Pelosi, Soros, and the Obamas! And our currency is going to collapse if this spending stream is not curtailed.

  • Path

    Nate,
    “World War II was the reason growth and industry picked up”

    Government spend money when they go to war. You just proved my point. GDP just recovers faster when the products stay in America and don’t get blown up overseas. Anyways, Did ANYONE look at the graph I posted? It clearly shows they most of the way out before WWII even started due to increased. Government spending.

    Bill,
    Don’t talk about subjects you don’t understand. This is basic stuff. If you have a recessionary gap governments cut taxes and increase spending than when it becomes a inflationary gap they need to increase taxes and cut spending to pay off debt incurred. Can you do math and read graphs? http://byrned.faculty.udmercy.edu/2004%20Volume,%20Issue%201/Newsletter%20Vol%202004%20Issue%201_files/image003.gif Its not that hard to understand

  • Path

    haha I just read something on another site. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/historian-michele-bachmann-blames-fdrs-hoot-smalley-tariffs-for-great-depression.php?1

    The always brilliant Michele Bachmann (R-MN)explains that FDR caused the drepresion because of something called the “Hoot-Smalley” tariffs that FDR enacted.People like her are the reason the Republicans are in the minority. They have no clue of history or economics they just want to blame dems for everything bad in this contry. Yesterday she wanted to blamed Carter and Obama for the Swine Flu.When it was Ford that was in office during the first one. If she wasn’t a congresswomen i would die from laughter

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    “Bill,
    Don’t talk about subjects you don’t understand”

    “Can you do math and read graphs? ”

    ““Have you ever taken an econ class?””

    …..
    “Path Apr 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
    Good Morning All!

    Bill,

    “who lied in your first 2 sentence.” That why I linked to the DOWNING STREET MEMO. Try reading it….//downingstreetmemo…. Its not hard to google it either”

    …I removed link in total so not to postpone clearance
    …..

    Before you wrote this, where did you mention “Downing street memo”. I’m sure you can.
    …..

    You the man.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    After reading your link, Downing street memo, Bush should be in jail or shown the liar he is. Article is so full of hard hitting proof.

    NOT

  • Path

    Apr 29th, 2009 at 1:04 am

    “[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

    So the fact that the intel was telling Bush, Iraq wasn’t supporting terrorist or had WMD you don’t see anything wrong with?

    Our own CIA directed was telling Bush the intel was bad but Bush came out publicly saying for sure Saddam had WMD and was activly looking for yellow cake.

    When you say something is happening but isn’t thats called lying. Didn’t your mother ever teach you that.

  • Bill Hedges

    path

    “Our own CIA directed was telling Bush the intel was bad but Bush came out publicly saying for sure Saddam had WMD and was activly looking for yellow cake”

    Show me CIA quote

  • Bill Hedges

    path

    “[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

    Show me government offical quote

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    Show me through government records that..”something is happening”

    “When you say something is happening but isn’t thats called lying. Didn’t your mother ever teach you that”

  • Bill Hedges

    path

    By the way, that is Amercan government offical..not U.K.

  • Path

    George Tenet
    “the intelligence then and now(showed) no evidence of Iraqi complicity” in the 9/11 attacks.”
    “There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,”
    ““Policymakers are entitled to their own opinions — but not to their own set of facts.””

    This is from a Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 Paul Pillar.
    “In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community’s own work was politicized.”

    This is what Bush was saying in 02
    “Facing CLEAR evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,”
    “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

    Those are quotes of Bush saying something is happening but we latter learn that they are false. The Bush administration started the ‘planning’ of this war only a few days after he took ofice.He didn’t care what the facts said.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

  • Bill Hedges

    You mean Bush lied like Obama has ? I will ask my Mommy

  • Path

    thank you for responding to my points

  • D.D.Mao

    Me thinks that our mercenaries of liberal policy are growing not because of any sudden enlightenment but due to shenanigans. If you look there are at least two members(?)who share the view that some socialism in government is not only acceptable but needed.They also are in the hogwash belief that FDR’s Keyesian policies were the reason the Great Depression ended and WWII was just another one of his alphabet (NRA,CCC,etc.)projects that helped end it.

    If you wish to express your ideas of utopian government consisting of omniscient and omnipotent power you don’t need to buttress your arguement with imaginary support.

  • Path

    Please explain o’ wise one. How exacly did we get out of the depression? Remember war spending is still government spending.

    I just want a better government that works. I have no utopian ideals i’m not naive.

    Have nate or someone check our IP adresses if you think i’m someone else. They’ll be from different places.

  • Bill Hedges

    “People who belittle others are only belittling themselves ”

    “The word “belittle” implies that something or someone is unimportant or little. It is used in order to disparage a person. To cast them in a negative light, with the intent of making them seem less impressive than the initial first appearance.”

    “When someone belittles another person it usually indicates a lack of confidence. For whatever reason, the belittler is intimidated by the person they are belittling. Keep in mind that belittling isn’t a full fledged cut-down. It is merely taking a person down a few pegs, often to the belittler’s assumed level.”

    “Low self esteem and lack of confidence plays a huge role in all of this.”

    http://www.helium.com/items/709216-people-who-belittle-others-are-only-belittling-themselves

  • D.D.Mao

    To whomever it may concern…..Yep FDR had it planned that way and started WWII just so he could make it another one of his programs.We went through this song and dance at least once before and as long as you think of a WORLD WAR as a SPENDING PROJECT to stimulate the economy we won’t make any progress………….No matter how many names you write under!

  • Bill Hedges

    Bush planned two Wars that keep us out of recession.

    Thanks Bush

  • Path

    When did I or anyone claim FDR went into WWII just to spend money?
    The multiplier effect goes further into the economy if whats built here stays here and doesn’t get blown up, not to even mention the economic cost of losing workers. It seems though conservatives arethe ones who want to say WWII got us out of the depression. Please people take an econ class or atlest open a econ 101 book.

    So i’ll ask it again, How exacly did we get out of the depression?

  • D.D.Mao

    To whomever……..You stated that “…….war spending is government spending” therefore according to your logic WWII was just another FDR stimulus package.And WWII DID GET US OUT OF THE DEPRESSION but it was through national defense necessity not some FDR alphabet program to stimulate the economy.Please read Amy Shales “The Forgotton Man” to get a more rounded education than just your liberal Keyesian brainwashing you aquired recently through the public school system.

    You mentioned above you plan to go into the military soon. As a veteran I commend you for this and wish you all the luck.However in your post of 29th April @ 12:10 AM you state “we can spend a lot less on the military”.For your sake I hope you change that delusionary belief when you have boots on the ground.You will learn to appreciate every flack jacket and every support system you can get your hands on.

    You and I tried to sort out the LIMITED ROLE OF GOVERNMENT as stated in the Constitution once before to no avail.In this arguement you insist on lumping a defined role of government with an undefined role and can’t see the difference.

  • Path

    Yes WWII did work like another stimulus package but thats not why we had it. It wasn’t even a very good one because most of the product went over seas to get blown up. Look at the graph I post earlier about us getting out of the depression way before WWII even started.

    When I say cut defence i’m not talking about taking away flack jackets or any other nessesity. We spend 627 billion a year. I think we can trim it down and still have an even better military.

  • D.D.Mao

    Path………You are under the same cloud as most of the liberal left about the NEW DEAL.Unemployment was at 25% in 1932 and SIX YEARS LATER in 1938 it was still at 20%.The little trick used by liberal historians is they count people on GOVERNMENT WORK RELIEF AS EMPLOYED.Where do you think they got the money to support these people but from what the government gave in one hand they had to take with the other in increased taxes.RELIEF ISN’T WORKING! It was ONLY BECAUSE OF WWII THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT WENT DOWN TO 4.7%

    You can find an article on these MYTHS in the WALL STREET JOURNAL (you must have heard of them)which also bust the bubble on your beloved Smoot-Hawley Act and the effect it had on American agriculture.You can find it at:

    http://www.online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html

    Nate already posted some excellent links busting your bubble on your Keyesian ideas 29th of April @5:46 PM

    In regard to military spending…..When the lion lays down with the lamb I want to make damn sure WE ARE THE LION.Any thought otherwise is naive.

  • Path

    Unemployment is always the last indicator to move the economy is geting better. But FDR took office in 1933 and every year except 1937 when he cut spending unemployment dropped. Government’s are the only entity with the wherewithal to prop up a demand in the economy when businesses and consumers are all pulling back.
    http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/Unemployment_300g15.gif

    Your wsj link isn’t working but Smoot-Hawley was a Republican idea. Hoover signed it and FDR campaigned against. So i’m not really sure what your talking about. Quit trying to steal plays from Michele Bachmann.

  • D.D.Mao

    To Whomever………..Well if you aren’t basing progress on the unemployment figure you sure can’t be basing it on the GDP during the depression.Just what are you basing it on besides liberal history? It would help if you knew history also. FDR didn’t cut spending in 1937 but the Supreme Court RULED THAT A NUMBER OF HIS ALPHABET ORGANIZATIONS WERE UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.He therefore had to stop them.You are right Smoot-Hawley was a Republican policy and President Hoover started the governments involvement to recover the economy.BUT with that said FDR NOT ONLY CONTINUED GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT AND PROLONGED THE DEPRESSION BUT EXPANDED IT.

    As far as your theoy that government is the only entity that can prop up the economy ……well that goes back to your Keyesian daydream which Nate gave plenty of links to disprove.

  • Path

    Who said I wasn’t basing progress on unemployment? If you look at that graph unemployment fell. GDP also rose every year FDR was in office except for 1937. GDP just rises faster than unemployment falls. Its called a lagging indicator for a reason.

  • D.D.Mao

    In your 1:41 PM post you said “Unemployment is always the last indicator to move the economy is getting better” I took this to mean you weren’t using the unemployment figures.Yes unemployment did fall from 25% in 1932 when FDR took office to 20% SIX YEARS LATER.Not a hell of a lot for six years especially considering unemployment figures are based or should I say doctored on government relief work force.

    Listen we can go back and forth on this….we already have TWICE NOW! LETS JUST SAY WE AGREE WE DISAGREE.

  • Path

    FDR’s plan was a better than the Republican alternative. They wanted isolationism and that made it worse. unfortunately FDR wasn’t able to get that reversed or didn’t want to i don’t know off the top of my head. I do know he campaigned against it. No man or plan is perfect.

  • D.D.Mao

    Path………The republicans wanted isolationism”.

    Are you talking about foreign policy now? What does this have to do with the Depression?

  • Path

    No I was talking about the late 1920’s and 30s. Reupublicans had been at the time raising tariffs since the end of the civil war Thats why they passed Smoot-Hawley. It made the depression worse. Then in 1934 with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, the United States has generally sought trade liberalization through bilateral or multilateral tariff reductions.

    Any other history lessons?

  • D.D.Mao

    Path…….First off the term “Isolationism” has to do with Americas foreign policy prior to entering either WWI or WWII.Especially regarding the “America First” party.

    As to your beloved FDR prolonging the Great Depression please see:

    http://www.online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

    http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258

  • Path

    Isolationist also means anti-free-trade. That hurts everybody.

    The wsj link didn’t work. The second one said going off the gold standard was a bad thing. There’s no way I can take the rest of it seriously

  • D.D.Mao

    Path……. According to my American Heritage dictionary isolationism is:

    “A national policy of remaining aloof from POLITICAL ENTANGLEMENT with other countries.”…….Thats all it says!

    NOTE: IT SAID NOTHING ABOUT TRADE NOR ECONOMY!

    As usual when the left has no response and can’t accept honest links (IE: Wall Street Journal and Ludwig von Mises Institute)they say “I can’t take it serious”.Try googling the Roosevelt Recession of 1937 and don’t blame it on President Hoover FDR was President for 5 years at that time.

    CLASS DISMISSED !!!

  • Path

    Your wsj link didn’t work. Using gold as money is as stupid as using beads.

    political entanglements can include trading with other countries.Or we can call it Economic Isolationism if you want. Republicans used to like raising tariffs so american business could have an advatage. It does not work. Its been proven again and again. For some reason there is a fringe of the democrate party now that wants new tariffs and I couldn’t disagree with them more. Obama is not part of that group.

    The 37′ recission happened because FDR cut spending and rose taxes trying to balance the budget. I already explained that