Yet one more time that Cicero runs away from his own words.
I don't blame him. His fingers do the typin before his brain does the thinkin.
Run away from MY words? You made "my words" up. I never said the Republicans were "exempt" from prosecuting war crimes. I said I know they WON'T(said for the 3rd time). That is why I don't VOTE for either criminal party.
I have no delusions that the Republicans ever would prosecute. Just like I have no delusions that the Democrats would ever do it, since I am well aware they are war mongers just like the Republicans. You on the other hand, you believe the Democrats are something opposite and righteous and just. The Democrats always fighting for "social justice". Well, I don't know what is anymore socially just than getting justice for 4400 dead soldiers sent into an illegal war.
See, I know the Democrats are bullshit artist that can continue to lead people like you around by your nose, getting you to do their bidding. I understand it is hard to give up on everything you believe in. Flag wavers like you never do give up. You still have to sleep at night.
Here box...Take a look at the information below. The man's name is Ron Paul. He entered evidence of Bush war crimes to the Congressional Record. The source is from Veterans Today website, I would hope you consider that a reliable source.
Quoted Text
“The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started? It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack. A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq’s August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait. Amazingly, the released cable was entitled, “Saddam’s Message of Friendship to President Bush.” (published below) In it, Ambassador Glaspie affirmed to Saddam that “the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq.” As Saddam Hussein outlined Iraq’s ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie was quite clear that, “we took no position on these Arab affairs.” There would have been no reason for Saddam Hussein not to take this assurance at face value. The U.S. was quite supportive of his invasion and war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s. With this approval from the U.S. Government, it wasn’t surprising that the invasion occurred. The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified.
Barack Obama Promised A New Kind Of Politics, But Played The Same Old Game Posted: 09/02/2012 12:27 am Updated: 09/02/2012 12:57 am
In the days following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson was left to pursue his predecessor’s unfinished legislative agenda. White House insiders considered the task nearly impossible. The civil rights bill was bottled up in the House Rules Committee, where its chairman was intent on running out the clock
until the election the next year. A critical tax cut, meanwhile, was bogged down in the Senate, where the Finance Committee chairman was holding it hostage.
Johnson surveyed the legislative landscape and knew he had to shake things up.
Rather than negotiate with Congress, Johnson turned the goodwill of the nation into a force with which to bludgeon the GOP and expand what was politically possible. He took his case to the American people, reminding them that the GOP was the “Party of Lincoln,” and flooded Washington with religious leaders who lobbied Congress.
The result was a tax cut that is largely credited with ushering in an era of high growth and, of course, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Had Johnson stuck to inside baseball, he would have struck out twice.
Barack Obama could have learned something from LBJ. As a candidate Obama promised to change the way Washington works and he rode a wave of global support into the White House. His first two years in office have repeatedly been compared to the New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Society under Johnson, with historic achievements on health care, Wall Street reform and other domestic priorities.
But Obama’s first term has also left many of his supporters wondering whether those accomplishments could have been bigger in size, scope and impact. The health care reform legislation was built largely off a conservative model, with millions of people shuttled into the private market. The financial regulatory reform bill contained carve-outs for the private sector and is widely regarded as not far-reaching enough to curb some of the banking industry’s worst practices. The White House made little effort to push labor priorities like the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have granted workers more avenues to form unions. The Iraq war may have ended, but the war in Afghanistan heated up, with lingering confusion as to why troops remain there.
Now, just a few months before the election, Obama is suffering from an engagement gap. According to a late July Gallup poll, only 39 percent of Democrats said they were “more enthusiastic” than usual about voting. That number was 61 percent at a similar time in 2008. Republicans, meanwhile, are more fired up now (51 percent) than they were in 2008 (35 percent).
Obama is no longer regarded by the majority of voters as a constructive reformer. An August 21 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 37 percent of the respondents thought he would bring the “right kind of change” in his second term.
Although Democrats tend to like the president more than Republicans like Mitt Romney, his re-election is far from assured. How did a candidate who drew two million individuals to his inauguration and retained a 13 million-member email list lose that magic?
According to campaign officials, White House aides, members of Congress, top party strategists, labor leaders and progressive advocates, the main reason is that Obama has come to resemble the creature of Washington he campaigned against.............................>>>>....................>>>>...................http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/barack-obama-politics_n_1847947.html
Bill Clinton on Obama: 'A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags' 5:51 PM, Sep 2, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Former President Bill Clinton tried to get former senator Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in the 2008 election by describing Barack Obama this way: "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags."
This anecdote is revealed in a New Yorker article on the relationship between Bill Clinton and Obama:
Tim Russert told me that, according to his sources, Bill Clinton, in an effort to secure an endorsement for Hillary from Ted Kennedy, said to Kennedy, “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”
Clinton is giving a keynote address at the Democratic convention this week in Charlotte, North Carolina
Obama hits Romney Obamacare slam, says 'I do care' By DAVID ESPO and BEN FELLER Associated Press Posted: 09/02/2012 01:33:29 AM PDT Updated: 09/02/2012 06:24:38 PM PDT
CHARLOTTE, N.C.—Campaigning his way toward the Democratic National Convention, President Barack Obama slapped a "Romney doesn't care" label on his rival's health-care views Sunday and said Republicans want to repeal new protections for millions without offering a plan of their own. Vice President Joe Biden swiftly broadened the attack, accusing Republicans of seeking to undermine the decades-old federal program millions of seniors rely on for health care. "We are for Medicare. They are for voucher care," he said. The president and vice president campaigned separately across three battleground states as delegates descended on the Democrats' convention city for two days of partying before their first official meeting Tuesday
An enormous sand sculpture made in Obama's likeness served as a reminder, as if any were needed, that the Democrats were in town. Some 800 demonstrators marched through the streets around the convention hall, protesting what they call corporate greed as well as U.S. drone strikes overseas, said to kill children as well as terrorists. Dozens of police officers walked along with the protesters' parade, carrying gas masks, wooden batons and plastic hand ties. One arrest was reported, for public intoxication........................>>>>........................>>>>..................http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_21455423/romney-obama-trade-jabs-dem-convention-looms
With landmark lawsuit, Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans Published: 1:26 AM 09/03/2012 By Neil Munro
Great Mortgage Rates30 Year Fixed As Low As 3.625% No Closing Cost-Great Local Service sunmarkfcu.org
MESA, Ariz. -- President Barack Obama waves to a crowd at Dobson High School on February 18, 2009 in Mesa, Arizona. Obama spoke about his $75 billion mortgage relief plan, part of a $787 billion stimulus package. (Photo by Michal Czerwonka/Getty Images)
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.
As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.
The startling failure rate among Obama’s private sector clients was discovered during The Daily Caller’s review of previously unpublished court information from the lawsuit that a young Obama helmed as the lead plaintiff’s attorney. [RELATED: Learn about the 186 class action plaintiffs]
Since the mortgage bubble burst, some of his former clients are calling for a policy reversal.
“If you see some people don’t make enough money to afford the mortgage, why would you give them a loan?” asked Obama client John Buchanan. “There should be some type of regulation against giving people loans they can’t afford.”
Banks “were too eager to lend to many who didn’t qualify,” said Don Byas, another client who saw banks lurch from caution to bubble-inflating recklessness. [RELATED: Obama's Citibank plaintiffs hit hard when housing bubble burst]
“I don’t care what race you are. … You need to keep financial wisdom [separate] from trying to help your people,” said Byas, an autoworker. Ads by Google
Nonetheless, Obama has pursued the same top-down mortgage lending policies in the White House.
Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans. [RELATED: Obama's African-American clients got coupons, not cash]
Progressive activists’ ambition instead contributed greatly to a housing bubble that burst in 2007, crashed the nation’s economy in 2008, wiped out at least $4 trillion in equity, kept unemployment above 8 percent for four years, and damaged the intended beneficiaries of looser mortgage lending standards.
In the White House, Obama has continued to intensify regulatory pressure on banks to provide more risky loans to African-Americans and Latinos. He has used lawsuits to fund his allies. And taxpayers are now unwittingly contributing to a re-inflation of housing prices.
Meanwhile, the president has blamed the housing bubble on supposed GOP deregulation, even though President George W. Bush expanded the regulation-expanding, anti-redlining policies established by progressives during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
“Governor Romney’s plan would… roll back regulations on big banks,” Obama says of his Republican challenger Mitt Romney in a 2012 TV ad titled “The Choice.”
“But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It’s what caused the mess in the first place.”
According to campaign officials, White House aides, members of Congress, top party strategists, labor leaders and progressive advocates, the main reason is that Obama has come to resemble the creature of Washington he campaigned against
And this surprises WHO?????
AGAIN....................just a different side of the same corrupt government coin!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
"Your party says you inherited a bad situation," says the KKTV reporter. "You’ve had three and a half years to fix it. What grade would you give yourself so far for doing that?"
This, by the way, is the latest iteration of what impact Obama’s stimulus actually had against the prediction without the stimulus:
Since the June 2009 recovery, we’ve added less than 66,000 jobs a month on average, about half of what’s needed just to keep up with population growth.
Is the economy getting better??? Lets ask Mittens. From an interview with Laura Ingraham in January:
Quoted Text
INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?
ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery.
INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?
ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Is the economy getting better??? Lets ask Mittens. From an interview with Laura Ingraham in January:
An interview in January? Try more current;y (Sunday) (ya know, the present)
Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who is considered a possible contender for president in 2016, bucked other Obama surrogates on Sunday, saying that the country was not better off now than it was four years ago.
On CBS's Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer asked: “Can you honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago?”
Responded O’Malley: “No, but that's not the question of this election. The question, without a doubt, we are not as well off as we were before George Bush brought us the Bush job losses, the Bush recession, the Bush deficits, the series of desert wars -- charged for the first time to credit cards, the national credit card.”
Quipped Schieffer: “George Bush is not on the ballots.”
A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.
Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.
The results highlight the depth of voter dissatisfaction confronting Obama as he makes his case for a second term at this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
They also strongly suggest Democrats need to convince voters the election should be a choice between Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, rather than a referendum on the president.
Obama’s biggest problem remains voter unhappiness with his handling of the economy.
here's the second most (first is "blame Bush") often seen comment by Obama fans:
"Four years is too soon for any rationl judgement on any President. Obama deserves a second term in order to allow his policies to reach fruitiion . Change takes time. Changing now will achieve nothing because the new President will start to change things back to where they were under Bush and the past four years will have been wasted. Obama is not failing - he has not had enought time in office to either succeed or fail. We will only be able to reach a valid conclusion after the second term. The President deserves the chance to realise his dreams."
This just blows my mind!!! Here we have 24 million unemployed, weak economic growth 1.3%, 16 trillion in debt, food stamp participation at all time high, gas at $4.50, a divided nation like never before and we need to wait for the Narcissist in Chief to realize his dreams? Might I suggest everyone go see Obama's America 2016!!
An interview in January? Try more current;y (Sunday) (ya know, the present)
Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who is considered a possible contender for president in 2016, bucked other Obama surrogates on Sunday, saying that the country was not better off now than it was four years ago.
On CBS's Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer asked: “Can you honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago?”
Responded O’Malley: “No, but that's not the question of this election. The question, without a doubt, we are not as well off as we were before George Bush brought us the Bush job losses, the Bush recession, the Bush deficits, the series of desert wars -- charged for the first time to credit cards, the national credit card.”
Quipped Schieffer: “George Bush is not on the ballots.”
RIGHT! “George Bush is not on the ballots.” But Mittins Romney IS ON THE BALLOT.
Either Romney Flip/Flopped Once Again from January or Mittens Romney truely does believe that the Economy is recovering. It's one or the other but Mittens can't have it both ways.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
