More Indications of Bush Deception

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

However, I have a problem agreeing that it was only the Democratic Party that brought us the Act, When it was the Democratic Party leaders of the Alabama legislature, Governor, and Mayor of Birmingham, Selma and Montgomery that set fire hoses and Police dogs onto Black Children for trying to go to school, under a Federal order issued by a Republican administration of Eisenhower...

This is one of the difficulties with discussing political parties and largely with party politics in general.

First I would like to point out that the radical Democrats of the south during this period were not representative of the views of Democrats as a whole and, I believe that you actually know that.

Could you elaborate on the power structure of Congress during the Eisenhower administration?

IMHO likening Eisenhower to the Republican administrations since him is as error prone as likening all Democrats to the radical southern Democrats.

Perhaps that is the point you are trying to make...that blanket categorization of party politics is unfair and inaccurate. However, if that's the case, I would submit that if we still had the history of this forum available for searching we would see such statements as "Democrats believe" or "liberals believe" or using the two phrases as if interchangeable. Your own argument presents Democrats within our lifetime that were far from liberal.

I will commend the current participants of this forum for picking up the level of discussion a notch, but I believe there's a lot of room for improvement.

[bush]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

Perhaps that is the point you are trying to make...that blanket categorization of party politics is unfair and inaccurate.

I've said this numerous times in the politics board but peopel don't seem to pick up on it.

[bush]

In an effort to steer this thread back on track...

I've reached the point where I've come to terms with the fact that the Bush administration is actively engaged in deception of the public. I'm not trying to thoroughly explain my viewpoints, but some interesting tidbits:

A few years ago I stumbled across a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses, which outlined a plan to keep the US in a position of global control. I like the part where it mentions winning "multiple, simultaneous theater wars":
http://www.informationclearinghouse....asDefenses.pdf

Then there was The Downing Street Memo ( http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html - I remember finding an actual photocopied jpeg of the memos, but this will have to do on short notice). This has been called a conspiracy theory by a number of Republican-aligned politicians and Americans, but the memo is just too much to ignore, at least in my opinion. It goes in line with everything that's come to light in the years since the start of the war. Trying to pin WMD on Saddam, the timetable of invasion - both seem too close to what actually happened to not believe that it's a legit document.

Dozens, if not hundreds, of Halliburton/KBR no-contest contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, and the inevitable push to give them ANWR. Any bets on whether or not they'll get it?

Domestic wiretapping. Do we really need to go here? The FISA court allows 72 hours notice AFTER an unauthorized wiretap to get authorization without penalty. There's hearings underway to find out whether or not it was illegally authorized by Bush, but that won't change the public opinion that it's wrongful. Just because you can get around a crime by way of technicality doesn't mean it's right, especially if the public, the people that keep this country on top, don't want to be spied on. Here's an interesting snippet:

Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well.

( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020401373.html )

Faith-based initiatives. I'm not going into depth, because it will lead to 4 pages of offtopic namecalling and pointless debate, but let's just say I don't want a Christian telling me how to run my life. Or a Jew. Or a Bhuddist, Taoist, Wiccan, hell anybody.

Harriet Miers seemed like a spur-of-the-moment "Hey, screw the American people, I'll put a cronie on the Supreme Court if I want to" decision. It obviously didn't work out, but it rubbed be the wrong way anyway. There were plenty of qualified people for the job, and he tried to push for somebody on the inside.

Diebold.

I'm tired of this thread. It's reminding me just how much I DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT.

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

This is one of the difficulties with discussing political parties and largely with party politics in general.

First I would like to point out that the radical Democrats of the south during this period were not representative of the views of Democrats as a whole and, I believe that you actually know that.

Could you elaborate on the power structure of Congress during the Eisenhower administration?

IMHO likening Eisenhower to the Republican administrations since him is as error prone as likening all Democrats to the radical southern Democrats.

Perhaps that is the point you are trying to make...that blanket categorization of party politics is unfair and inaccurate. However, if that's the case, I would submit that if we still had the history of this forum available for searching we would see such statements as "Democrats believe" or "liberals believe" or using the two phrases as if interchangeable. Your own argument presents Democrats within our lifetime that were far from liberal.

I will commend the current participants of this forum for picking up the level of discussion a notch, but I believe there's a lot of room for improvement.

I am not sure exactly what you are looking for in the power structure in Congress but the following were the numbers for the 85th Congress...

Total Membership: 435 Representatives, 2 Delegates, 1 Resident Commissioner

Party Divisions: 234 Democrats, 201 Republicans

And the following were the officers and leaders of the House for the 85th congress

I am not very smart...you need to ask more specific questions for me to answer

Speaker of the House:
Sam Rayburn (D-Texas)
Majority Leader:
John W. McCormack (D-Massachusetts)

Minority Leader:
Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (R-Massachusetts)

Democratic Whip:
Carl Albert(D-Oklahoma)

Republican Whip:
Leslie C. Arends (R-Illinois)

Democratic Caucus Chairman:
Melvin Price (D-Illinois)

Republican Conference Chairman:
Charles Hoeven (R-Iowa)

Clerk of the House:
Ralph R. Roberts

Doorkeeper:
William M. Miller Elected January 3, 1957

Postmaster:
H. H. Morris

Sergeant at Arms:
Zeake W. Johnson, Jr. Elected January 3, 1957

Chaplain of the House:
Rev. Bernard Braskamp - Presbyterian

[jim schmidt]

I take it you fold. Good choice.

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

I take it you fold. Good choice.

WTF??? is this?? at least I answer the questions asked and I don't run away after spewing some general BS and then avoid the tough questions...

[DCMETRO1]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

WTF??? is this?? at least I answer the questions asked and I don't run away after spewing some general BS and then avoid the tough questions...

no you answer nothing, and all your stuff is bullshit doesnt matter what facts you give supporting it, and white is black and zero is not zero but one, also dont forget 1 +2 = 4 according to jimschimdts rules that is,

[chesus]

How about we debate the article at hand instead of the typical democrats vs. republicans.

This is just another piece of information showing us that the Bush administration is full of lies. Say one thing, do another.

[bush]

When it gets to the point where 50% (if not more) of the population genuinely believes that the current administration is deceiving us, you really can't blame it on "crazy liberals" or anything of the sort. Doesn't matter what political party you're in, if 100 million Americans don't feel the president is doing a good job, he probably isn't.

[Keith_J]

No, 10% of the population believes the Bush Administration is deceiving the population and they convince 25% of the population to believe the same thing based on limited evidence.

Very few people (and NONE of the media) know 100% of what is going on. There are many things that we as citizens do not need to know for our own good. But the media presents the case that they know everything which is patently wrong.

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by Keith_J

No, 10% of the population believes the Bush Administration is deceiving the population and they convince 25% of the population to believe the same thing based on limited evidence.

Very few people (and NONE of the media) know 100% of what is going on. There are many things that we as citizens do not need to know for our own good. But the media presents the case that they know everything which is patently wrong.

I can't believe you are proposing this as an alternate explanation. Do you really believe it?

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by Keith_J

There are many things that we as citizens do not need to know for our own good.

I couldn't disagree with this more! "Our own good" is to understand the role of government, understand the limitations on government power, and to be diligent in insuring that we the people are being represented, and that liberty and justice are being preserved.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.

[bush]

Originally Posted by Keith_J

No, 10% of the population believes the Bush Administration is deceiving the population and they convince 25% of the population to believe the same thing based on limited evidence.

Very few people (and NONE of the media) know 100% of what is going on. There are many things that we as citizens do not need to know for our own good. But the media presents the case that they know everything which is patently wrong.

My mistake, I shouldn't have used the term deceive there. However, a good number of people from BOTH sides of the political radar seem to think there's plenty of dishonesty in the current administration. I won't rattle off figures pertaining to that because I really don't know.

However, my part about him not satisfying the public when it comes to being Mr. President is true.

GW Bush's current approval ratings:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

You can cleary see that most of the numbers are between 35-45% approval. This is certainly not examplary, and is far from satisfactory. We don't know how many of those people consider the administration to be actively lying to us, but I think it's a good number of the 55-65%.

Again, no figures because we really don't know. Perhaps somebody else would like to look into that, since I've been posting in the Politics board far too often for my own good.