»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
"The Illustrated Guide to GOP Scandals"
| The Alley |
|
"The Illustrated Guide to GOP Scandals" |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.slate.com/id/2165783 “Having a hard time keeping track of all 10,000 GOP scandals? Between fired U.S. attorneys, deleted RNC e-mails, sexually harassed pages, outed CIA agents, and tortured Iraqi prisoners—not to mention the warrantless wiretapping, plum defense contracts, and golf junkets to Scotland—you could be forgiven for losing track of which congressman or Bush administration flunky did which shady thing. Renzi—now, was that the guy with the skeezy land deal? Or the woman Paul Wolfowitz promoted?” Link to an interactive feature on scandals of the Republican party: http://www.slate.com/features/2007/scandal_guide/scandalmap.html |
||
| © Copyright 2010 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Jennifer, my Dear, thank you so much for your lovely present, with illustrations, and in just my color and size. How very thoughtful! You are as tasteful as ever and I l think your timing is great. I have so missed you these past several weeks, and it's good to see you again. Love your new thread. Love what you're doing with the place. |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Jennifer- I noticed you didn't have time to research the various Democratic scandals, from violating Washington DC homesteading laws, to ethics probes, to lying under oath, to hiding money in thye freeser, to making 9 trips to Germany in one month on the company dime, to others... [Edited - Ron] Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE [This message has been edited by Ron (08-02-2010 03:18 PM).] |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
I have all my work done, and figured I would take a break and grab something to eat while perusing the blue pages for something to read, and decided that I would play Jennifer's little game and watched her little cartoon... I actually got a giggle that she brought up (via the website) a bunch of scandals that happened YEARS ago during a different administration. To me it brings up a question: Is this a case of don't worry about us, and what we are doing now... look at what these evil people did six years ago. Why are you antagonizing us when the Bush Administration did these things when it was in office... that means we get to bring up OLD muddy weater to try and take the heat off of our beloved charlie Rangel and dear, sweet Maxine Waters who are embroiled in scandals now... If you are going to do the tit for tat game, then please bring up something the Republicans are doing NOW. Here, I'll get you started: Allison Meyers, the director of the Young Eagles (a Republican group designed to woo young voters to the GOP) was fired in March for taking a bunch of youngsters to a strip club and spending almost $2000. Your turn... if you can. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ah, Ringo, sorry. Not being welcome in a site where the Republican stuff was being discussed and where we addressed Republican Senators from Louisiana and Nevada, to mention two, we were told to start our own silly thread where we could talk about Republican sins. I thought it was a bit silly, because anybody who felt their folks were being trashed would want a shot at a Quid Pro Quo at the other side. I know I would, and did, but what the heck, that's the way things are being run these days. Consider my rebuttal, the comments about Nevada and Louisiana, which are certainly current. Some of my comments were allowed to stand on the other thread, and the comments that Ron felt seemed to be directed at Mike were edited out, as was his right. But don't blame Jennifer for the one-siddedness of this thread. If anyone, blame me. I'd like to see more recent Republican scandals than the ones Jenn listed, but they are a good bunch, and if you look at the handling of Ms Sherrod by Mr. Breitbart, and if you look at Mr. Limbaugh and the usual folks, you'll see that the scandals continue as normal on the right as on the left. Mr. Limbaugh's comments about calling the President of The Harvard Law Review as fit only for employment as a tour guide were racist in the extreme, and were only made worse by the fact that The Man is now President of The United States. And so on. Nice to have a chance to chat with you again. Always a treat. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Just a little memory refresher for those who can't or choose not to remember the Bush swampland. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
And, once again... NO ONE has ever denied there were parts of the Bush, Jr. administration that were less than 100% ethical... and yet, it seems that the ONLY thing the Liberals/Democrats have to say when they are reminded about their own missteps is "But what about Bush? This is all his fault!" My thoughts... GET OVER IT!! The man's presidency has been dead for a year and a half... Yes, there were things about the Bush years I didn't like; yes, there were things done that I did not agree with; yes, he left us with a $300 Billion deficit because he cut taxes, and then allowed the Democrats who had been in power since 2006 to continue with all of the spending... The $11.7 TRILLION has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush administration... well, nothing past the .3 trillion he left office with. The current administration... well, the White House, has not much to do with it, either, should one want to be completely fair, as I have asked you to be. It is the Democratic Congress (and Senate) that is creating all of the laws. The ONLY thing I blame the Chief Cook and Bottle Washer of the US Titanic is for not having the sense, or ability (or desire) to reign them in and to stop them from continually spending when we don't have money. Anyhow... back to the scandals... While I am a history major, and rather enjoy discussing the history of the United States (and how most people get it wrong), This was- I thought- a discussion about CURRENT events... The Republicans have done many things to have you wringing your hands gleefully, and yet... they never seem to make the Blue Pages... If an the affirmative of the debate is to be taken seriously, then it must continue to provide reason to remain relevant, and not spend the entire afternoon shouting the same sentence. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
They can't get over it, Ringo. It's all they've got. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
A suggestion was made, "If you wish to discuss republican scandals, start a thread" - Balladeer so I took the time to find a cute little interactive guide through the Bush Swampland, started a thread but the only one who seems to apppreciate the effort is Bob. Oh well, can't please everyone. Anyway, the thread topic is GOP Scandals, feel free to add to the list and bring it up to date if you wish. All are welcome to join in! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jennifer, if you check, Bob is the one who wanted to discuss it. Of course he appreciates it. He did not want to discuss Rangel or Waters in a thread about Rangel and Waters. He preferred to point fingers at Republicans instead. You gave him what he wanted and what I told him would be the appropriate thing to do. What was your complaint again? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
No complaints here, Balladeer, but thanks for asking. I’m very pleased with the way this thread turned out, it’s been most revealing. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I acknowledged what I knew and thought appropriate to comment upon about the two cases. My preference is that we have a scandal free Congress. Pointing fingers at Republicans is a distant second best. Your suggestion that the Democrats were the problem was a half-truth at best when in fact Mr. Vitter and Senator Ensign are substantial problems in their own right. Senator Ensign's issues at least are even more serious than either of the two Democrat's issues since more recent developments in his case have been brought to a grand jury for issuance of criminal complaints. This is different from an ethics investigation, as you will be well aware. You will no doubt be aware as well that the criminal complaint has to do with gaining his aid — the husband of his mistress, in this case — work with a Washington Lobbying firm within a year of leaving the Senator's Employ. Other aids of the Senator are apparently willing to testify that the fact that this was a violation of Federal law was discussed with the Senator at that time, putting the Senator potentially in violation of Federal Law. The Ethical Violations involved for such a Family Values candidate keeping a mistress in the first place seem almost secondary in comparison. Senator Vitter's Family Values Stance was also a key point in his election campaign. His patronage of prostitutes was never part of the campaign appeal. My own opinion is that I dislike the whole business, but that it should be a matter of private morality unless somebody is being highly hypocritical in the matter. Senator Vitter's situation seems to have risen to that level. In some states his behavior is considered criminal. In his own, I believe it may be considered something else. It is nevertheless well worth comment. My own statement from the other thread about Ms Waters and Mr. Rangel follows: quote: Information on Senators Vitter and Ensign may be found on the Rachel Maddows blog, should more information be desired. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Info on Ensign: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/john_ensign/ |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And on Vitter, something a little more recent than his call girl/diaper scandal: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024624.php |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And then there’s this on Tea Party Queen, former Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin: Palin Guilty of Major Ethics Act Violation: Must Return $386,000 in Contributions Nearly a year after she quit her governorship of Alaska, Sarah Palin was found guilty today of another breach of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act involving her so-called Alaska Fund Trust (AFT), which she established as a private "legal defense fund" while governor. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/palin-guilty-of-major-eth_b_624863.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No comment, Mike? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I mentioned in another thread what it means when I don't comment. You're resorting to goading now? There is some obligation I am not fulfilling? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No, Mike, I was looking for an apology for your mischaracterization of me, which I quote below after doing it more fully in a previous posting, above. At a minimum, you were wrong in suggesting I was unwilling to discuss Mr. Rangel or Ms. Waters. Comments about Republicans were made in addition to and not instead of comments on these two Congresspersons. quote: I pointed out the error, and I quoted the section from my posting that shows your error. I don't mind repeating the quote here. quote: I am not now and was not then goading. I am reminding you that when you mischaracterize somebody, it is appropriate, once you become aware of that fact, to acknowledge it and to apologize for doing so, especially if you wish your words to be taken seriously, and if you believe they may have a serious effect on those who read them. If not, of course, I'm sorry to have bothered you unnecessarily. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I understand. Yes, you mentioned them before moving along to shift to Republican finger-pointing. I was in error to imply you did not comment on them at all and I apologize. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Fox News Channel “Fox (FNC) is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Rupert Murdoch is an Australian business titian, about whom Bill Moyers once said, “He buys lobbyists the way Almeda Marcos bought shoes.” Murdoch has been widely accused of destroying the foundation of American democracy – a free press, as seen in this documentary.” OutFoxed-Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/o utfoxed-rupert-murdochs-war-onjournalism/580cbe3dab32a5546471580cbe3dab32a5546471-166137889497 “The man who owns the next largest share of FNC is Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who gave former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani ten million dollars for finance relief efforts after 9/11, but then released a statement blaming the attack on the World Trade Center by Saudi hijackers on the United States policy in the Middle East.” http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/a-biased-look-at-fox-news/ “Alwaleed is best known for going to Ground Zero after the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks and personally handing then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani a check for $10 million to help finance relief efforts. Afterwards, Alwaleed released a statement blaming the attacks not on the Saudi airline hijackers, but on U.S. policies in the middle east. As a result, Giuliani returned the prince's donation, gaining him praise from Fox News for doing so. Now that Alwaleed has a controlling ownership in News Corp., he is gaining influence over Fox News. In 2005, just months after Alwaleed acquired his first 5.4 percent stake in News Corp., Fox News covered riots in Paris under a banner saying "Muslim riots." Alwaleed allegedly called Murdoch and had him change the banner to say "Civil riots." Investigative journalist Joseph Trento also reported that a comment he recently made on a Fox Network morning news show, Fox and Friends, about Saudi Arabian money still financing Al Qaeda, was edited out of the show. Trento also reports that Alwaleed "has personally donated huge amounts of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers." In a rare interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto in January, AlWaleed explained his personal reasons for seeking influence in American politics: the U.S. buys Saudi Arabia's oil, and the bulk of his country's gross domestic product (GDP) comes from oil. Fox News reliably broadcasts misinformation on clean energy, and aggressively fights efforts to move America away from being dependent on a fossil fuels” http://www.prwatch.org/node/8906 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brought to you by the same folks who brought you... * The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq * Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq * Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry * Mad Cow USA, which documents the PR coverup of human and animal health risks from mad cow disease * Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future * Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America Into a One-Party State Fox News reliably broadcasts misinformation on clean energy, and aggressively fights efforts to move America away from being dependent on a fossil fuels” Whoever wrote that has obviously never watched Fox News but, then, one doesn't have to know what one's talking about to write, does one?  Sometimes a "Rush to Smudgement" just doesn't work out that well, Jenn. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Beck Blames One Of Fox News’ Largest Shareholders, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, For 9/11 "On his television program this afternoon, Glenn Beck declared that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the largest stockholder of Fox News outside of the Rupert Murdoch family, “flew … the plane into the trade centers.” Beck started his rant as a defense of Israel’s actions against the aid flotilla to Gaza, but eventually began hypothesizing about if a similar flotilla was sent to Manhattan by Saudi Arabia. Beck said this had already happened essentially, when Prince Alwaleed offered $10 million dollars to then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Beck repeatedly burst into moral outrage, demanding why people are held “to a different standard” and why the media refused to be “consistent” with its reporting. Of course, during his monologue, Beck never mentioned that the very Saudi Prince Beck accused of being behind the 9/11 attacks is a close friend of his own boss, Rupert Murdoch, or that Beck’s employment at Fox News is financed by that same Prince. Without a tinge of irony in his voice, Beck implored his listeners not to trust any offering of money from Prince Alwaleed, despite the fact his own salary depends on him: BECK: Didn’t we almost kind of do that? Do you remember what happened right after 9/11 with Rudy Giuliani? Do you remember Saudi Arabia came and said, we want to help. This guy [pointing at Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud] came over and said ‘I want to give you a $10 million dollar check.’ Rudy Giuliani said, you see that over there? I don’t think we want your help. You already sent us help. And you flew that help into the plane, into the the trade centers. The same prince later blamed the U.S. policy for the attacks. Giuliani said, take your check, we don’t want your money. There is no way America, that if it was us, that we would allow that to happen. Why do we hold people to a different standard?" http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/03/beck-alwaleed-911/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
United Staes policy in the Middle East is no excuse for 9/11, and the Prince should know that. It was a stupid thing to say for such a bright guy. While I dislike United States policy in The Middle East intensely, and I believe it has been muffed for almost a hundred years, and muffed badly, I can't tell you anybody whose Middle East policy has been a brilliant success, either. Everybody since Alexander of Macedon who sets foot into the area seems to lose at their strategic thinking abilities, and nobody seems to have improved on Alexander's approach. That would be to conquor everybody and conscript all the men of fighting age into your army to go fight somebody else. That leaves only old men and children and the women at home. It seems a bit draconian to me, but overall an improvement over the mongol solution, which was worse. Mike, I've watched a fair amount of Fox from time to time at least. You might have noticed Jennifer quoting Beck, whom I have not watched, though I've heard excerpts from him. Thank you for including the list of other programs presented by the same production company. I haven't see any of them, however,. so wouldn't know how to evalute them. What were they like? Were they accurate in the facts they reported. That would be an important issue for me. I am interested in prion disease, if for no other reason because I find the whole notion of prions fascinating, but also because it exposes information about the agriculture industry that I hadn't been aware of before. And toxic chemicals are important to me because my wife has a great deal of trouble with them, especially dyes and perfumes, and I have friends who've had some serious problems with them. Perhaps you've been fortunate not to have any problems with this sort of stuff, and not to have friends with problems like this as well. Growing up in Canton, Ohio, I was shocked at how many of my health problems went away when we moved to Upstate New York, to Ithaca in the early sixties, and all the particulate matter and toxic chemicals in the air went way down. When you've never had experience that person and that dramatic, it can seem strange when you find others concerned with issues that are tied in with it. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Fox News is palling around with Suicide Bombers. In 2002, Al-Waleed donated 18.5 million British pounds ($27 million) to Palestinians during a TV telethon following Israeli operations in the West Bank refugee camp in Jenin in response to a suicide bombing that killed 29 Israelis. The telethon was ordered by Saudi King Fahd to help relatives of Palestinian "martyrs", which the Saudi government defined as "Palestinians who are victimized by Israeli terror and violence," and insisting the money wouldn't reach the families of suicide bombers. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal stated that half of his pledge would help rebuild Palestinian infrastructure destroyed by Israeli forces, while the rest would be donated in the form of goods, including 100 vehicles and clothing.[8][9] However, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council said that "some money will go to the families of suicide bombers." http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/29476 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Exactly what was Jennifer's smear, Mike? I looked, but couldn't find it. Your suggestion that she made "a Rush to smudgement" suggests that that she did make such an attempt, but offers no evidence. Supplying that evidence would lift your own statement out of the "smudgement" category and place in the well meaning criticism category to my mind. Evidence would be the factor that creates the distinction. Plausible evidence, of course, elevates the distinction even further, but then reasonable people do differ about that, frequently. I would place a little smiley face here, had I ever mastered the icons, except that I can never judge their sincerity. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Exactly what was Jennifer's smear, Mike? Bob, do you feel that Jenn is so inept she can't speak for herself? Isn't that white horse of yours tired yet? She is fully capable of speaking for herself and defending her actions, I'm sure, and yet is seems to be a passion of yours to rush to defend her, without even being asked, in multiple threads? DOn't worry. She is not in danger.. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
If you wish to point fingers at Bob, Balladeer, maybe you should start a thread for that purpose? |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
And once again, the only good word seems to be a smear word... Let's see what you can do with these facts about the Bush, Jr administration, and see how they get spun into bad things... 1) Tax receipts grew more than $547 Billion in the years 2001-2007. He doubles the child tax credit to $1000 (The Dems only thought kids were worth $500). He also raised the tax burden on the top 10% from 67% to 70%. Wait... I thought the rich got massive tax cuts and paid less? 2) Estimates from a 2007 Federal survey show that the number of uninsured children under the age of 18 actually declined by 800,000 from 2001 to 2007. From 2007 to 2008, the number of people covered by affordable and portable Health Savings Account-eligible plans increased 35 percent. Additionally, since President Bush took office, more than 1,200 community health centers have opened or expanded nationwide, which has helped provide treatment to nearly 17 million people. But, I thought the Republicans wanted you to die quickly? 3) From 2001 to 2007, air pollution decreased by 12 percent, and fine particulate matter pollution is down 17 percent since 2001. Ethanol production quadrupled from 1.6 billion gallons in 2000 to 6.5 billion gallons in 2007, wind energy production has increased by more than 400 percent, and solar energy capacity has doubled. In 2007, solar installations increased more than 32 percent and the U.S. produced 96 percent more biodiesel (490 million gallons) than in 2006. The Administration also provided nearly $18 billion to research, develop, and promote alternative and more efficient energy technologies such as biofuels, solar, wind, clean coal, nuclear, and hydrogen. And the mean, mean Republicans, hate the environment and want you to all die of asthma 4) In 2003, the Administration began calling for a new GSE (Fannie and Freddie) regulator, and over the next five years, the Administration continued to call for GSE reform only to be accused by Democrats in Congress of creating artificial fears and advocating for ill-advised proposals. By the time Congress finally acted in 2008 to provide the oversight the President requested, it was too late to prevent systemic consequences. Hello, Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts... you were screaming the loudest 5) President Bush provided more than 40 million Americans with better access to prescription drugs by creating the market-based Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. And it is one of the rare government programs that actually costs less than expected. Projected overall program spending between 2004 and 2013 is approximately $240 billion lower, nearly 38 percent, than originally estimated, thanks to the market-oriented principles included at President Bush's insistence. But, wait... I thought it was the Democrats who thought this stuff up? 6) Federal spending on education has increased nearly 40 percent under President Bush. Additionally, Pell Grant funding nearly doubled during the Administration, which is expected to help more than 5.5 million students attend college in the 2008-09 school year, 1.2 million more students than were assisted by Pell Grants in the 2001-02 school year. This financial aid assistance also helps account for the fact that 66 percent of high school graduates from the class of 2006 enrolled in colleges, compared to 63 percent in 2000. 7) Perhaps more importantly, the President's No Child Left Behind Act has delivered tangible results to students. Since the law was enacted, fourth-grade students have achieved their highest reading and math scores on record, eighth-grade students have achieved their highest math scores on record, and African-American and Hispanic students have posted all-time high scores in a number of categories, narrowing the gap between minority students and white students. This can't be... Republicans only care about what's best for them, and hate anyone who is not a WASP 8) The President successfully pushed for expanding NATO membership, generated international pressure on Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, and organized the Six-Party Talks, which have resulted in North Korea committing to give up its nuclear weapons and abandon its nuclear programs. Verifying North Korea's commitment will be a challenge, but at the most recent Six-Party Talks meeting, there was strong consensus among the five parties that North Korea must submit to a comprehensive verification regime that accords with international standards. And, yet... during the current administration... 9) During the first 7 years of the Bush (Jr) administration, the American Economy enjoyed the longest period of job growth- 52 straight months with 8.3 million jobs produced. With an additional 118,000 jobs lost last month 10) Some other items that are infrequently mentioned about the real record of the Bush Administration but are worth noting: Teenage drug use has declined 25 percent; in 2007, the violent crime rate was 43 percent lower than the rate in 1998; between 2005 and 2007, the chronically homeless population decreased approximately 30 percent; funding for veterans' medical care has increased more than 115 percent; and as of 2005, the most recent abortion rate is at its lowest since 1974. Not too shabby for the... wait, what was it?... oh, yeah... the worst president in US History with the worst record, and who only cared for his rich friends and his buddies, and hated the "little people". facts from various sources Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"the worst president in US History with the worst record, and who only cared for his rich friends and his buddies, and hated the "little people" - Ringo Indeed, Ringo, a GOP scandal, one the whole world will never forget. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I think the question was a fair one. It deserves an answer. I saw no smear. While I am fond of Jennifer, my personal opinion of Jennifer has no bearing on the question about the post, which inquired where the smear was. I still see no smear, and I would rather deal with the GOP scandals which are the subject of the thread. I would expect that you might have significant things to say on that subject, many of which might prove both interesting and enlightening to me and perhaps to other readers of this thread. I am not interested in personal comments about Jennifer, or in your personal comments about myself, however, in this context. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ringo, I'm sorry, I just saw your posting, having gotten sidetracked by other matters. I find I need some time to reply here as well. Just offhand, however, the question about job growth during the Bush years seems a touch misleading. 52 consecutive months of job growth still suggests that there were three years of something else. The question is where those months were, and how keyed in were they to the Clinton boom years. The suggestion is that the job growth was simply phenomenal, but my understanding is that it totalled something like 3 million jobs for President Bush's entire two terms, when the population was growing due to immegration and other factors. Whereas the Obama job growth has been anemic but has totalled something like three million jobs so far in his first term. Both of them look sick compared to the Clinton years. Again, as I understand it, and off the top of my head. As for the No Child Left Behind law, I think you might find some questions on that as well. The upper range of test score and the lower range are coming together, but what does that mean? The O Levels in England are a comprehensive and solid test of academic ability on any number of subjects, and only a portion of the English students are expected to pass them at College levels Those who do, have a very rich education indeed. The American tests, from what the teachers tell me, are much more rote education, and require only a superficial mastery of superficial material. Calling that a victory is simply redefining the word "victory." It is not "simply throwing money at the problem." But it is also not providing a good or a great education for our american students by any stretch of the imagination. And it looks like we'll be substituting Texas History for real history soon enough, if the Texas School board gets its way. More at a later time. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Bush left office with the worst employment-growth record of any president since World War II. Anyway - Saudi-Funded Fox News Rejects Ad Arguing Against Middle East Oil Dependence "Last week, progressive veterans organization VoteVets.org released an ad arguing that “a clean energy climate plan would cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and cut oil profits for hostile nations.” The ad asserts that “every day, Iran gets $100 million richer selling oil around the world and peddling hate.” While CNN and MSNBC have aired the ad, Fox News is refusing to do so. Politico reports Fox apparently found the ad “too confusing.” Watch the “confusing” ad: There is nothing confusing about the ad. VoteVets’ assertion that hostile nations profit off our oil dependence is based on a Wonk Room analysis that finds, under the a strong carbon cap regime which restrains U.S. appetite for oil, Iran would lose $1.8 trillion worth of oil revenues over the next forty years — or, over $100 million a day. “If the world moves away from oil dependence, Iran’s regime will no longer be able to rely on petrodollars to stay afloat,” Brad Johnson writes in pretty simple terms. In a statement issued to ThinkProgress, Richard Smith, a senior adviser to VoteVets who served in Afghanistan, says “the only confusing thing” is why Fox is rejecting the ad: “There’s nothing confusing about the link between oil and terrorist funding, and even the most dyed-in-the-wool neocons agree on that point. The only confusing thing here is why FOX News would reject an ad that calls on Congress to defund our enemies by finding new sources of energy.” It’s unclear what Fox News’ motivations are. As Media Matters has documented, the network is a reliable source of misinformation on clean energy reform. Interestingly, Saudi oil tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in Fox News’ parent company News Corp, making him the largest shareholder outside the family of CEO Rupert Murdoch. But Murdoch has said the he is for a mandatory cap on carbon emissions and believes that Fox News ought to be covering the issue differently. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/05/saudi-fox-clean-energy-ad/ And here's a link to the ad. Too confusing for Fox viewers? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbyWiFpDNXM&feature=PlayList&p=BBD6DE93C7374732&index=11 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Here are some references about Bush health care taken from 2004-07, about the range that you covered,, Ringo, from a variety of sources. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/business/27health.html http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Project:Record_on_SCHIP http://www.democracynow.org/2007/8/29/headlines |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Here you are very specific with figures, and you spark my interest about the sources of your data. When you say "various sources," you've gotten savvy enough to understand that when you make this sort of specific claim, you really should be more exact. There is a lot of wiggle room. For example, quote: This is a very peculiar figure. Given that it's 2010, there are figures available for a lot more periods than that. Why would those two particular years be chosen to offer an example of a decrease in chronic hopelessness. What might it have decreased from? Well, when was Katrina? There was a massive dislocation of folks from Katrina, which may well have provided a large spike in the homeless population, but were these folks counted as chronically homeless over that period or were they classified under some other rubric. Tossing several hundred thousand people from their homes along the Gulf coast into temporary trailer parks and into temporary housing did require a massive aid effort, so these folks may well have failed to have registered as chronically homeless, as may have several other people who would have lost their jobs in the economic downturn, who normally would have gotten counted as homeless but were caught up in the aid provisions passed after Katrina. Is that the explanation? I have no idea. But I'd really want an explanation before I'd count on an actual 30% decline in actual homelessness during that period. What's more, I would think that you would too. Unless you remember 2005-07 as being years of real harmony and surplus because of that generous Republican administration. quote: Perhaps you have forgotten the funding scandals in the Bush administration for the VA, the attempted closings of some of the hospitals, and the wide public attention gotten by the pictures of the terrible state of many of those institutions that forced the increase in funding. The fact that the funding was increased 15% over that period, while americans went to warn and began bringing home disproportionate rations of chronic head wounds was and remains shameful. The care for such wounds is some of the most expensive. Attempts to disqualify many soldiers from treatment that in other administrations would have been theirs was disgusting and remains so. Attempts to privatize the long term care of elderly vets does not seem to me to be the best of solutions, though the Republican administration was very much for it. I feel it is breaking faith with our vets, and opens the door on supplying substandard care. Reasonable people disagree with me. quote: You may believe this is a good thing. It may in fact be a good thing. What I notice, however, is that the decrease is not clearly attributable to a decrease in the need for the safe and legal abortions, it is because what defines a legal abortion has been steadily narrowed, and those who are willing to offer them have become human targets. Thus the intention of the law, to make abortion safe, legal and available has been assaulted. We know that the number of safe, legal and easily available abortions may have declined. This does not mean that the number of abortions overall has declined. The main victims of this war on legal abortions have been the poor, who cannot afford travel to another state or country the way a financially better fixed person might be able to do. We do not know the number of illegal abortions or abortions that were not performed in the open fashion the law mandated were performed, nor do we know the number of casualties due to botched procedures there have been as a result. I have a lot of inflammatory things I would like to say here, but which I will refrain from saying. It is an issue I find very disturbing. I understand people who disagree with me feel much the same way. How in heaven's name anyone can tell teenaged drug use has declined 25%, I don't know. If this statement is for real, I would like to know what category they place alcohol in, and whether it is lumped together with drugs or not. I suspect it is only by segregating the more dangerous alcohol for many of the less dangerous drugs that such a figure may be derived. Alcohol may be the most risky of the drugs available, with the exception of the barbiturates, and it is the most often used and abused by teens. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
quote: It is amazing how, in one small sentence, you make it seem that I am agreeing with your thoughts, attitudes, beliefs by taking something I said and repeating it out of context. For that, I wish to that you for making a point that I had made before and had people argue with me... LIFE IS PERCEPTION When I wrote it, I did not, in any way, mean it to agree with anyone's derision about the man... and yet, that is exactly what it means now, that there is a political soundbyte made by taking only part of the speech and presenting it as if the entire meaning and the entire "truth" was brought into one tiny little portion that was chosen by someone to be used for their own agenda. Once again, the loyal opposition, your argument has been lost because the entire thought was not argued, but rather co-opted for the only portion that served a purpose for other than which it was intended. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“Any time someone uses another author's words or ideas without correctly giving them credit, that's plagiarism.” From: http://collegeuniversity.suite101.com/article.cfm/a_definition_for_plagiarism |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
"Anytime someone has no real answer to a point and instead throws a non sequitur into the discussion, that's deflection." From: Ron Carnell, who is at least as much an authority on the meaning of words as Suite101. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Not to worry, Ron, maybe Ringo will be back later to respond to points in Bob’s posts. He could be tied up checking out Ed Gillespie quotes. Here’s one that I like a lot: "Where they have a chess piece on the board, we need a chess piece on the board." – Ed Gillespie |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. Your fifth-grade repartee is refreshing, Jennifer. Not very original, but nonetheless refreshing. Fifth-graders, of course, use come-backs like that both to deflect and to intentionally irritate. It probably works on fifth-graders. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Do I ever know what you mean, Ron! I had exactly the same reaction to #25. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Couldn't help but comment here Bob. We do know that most likely this is the case, since law typically keeps crimes in check. You and I of course would disagree on whether abortion should constitute a crime. We could debate the moral, social, and legal points back and forth till we're blue in the face as we have in the past. (and No, that's not saying I really want to again). But I am saying that it is reasonable to think abortions (not just "safe" ones- I cringe at saying that, wondering why safety is limited in this case to the parent only) will decrease where legal sanction, and the pseudo-scientific rationale attached with the business, decreases. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: "We" do not know it, Stephanos. You assert it. Legal sanctions may work, but I suspect they work only for laws that have the support of the people. Drug offenses, Ringo has asserted, among teens have gone down substantially, yet somehow pot is a growth industry and is beginning the legalization process in many states. As did Alcohol before it. As did birth control. If people think that things are really crimes, they may allow their behavior to be regulated to some extent. But when abortion was completely illegal, there were an enormous number of illegal abortions, up to 3,000,000 per year according to some estimates. Adultery is also illegal. I think your basic supposition is flawed. quote: I think you may have mis-spoken here. Perhaps I'm wrong. It appears that you've said that abortion will decrease when legal sanction decreases, which seems different from the proposition you suggest beforehand, though certainly more Christian in many ways. An assertion that the reasoning is pseudo-scientific, should you wish it to be accepted, requires the sort of proof that I believe social issues are reluctant to supply. You might be able to fight to a tie with the assertion, maybe, but I doubt you could definitively carry the day before an unbiased audience. You might wish you could, I might wish I could prevail definitively in the other direction. While we have strong moral feelings, each of us, this isn't, I believe, the sort of argument that wins the day in a discussion of which argument is more scientific. Respectfully, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
quote: Actually, I was in the middle of replying when life intervened and I was forced away from the keyboard... although, I did rather enjoy your attempt (feeble as it was) at an insult. Rest assured, I will be replying to all of this as soon as I get the time, I only came in to read a few poems and head to work. I don't have time at the moment to give this thread a proper post. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
