Upcoming Elections

[Brooke]

BREAKING NEWS! FROM ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC

 

Since the Democrats took control of congress:

-The economy is the strongest it

[PUSH THE THROTTLE]

BREAKING NEWS! FROM ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC

 

Since the Democrats took control of congress:

-The economy is the strongest it

[helldriver]

BREAKING NEWS! FROM ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC

 

Since the Democrats took control of congress:

-The economy is the strongest it

[rkc]

BREAKING NEWS! FROM ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC

 

Since the Democrats took control of congress:

-The economy is the strongest it

[helldriver]

there is no god

[Meat]

WASHINGTON - After years of defending his secretary of defense, President Bush on Wednesday announced Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation within hours of the Democrats' triumph in congressional elections.

[Mullet Man]

WASHINGTON - After years of defending his secretary of defense, President Bush on Wednesday announced Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation within hours of the Democrats' triumph in congressional elections.

 

 

 

hopefully heads roll off the chopping block with the new changes in congress!

they need to get to the bottom of all the mispent tax dollars in Iraq!

the Dems need to "cowboy up" for sure (i hate that fraise)!

hang'em high!! we need some accountability

 

then start stepping up for the post '08 cleanup!

Edited November 9, 2006 by Mullet Man

[PUSH THE THROTTLE]

we need some accountability

:yelrotflmao: :yelrotflmao: :yelrotflmao: I laugh everytime somebody asks for acountability, what a slogan. Accountability is a meaningless term because it will never be followed by action.

 

Anybody know what day Bush's tax cuts sunset? That day means about $2000 less dollars in the average household. That would have built a decent cub motor. :ohmy:

[Mullet Man]

:yelrotflmao: :yelrotflmao: :yelrotflmao: I laugh everytime somebody asks for acountability, what a slogan. Accountability is a meaningless term because it will never be followed by action.

 

Anybody know what day Bush's tax cuts sunset? That day means about $2000 less dollars in the average household. That would have built a decent cub motor. :ohmy:

 

 

...typical right side response

 

but, you are right to a point. i didnt say it was going to happen. i said we need it!

this country would be a better place in every aspect if we had accountability on both sides

[PUSH THE THROTTLE]

...typical right side response

 

but, you are right to a point. i didnt say it was going to happen. i said we need it!

this country would be a better place in every aspect if we had accountability on both sides

Typical liberal response... :biggrin:

 

Accountability is not a solution. Accountability just makes liberals feel good about themselves because they can say it was somebody elses fault. Where does that get us? It's a 2 steps forward 3 back type of system. What we need is solutions to problems.

 

You also gave no response on my question about taxes.

[Mullet Man]

Typical liberal response... :biggrin:

 

Accountability is not a solution. Accountability just makes liberals feel good about themselves because they can say it was somebody elses fault. Where does that get us? It's a 2 steps forward 3 back type of system. What we need is solutions to problems.

 

You also gave no response on my question about taxes.

 

 

but you are wrong.

accountability is a solution! especially when it comes to politics. and its something the American people need to make a stand on.

if a politician knows he/she will be held accountable for their actions, then their actions WILL lean more towards what is right. instead of personal gain on a financial level. what is right is the middle, not far left or far right, like we saw in the 109th congress.

 

otherwise they dont get reelected! that is the power of accountability!

 

 

if i need $2,000 extra, i will work an extra 14 days. no big deal.

 

tax cuts might be great for the here and now. but when your money is being pulled from SS to make up the diff. then what are you going to do when you're 65 and there is no more retirement fund?

you going to live off your extra $2000 from your last year of working?

i dont have an exact date for your specific question. i could look it up but i just dont care too. :biggrin:

 

 

btw, i'm not a liberal.

[PUSH THE THROTTLE]

btw, i'm not a liberal.

OK then, you're just ignorant, government revenue is up because of the refund. People don't put money in a jar in there back yard anymore. You get an extra $2000 you more than likely spend that extra $2000 and the government gets their x% of that $2000. The place you purchased the widget from will more than likely add another employee to handle the additional sales they get, the government takes their xx% of their salary but that person makes more money working than not and spends it on a widget and so on and so forth. Just because you get an extra $2000 doesn't mean that the government doesn't still get theirs.

 

Back to accountability, you are still missing my point. You've been sold a slogan and you don't know what it even means. What exactly is going to happen if the dems hold Bush accountable for the war in Iraq?

 

Side note: I admire your work ethic, willing to work 14 more days. Where I work we don't have a magical calendar stretcher, I sure wouldn't give up vacation time to work.

Edited November 9, 2006 by PUSH THE THROTTLE

[helldriver]

keep dancing My puppet!

[PUSH THE THROTTLE]

hopefully heads roll off the chopping block with the new changes in congress!

they need to get to the bottom of all the mispent tax dollars in Iraq!

the Dems need to "cowboy up" for sure (i hate that fraise)!

hang'em high!! we need some accountability

 

I found a little list of quotes to help you figure out who needs to be held accountable.

 

Bill Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

 

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

 

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

 

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

 

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

 

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

 

Finally, Mr. Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003. Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Mr. Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President "to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs."

 

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

 

 

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

 

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Mr. Bush succeeded Mr. Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new president, a group of senators led by Bob Graham declared:

 

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

 

Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr. Clinton some years earlier:

 

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

 

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

 

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

 

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

 

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

 

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush's opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

 

We know that [saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

 

And here is Mr. Gore again, in that same year:

 

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

 

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

 

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

 

Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

 

Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

 

Byrd: "The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

[helldriver]

keep dancing MY puppet!