Community > Posts By > mnhiker

 
mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 09:23 PM

clinton...presidential candidate?????


OK. My bad.

FORMER Presidential candidate.

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 09:21 PM



I cant find out what is contained in the bill.
They said 70 of the senators weren't even told. (top secret)
Supposedly they voted in the blind.
All I can find is the part about the amnesty for the telecom companies.
I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I suspect there was a deal cut so the Dems could get something they wanted!

I' was going to look more later and didn't want to comment before then!
Does anyone know what was in the bill?
I mean the specifics. I know it was about surveillance, but what are the rules?


I'll probably still vote for Obama, because, look at the alternative.

But I was disappointed he voted with the other Democrats on this.

Hillary voted against it.

I think the Dems caved in to the President on this one.


I dont think it gives as broad authorization as the illegal wire tapping Bush was allowing, but I cant find what it allows or doesn't allow!

Do you? Do you know the specifics?
They said it was a blind vote. I dont think they should have allowed it to be that way, but like I said I think there was some kind of deal cut between the parties!
From what I read it gives the telecom companies immunity for past violations, and they had heated debates over some of the rules, but that's all I can find!
There weren't many who voted nay though!
What can you do? I'm still voting for Obama too. I'm disappointed but what can you do?


I don't know the specifics, and of course they cut some kind of deal, but cutting a deal where the President gets most of what he wanted anyway stinks to high heaven to me!

In my opinion, they capitulated.

Why didn't Hillary vote for it, if it's such a great deal?

I think it just keeps the door open for the telecom companies and the President to spy on anyone they damn please.

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 09:17 PM

Fanta,

Just read it.

I guess it is pretty similar.

Maybe not as critical, but similar.


Similar to what?

Not as critical as what?

You're not making sense! Its pretty damning to me about McConfused and Gramm!
He didnt fire Gramm, and he said the same thing at least three times since April!
What else do you need?laugh laugh laugh


I guess people with money to burn don't really feel the effects of an economic downturn!

Therefore, they have no empathy!

Damn Republicans! grumble

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 09:13 PM
Just say no to Darth Nadar:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7628/darthnaderjx8.jpg

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 09:04 PM

My family, friends and myself were Hillary supporters. We are now backing Obama. To vote for McCain is unthinkable to us.noway


flowerforyou drinker drinker drinker

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 08:55 PM

I cant find out what is contained in the bill.
They said 70 of the senators weren't even told. (top secret)
Supposedly they voted in the blind.
All I can find is the part about the amnesty for the telecom companies.
I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I suspect there was a deal cut so the Dems could get something they wanted!

I' was going to look more later and didn't want to comment before then!
Does anyone know what was in the bill?
I mean the specifics. I know it was about surveillance, but what are the rules?


I'll probably still vote for Obama, because, look at the alternative.

But I was disappointed he voted with the other Democrats on this.

Hillary voted against it.

I think the Dems caved in to the President on this one.

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 08:52 PM



In an interview with the Washington Times, McCain's top economic adviser Phil Gramm tells America to suck it up and stop complaining about the economy:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.


Gramm, whose extensive ties to Enron proved problematic during the firm's implosion several years ago, was serving as a lobbyist for the international banking and subprime mortgage giant UBS until April. As Mother Jones documented, Gramm played a key role in the subprime meltdown during his time in the Senate.

Just yesterday, McCain himself said "I would imagine that we are" in a recession. But he and Gramm are still on the same page: in April McCain said "a lot of our problems today are psychological."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/mccain-adviser-americans_n_111857.html

Isnt that nice,
and here I thought it was real!




Fanta,

The only one whining is that jackass Phil Gramm.

McCain was right to condemn his commments.

After all, up there in his ivory tower, Phil Gramm does not feel your pain.


Read all my posts hiker!
McCain has said the same thing several times in the last few months.
Go to the first link I gave and read the whole story!
I just posted a paragraph or two!


Fanta,

Just read it.

I guess it is pretty similar.

Maybe not as critical, but similar.

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 08:33 PM

flowerforyou I doubt Obama has anything to do with where his T-shirts are made flowerforyou


I really don't care where Obama gets his shirts made.

There are a lot of more important issues, like FISA.

Unfortunately, Obama went along with most of the rest of the Democrats and voted for the legislation giving immunity to the telecom companies and more warrantless wiretapping privileges to the President.

After all, the Dems can't be seen as weak on terror, can they?

Damn Democrats! grumble

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 08:26 PM
(crickets chirping)

I guess no one cares about the government spying on you.

frustrated

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 08:21 PM

In an interview with the Washington Times, McCain's top economic adviser Phil Gramm tells America to suck it up and stop complaining about the economy:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.


Gramm, whose extensive ties to Enron proved problematic during the firm's implosion several years ago, was serving as a lobbyist for the international banking and subprime mortgage giant UBS until April. As Mother Jones documented, Gramm played a key role in the subprime meltdown during his time in the Senate.

Just yesterday, McCain himself said "I would imagine that we are" in a recession. But he and Gramm are still on the same page: in April McCain said "a lot of our problems today are psychological."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/mccain-adviser-americans_n_111857.html

Isnt that nice,
and here I thought it was real!




Fanta,

The only one whining is that jackass Phil Gramm.

McCain was right to condemn his commments.

After all, up there in his ivory tower, Phil Gramm does not feel your pain.

mnhiker's photo
Thu 07/10/08 08:16 PM
Here's how the Senate voted on 'a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.'

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-they-voted-on-fisa.html

This basically immunizes telecom companies from lawsuits and give warrantless eavesdropping privileges to the President, which is just what Bush Jr. wanted.

Here's how the Presidential candidates voted:

Obama: Yea
Clinton: Nay
McCain: Did not vote.

I'm not going to speculate at this time as to why McCain was absent for this important vote.

I am disappointed that Barack Obama and other Democrats caved in to the President.

I'm with Hillary on this one.

mnhiker's photo
Wed 07/09/08 09:58 AM

i lived with my mother for about 7 months... as others may have seen it... she had gotten outta bad situation had little money for rent.. and i let her stay at MY house...till she could find something suitable...one would "assume" that i lived with her in fact she lived with me..

yes i dated a man who lived in his moms house. so did his 2 kids live there....had i not gotten to know him and turned up my nose , i never would of known that yes it was HER house.
facts:1. he paid the bills< all of them>
2.she had cancer really bad
3. he did all the housework and most of the cooking.
4. he did as his dead father wished< to take care of momma>
5. he took her to all her dr appointments
6. he cleaned up her bloody vomit till the day she died.
7. when she died, the house was divided evenly between all 3 kids.<although he had paid all her bills for 3 yrs and the only one who took care of her>

does that make him less of a man? for living with his ma? i think not!!!!! cant get a man better than that!



flowerforyou drinker drinker drinker

mnhiker's photo
Wed 07/09/08 09:26 AM

nope! he needs to grow up and be a man


You are pretty quick to judge.

Sometimes we have to ask ourselves if it were us, what we'd do in a similar situation.

Maybe when you are older, you'll understand.

mnhiker's photo
Tue 07/08/08 10:51 PM
There are sometimes good reasons why someone might live with his mother.

My brother is living at home with our mother, who is a widow.

He helps her out with medical issues, maintaining the house and lawn, etc...

He's very thoughtful and I think any woman would be lucky to be with him.

mnhiker's photo
Tue 07/08/08 10:27 PM

Too many Nukes pointed in each direction for that!
But, Bush is a danger, and he has weakened our military.
We could lose a lot of ground and Europe could return to the divide that existed for 50 years!
Maybe that's what we need to keep Presidents like Bush from being so aggressive! Its hard to invade little countries like Iraq, Syria, and Iran when you are forced to maintain a half million troops in Europe!
That's just the US commitment!


Not to mention trying to beat back the resurgence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan.

I hope the Cold War doesn't come back.

It took too long to end the last time.

mnhiker's photo
Tue 07/08/08 10:19 PM

A few examples of the Republican Majority Congress's Pork spending!
(not like the one more that the Dems have in congress)

For example:


At $286.4 billion, the highway bill just passed by Congress is the most expensive public works legislation in US history. In addition to funding the interstate highway system and other federal transportation programs, it sets a new record for pork-barrel spending, earmarking $24 billion for a staggering 6,376 pet projects, spread among virtually every congressional district in the land.


and


One wonders what more Young could have wanted. The bill funnels upward of $941 million to 119 earmarked projects in Alaska, including $223 million for a mile-long bridge linking an island with 50 residents to the town of Ketchikan on the mainland. Another $231 million is earmarked for a new bridge in Anchorage, to be named -- this is specified in the legislation -- Don Young's Way. There is $3 million for a film ''about infrastructure that demonstrates advancements in Alaska, the last frontier." The bill even doffs its cap to Young's wife, Lu: The House formally called it ''The Transportation Equity Act -- a Legacy for Users," or TEA-LU.


and


Meander through the bill's endless line items and you find a remarkable variety of ''highway" projects, many of which have nothing to do with highways: Horse riding facilities in Virginia ($600,000). A snowmobile trail in Vermont ($5.9 million). Parking for New York's Harlem Hospital ($8 million). A bicycle and pedestrian trail in Tennessee ($532,000). A daycare center and park-and-ride facility in Illinois ($1.25 million). Dust control mitigation for rural Arkansas ($3 million). The National Packard Museum in Ohio ($2.75 million). A historical trolley project in Washington ($200,000).


$24 BILLION in bull**** projects like horse tracks, snowmobile trails, bike trails, and vintage car museums.

When we a) have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without the proper equipment, b) a House Majority Leader who thinks the budget is so lean there's no fat to cut and c) (biggest of all) a major national disaster to repair.

The GOP used to be all about reining in spending (and cutting taxes). Now they are just about cutting taxes, and giving a free rein to spending (unless it is something that helps people, like the Heritage Foundation's suggestion of cutting Medicare and prescription drug benefits).

I'm sure there is a much better way to spend that $24 billion. Say, in Louisana? And not on historical trolley projects...

http://robschumacher.blogspot.com/2005/09/republican-pork-barrel.html


Agreed.

Conservative radio and press always talks about 'free-spending liberals', but the Bush Administration has them beat with all the money it has spent.

mnhiker's photo
Tue 07/08/08 09:57 PM



They are responding to a threat initiated by Bush, and since NATO 's main supporter and Russia's Cold War adversary was NATO and the US, they are saying hey,
remember us? We wont stand by while you do this!
What do you expect them to do?


Act like a civilized country. If they don't act like that, why treat them like one? A threat of a DEFENSE shield, does Russia want one as well and are having a fit because they are a country that has fallen so behind to what they had once been?

You think Russia would truly threaten the entire European Union because of a missile DEFENSE shield? They aren't stupid. They will stand by and will do nothing besides wave around their outdated weapons and through nostalgic war parades.


You are naive, and sounding like a Bush puppet!
Although even he understands not to under estimate Russia's power!
Like I said your generation has no idea about the Cold War or Russia's threat to our security!


Just like in 1961 when Cuba defeated the United States in the Bay of Pigs.

They were armed by Russia.

The CIA thought that Cubans would revolt against Castro, a tragic mistake.

http://throwawayyourtelescreen.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/bay-of-pigs-declassified/

Sound familiar?

Like when we would be hailed as liberators when we invaded Iraq?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912641

History repeats itself, again and again and again, because those in power do not learn from the mistakes of the past.

mnhiker's photo
Tue 07/08/08 09:30 PM


GOOD!

I look forward to getting our kids out of harms way. The sooner the better! This whole occupying/policing action is completely pointless in relevance to a "War on Terror".



FACT — IRAQIS ANTICIPATE TAKING CONTROL OF SECURITY BY 2018:
Iraqi defense minister Abdul Qadir “that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.” [New York Times, 1/15/08]

noway noway noway noway

Election Politics!
The Republicans are desperate and we all know they are not about to tell the truth!

Do you honestly think so much has changed in Iraq in such a short time span?


Good grief!

If you ask me, 2018 is way too long to wait for the Iraqis to get their act together.

Colin Powell warned the President: 'If you break it, you fix it.' (Pottery Barn Rule) about invading Iraq, and we certainly are in it for the long haul.

We might have been further along if the inept Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had not screwed things up so gloriously.

There is no way the American people will stand for our troops continuing to die in Iraq until 2018! frustrated frustrated frustrated frustrated

But then, maybe the American people don't matter any more.

mnhiker's photo
Tue 07/08/08 01:14 PM





As well, you said in your post a statement about signing an agreement on troop withdrawal. There are two issues with that. Iraq has stated they wanted a continued security detail, which would maintain some US presence there in some capacity, though much much more limited than the current state. Whatever that means to them I do not know.


I don't know either.

But why not?

A continued security detail to check progress and keep watch on trouble as it arises.

There is no reason for the President to oppose a timetable other than it's not in the best interest of the Republican Party, it's corporate handlers and lobbyists.


Or, like you hear stated in all press time and time again. There is that worry if you state, "Hey, we are fully pulling out on August 1st (for example)", that the enemy will then just sit back and relax waiting for that date when all forces are out and go on a spree. I don't think it likely, but it of course weighs on the strategerists minds. The newsmedia is surely shoving that one down our throats, many with hope it will happen just so they can do a Vietnam-style celebrating of defeat.


Come on Starsailor.

Do you really think the Iraqis will set a timetable of August 1st of this year?

They may be optimistic but I doubt they are THAT optimistic.


No, of course not. I was just using a random date as an example to the point I was covering.


So, since the timetable is not in the near future, but won't be until next year or so, why is President Bush resisting it?

Could it be just a Republican President playing election year politics?

And as for your argument of the enemy going in after the timetable, it doesn't make sense.

If we have made so much progress in Iraq as a result of the surge, then isn't our staying there for a long time without a timetable for withdrawal an admission that the surge did not work? frustrated

mnhiker's photo
Tue 07/08/08 12:45 PM



As well, you said in your post a statement about signing an agreement on troop withdrawal. There are two issues with that. Iraq has stated they wanted a continued security detail, which would maintain some US presence there in some capacity, though much much more limited than the current state. Whatever that means to them I do not know.


I don't know either.

But why not?

A continued security detail to check progress and keep watch on trouble as it arises.

There is no reason for the President to oppose a timetable other than it's not in the best interest of the Republican Party, it's corporate handlers and lobbyists.


Or, like you hear stated in all press time and time again. There is that worry if you state, "Hey, we are fully pulling out on August 1st (for example)", that the enemy will then just sit back and relax waiting for that date when all forces are out and go on a spree. I don't think it likely, but it of course weighs on the strategerists minds. The newsmedia is surely shoving that one down our throats, many with hope it will happen just so they can do a Vietnam-style celebrating of defeat.


Come on Starsailor.

Do you really think the Iraqis will set a timetable of August 1st of this year?

They may be optimistic but I doubt they are THAT optimistic.