Looks at though Alan has come out! I bet the HARDLINE EXTREME neo-CONers will come out swinging!!!
Insannity would be spitting teeth today if he show was on...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20781873/

Greenspan is probably right.

Does that open your eyes just a little??? Just wondering.....

My eyes have always been open. I'm not one of the Disciples of Soros that frequents this forum.

Have NEVER followed Soros and NEVER will!
Your eyes can't be to open if your a Disciple of DUHbya aka Rove aka DICK Cheney.
Wake from your sleep!
Whom on this board has EVER brought up Soros???
That's like say to you DJ... Thanks for being a Disciple of Castro or Ill....
TOTALLY 100% unfounded...
That's how you EXTREMEIES spew your BULLSHIT...
LIES....
Keep it up and 2008 will belong to Hillary and you'll ONLY have yourselves to blame! And I'll be pissed for 4 years ranting and raving about how you EXTREME Bible thumping idiots screwed AMERICA!!!!

Deane, I just wish I could be such a wise, independent thinker as yourself and not one of the mindless left-wing Soros zombies that everyone who disagrees with you must be!

Andrew

Who is this Soros person?

"Former Fed chair says administration put politics before sound economics."

Imagine that!

!?!

Deane, you are just killing me. Suck it up man! Have a drink --maybe a coupla drinks.

It's not gonna be easy moving out of the GOP comfort zone, but we all go through it. They've got to hit bottom before things get better.

At least it's going pretty quickly now. Won't be long before you can declare, "I'm a Republican" with pride. Well, at least not too much gay pride.

Just how many are repressed? IMHO, the number of scandals points to this being more than a few oddballs...

Missing, it's been no secret I've been unhappy with the Republican conduct for some time. Doesn't change my political views, it's the people in power that I and many other Republicans are unhappy with.

Now, take a look at the other side. Do you really feel warm and fuzzy when you look at Nancy Polosi and Harry Reid as the poster children for the Democrat Party? Do you, especially when you know they get their instructions almost daily from MoveOn.Org?

I think it's time for the "people in glass houses" saying.

I am not thrilled with Pelosi or Reid actually. (Many Democrats have no clue that Reid is pro-life undoubtedly, although that's not why I'm not thrilled with him.) I'd prefer different leadership (though I'm thrilled to have those two over the Republicans they replaced). But you'd have to be delusional to believe that they "get their instructions almost daily from MoveOn.Org." That's like saying the Republicans in Congress get their "instructions" daily from the 700 Club.

Andrew

So if the Dems get the White House in 2008 and get more seats in Congress and the Senate what do you think we can expect?

Maybe a better scenario than getting more Dems elected is we get real politicians who can actually work together. Both sides talk about wanting to be by- partisan but at the end of the week we are still stuck in the same slop as before.

I'm kind of playing my Darktemper card here.

I agree with Andrew. I think we could have better leadership there. I'm quite happy to have this discussion as well.

Can we get even better Dems in charge?

Absolutely!

See how that works Deane? It's not a case of the least horrible, like it is with the GOP, but more like maybe not getting the absolute best.

That's pretty goddamed warm fuzzy, given what we've seen these last two cycles.

"Can we get even better Dems in charge?"

Al Gore.
Ron Wyden.
Earl Blumenauer.

Hmm?

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

Greenspan is saying what I've said all along, it was essentil to take Saddam out, because of Americas economy. Which is what President Bush has said all along, Saddam was a threat to the US.

Greenspan is also coming out fairly candidly about the reasons for the Iraq Invasion as well. This is from his just published memoir, stating what has been obvious to most:

“Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

As Deane says, Greenspan is probably right.

No, it was about the free flow of trade, which is why Thomas Jefferson went to war with the Barbery Pirates (which by thte way, wasnt a country).

coulda sworn it was about WMD's...

You know there's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Guess we won't get fooled again, I don't think.

The very specific reason, is Saddam refusing to allow inspections, to prove he didnt have WMD's. which would have been a serious threat to the fee flow of trade.

Saddam did not allow open inspections as he had signed a cease fire, not a treaty. His violation of the Cease fire, is the reason we resumed hostilities.

Bullshit. Iraq happened because Bush and his neocon buddies saw an opportunity to take him out using 9/11 fear to justify their actions and finish off what Papa Bush was smart enough to leave alone.

Our entire involvement and concern in the Middle East is about the free flow of oil. All other issues feed off this basic need.

Saddam's WMD issue was not that we thought he could lob them at NYC, it was that he could use them against our allies in the region and intefer with our need for oil.

Before you get on a high horse over the oil issue, don't bother doing so unless you ride a bicycle, heat your home with wood, use nothing plastic, etc. Otherwise you're just as much a part of the problem as anyone else.

Oh yes, and be prepared for the economy of the U.S. and most of the world to completely collapse without oil. No car travel, no air travel, no employment......get the picture.

This issue is clearly far beyond the understanding of some of the simple lefties who spend all their time protesting the issue.

Iran is the next threat in this regard and we will have to take them out. My preference is that we go in and bomb the shit out of them. When they pick themselves up out of the rubble, go in and bomb them again. Pretty soon they'll understand they shouldn't get up again.

That isn't the bill of goods we were sold by the Bush administration in the run up to the invasion. The whole premise for the war was dictated on our need to fear Saddam Hussein and the terrorist threat, not to invade Iraq to gain control of it's oil supply.

Had Bush & Co. tried to sell it as you stated it, and as many who've voiced opposition to the invasion always believed was the reason for our going into Iraq, then the American public NEVER would have signed off on the deal. That is why so many are disillusioned with the Bush administration and feel duped by the real reasons behind our invading Iraq. It was never about WMD's...it was always about the oil and Bush & Co. deceived the American people because the timing was right to build upon our fear of what might happen if we didn't do something to take Saddam Hussein out.

Bookemdono, you and others need to grow up and face the real world. As Jack Nicholson so appropriately stated in A Few Good Men, "you can't handle the truth". "You" in this case being a lot of immature and shallow thinking lefties in this country.

So here we are keeping the free flow of oil from stopping the economy of the world.

How are we doing?

I can handle the truth...in fact...I'm still waiting for it to come out of hiding.

>>>"So here we are keeping the free flow of oil from stopping the economy of the world.

How are we doing?"


I'd say pretty decent, given the fact we're not in a world wide devastating depression.

It seems that Greenspan has clarified his statements and agrees with me. I rest my case.

"Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

"Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_ pf.html

But, again, had Bush and Company said immediately after 9/11 "we're going to invade Iraq because we need the oil" rather than labeling him an "grave and gathering threat" and connecting him to 9/11, do you think the American public would have supported an invasion into Iraq?

Probably not Bookemdono. The lack of depth is so bad that most president's can't provide all the facts in times like that. That has always been the case.

However, you're doing nothing more than playing around with words, a favorite tactic of the far left. Watch Allen Colmes if you need a lesson.

Since we believed Saddam had WMDs (and likely did), and that he would use them to disrupt the oil supply in support of the terrorism thrust, he was a "grave and gathering threat".

I know it's too complicated for you, but believe me, someday you'll understand (I hope).

If you think Alan Colmes is "far left" you're way off base.

And not everyone believed Saddam had WMD's. Only the select intelligence the Bush Administration propped up and the tools that believed him did.

At $80 per barrel, I'm not real sure how well we are doing at keeping the free flow of oil going, but one thing I can say is free flowing is our tax dollars down the drain in Iraq and the profits at the oil companies and the defense sector.

spare the condescending tone, Socrates, and don't lump everyone into the collective "we" as not everyone believed he had WMD's, nor did everyone believe Colin Powell's speech before the UN, nor did everyone believe Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11, nor did everyone believe it was about liberating the Iraqi people, nor did everyone believe the mission was truly accomplished.

Although some did believe the invasion was economically motivated, i.e., assuring the current and future profitability of American corporations.

I prefer to be associated with the latter group.

>>>"I prefer to be associated with the latter group."

And, if you go to San Fransisco, don't forget to wear some flowers in your hair.

"I know it's too complicated for you, but believe me, someday you'll understand (I hope)."

Deane, you are a really condescending prick. If you honestly want to make a point to someone, don't insult them. You'll only get as much respect as you give.

>>>"Deane, you are a really condescending prick."

Whatever trips your trigger is fine with me.

geez, Deane, hasn't Bush & Company's hook, line and sinker given you indigestion yet?

>>>"geez, Deane, hasn't Bush & Company's hook, line and sinker given you indigestion yet?"

The difference in our viewpoints is that I believe that Bush truly believed Saddam had WMDs and acted accordingly.

"I know it's too complicated for you, but believe me, someday you'll understand (I hope)."

Is that how you talk to people in real life? Do you talk to your former co-workers, family and friends like that? Wow. Rude.

Deane thinks that this man embodies evil. Make up your own minds:

George Soros

A global financier and philanthropist, George Soros is the founder and chairman of a network of foundations that promote, among other things, the creation of open, democratic societies based upon the rule of law, market economies, transparent and accountable governance, freedom of the press, and respect for human rights.

Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1930. His father was taken prisoner during World War I and eventually fled from captivity in Russia to reunite with his family in Budapest. Soros was thirteen years old when Hitler's Wehrmacht seized Hungary and began deporting the country's Jews to extermination camps. In 1946, as the Soviet Union was taking control of the country, Soros attended a conference in the West and defected. He emigrated in 1947 to England, supported himself by working as a railroad porter and a restaurant waiter, graduated in 1952 from the London School of Economics, and obtained an entry-level position with an investment bank.

Philosophy

At the London School of Economics, Soros became acquainted with the work of the philosopher Karl Popper, whose ideas on open society had a profound influence on his intellectual development. Specifically, Soros's experience of Nazi and Communist rule attracted him to Popper’s critique of totalitarianism, The Open Society and Its Enemies, in which he maintained that societies can only flourish when they allow democratic governance, freedom of expression, a diverse range of opinion, and respect for individual rights.

Finance

In 1956, Soros immigrated to the United States. He worked as a trader and analyst until 1963. During this period, Soros adapted Popper's ideas to develop his own "theory of reflexivity," a set of ideas that seeks to explain the relationship between thought and reality, which he used to predict, among other things, the emergence of financial bubbles. Soros began to apply his theory to investing and concluded that he had more talent for trading than for philosophy. In 1967 he helped establish an offshore investment fund; and in 1973 he set up a private investment firm that eventually evolved into the Quantum Fund, one of the first hedge funds, through which he accumulated a vast fortune.

Philanthropy

As his financial success mounted, Soros applied his wealth to help foster the development of open societies. In 1979, Soros provided funds to help black students attend the University of Cape Town in apartheid South Africa. Soon he created a foundation in Hungary to support culture and education and the country’s transition to democracy. (One of his projects imported photocopy machines that allowed citizens and activists in Hungary to spread information and publish censored materials.) Soros also distributed funds to the underground Solidarity movement in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet physicist-dissident Andrei Sakharov. In 1982, Soros named his philanthropic organization the Open Society Fund, in honor of Karl Popper, and began granting scholarships to students from Eastern Europe. Bolstered by the success of these projects, Soros created more programs to assist the free flow of information. He supported educational radio programs in Mongolia and later contributed $100 million to provide Internet access to every regional university in Russia.

The magnitude and geographical scope of his philanthropic commitments, coupled with the core principle of fostering open societies, has allowed Soros to transcend the limitations of many national governments and international institutions. During the 1980s, Soros financed a trip by young economists at a reform-minded think tank in China to a business university in Budapest; he also established a grantmaking foundation in China to foster civil society and transparency. In 1991, he helped found the Central European University, a graduate institution in Budapest that focuses on social and political development. Soros spent $50 million to help the citizens of Sarajevo endure the city’s siege during the Bosnian war, funding among other projects a water-filtration plant that allowed residents to avoid having to draw water from distribution points targeted by Serb snipers. Most recently, he has provided $50 million to support the Millennium Villages initiative, which seeks to lift some of the least developed villages in Africa out of poverty.

In 1993, Soros created the Open Society Institute, which supports the Soros foundations working to develop democratic institutions throughout Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. His network of philanthropic organizations dedicated to building open societies has expanded to include more than 60 countries in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Despite the breadth of his endeavors, Soros is personally involved in planning and implementing many of the foundation network’s projects. His visionary efforts have produced a remarkable record of successful philanthropy, including efforts to free developmentally challenged people from life-long confinement in state institutions, to provide palliative care to the dying, to win release for prisoners held without legal grounds in penitentiaries in Nigeria, to halt the spread of tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, to create debate societies, to promote freedom of the press, and to help resource-rich countries establish mechanisms to manage their revenues in a way that will promote economic growth and good governance rather than poverty and instability.

In 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was one of his main priorities. During the 2004 campaign, he donated significant funds to various groups dedicated to defeating the president.

http://www.soros.org/about/bios/a_soros

DJ said>>>>>
Missing, it's been no secret I've been unhappy with the Republican conduct for some time. Doesn't change my political views, it's the people in power that I and many other Republicans are unhappy with.

And I get my ass chewed out by the EXTREME right on this board???? That BULLSHIT! I'm as mad as DJ and I get singled out because I don't believe in what DUHbya and Co. are doing to America. That's a LOAD of shit!

My main reason (among others) for not liking Soros:

From Wikipedia:
Gun control
Directly and through his organization Open Society Institute (OSI), he has funded various gun control organizations, such as the Tides Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado. He and seven friends founded their own political committee — Campaign for a Progressive Future — and spent $2 million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for the Million Mom March. OSI has supported UN efforts to create international gun control regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the international consensus on protective gun control measures.

If the UN thinks it can control, influence or have any legal right about anything I do it just adds fuel to my fire to send them packing.

As the bumper sticker says: Get the US out of the UN. I'll go one step further. Get the UN out of the US.

After reading more about Soros, I like the guy, and can see why conservatives don't like him. He's smart, he's self made, and he puts his money where his mouth is, unlike so many generational wealthy conservatives who have inherited everything they have and believe in from their parents and grandparents.

I'm not impressed with anybody that supports the UN.

I say kick them out of the US and let them spew their garbage elsewhere.

Here's an idea that the socialists would like;

Kick the UN out of the US and let's use those buildings for homeless shelters.

I'm NOT a socialist and I'd even go along with that! (Anything to get rid of the UN, or at least distance the US from it.)

Okay I'm going to ask the question that NOBODY has.
If you get rid of the UN how do you police the world? Do you just let America have free will on whomever they please? Do you HOPE that when wrongs are happening in the world that SOMEONE helps? Or do you just do the DUHbya and Co. thing and hire Independent contractors to do ALL the dirty work?

At least something would get done instead of sitting on their collective asses and debating it till the cows come home! The UN is a joke. To many personal agendas and posturing to ever get anything done when it needs to be done before its to late or to costly! They've done such a terrific job in Darfur!

Trixter, you do the same thing we do here. You have your own sovereign government.

I sure as heck don't want anybody from the UN telling me what I can and can't do. Final authority here rests with our local, state and federal governments.

I don't have a problem if they make a recommendation, but it doesn't hold any water with me.

...Or the Pope!