America to Sarah Palin: Enough!

originally posted by: neo96
This American to people that don't like Sarah Palin:

What don't like free speech ?

The only speech allowed is what you agree with ?

The first amendment isn't just a part time law.

For the record.

Quick silence any ideology other than your own ! ! ! ! !

Now where have I heard that before ?

I don't think saying someone should shut up is violating the first amendment, but thanks for defending Sarah Palin in the most Sarah Palin way possible.

Seriously guys, stop thinking free speech is a valid argument every time a person/group/etc. speaks against another person/group/etc. for something they've said (or multiple things in Palins case). It's been explained countless times why it's wrong. You're not rebutting anyone when what you're basically saying is "what she/he/they is/are doing is legal, therefore can't criticize them".

originally posted by: Flatfish

And here we are.... You seem to feel like the "debt. limit" isn't even worthy of mention while Ted Cruz and the rest of his nutty-assed Tea Party cohorts in Washington seem to think it's worthy enough to waste taxpayer time & money with a rendition of "Green Eggs & Ham" and a government shutdown.

You can't be this dense, the debt limit is established during appropriations. There is no need to mention it until like I said you have exceed approved budget expenditures. Until that happens the debt ceiling isn't reached and there is no need to raise the limit. The administration wanted more money Cruz didn't want to give it to them, hence the useless filibuster. What part of this don't you get?

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
If there was no funding, what would be the point of budgets and limits? Just keep paying whatever you want whenever you feel the need, and the president wouldn't have to ask for money from congress for all of these illegals.

For starters, I don't remember anyone saying that there was no funding. What I said or at least what I was trying to say, was that the funding to support the budget is not pre-collected and "set aside" at the time the budget gets approved. A budget is a projection of both, expected revenues and expected expenditures for a given time frame and I'm not sure how you would "set aside" funding that has not yet been collected. Unless of course, there were surplus funds left over from previous years which we all know hasn't happened since Bill Clinton was in office.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
I am not saying it was a smart thing to go there, I am just saying is this isn't something you can lay entirely at the feet of GWB, and ask yourself, who feeds him (the president) the info. We have so many intelligence agencies who knows which one fed him the information. Some of these agencies report to congress for oversight with the same info he receives. Look at it this way, did Bush fly over to Iraq look around and say he has WMD's? No, but I assure you someone did, and that someone was sent there at the behest of intel to take a look for themselves on the ground to verify satellite info. How it gets blown out of proportion at that point who can say that happens in the halls of buildings no one knows exist. There are many dirty hands.

Yeah! Who the hell was it that on Monday, August 6, 2001, (36 days prior to the 9-11 attacks) gave President Bush his presidential daily brief or PDF entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"?

That would be none other than the CIA and based on his position there at the time, I say Richard Clarke had something to do with it's contents.

Based on your previous post, it's apparent that you view Richard Clarke as a shill but I do not. If anything, I view him in just the opposite light because history shows me that he was one of the few people who got it right.

So let me see if I understand your line of thinking, you don't trust the POTUS, but you do trust the CIA? A spy organization that is trained to lie, and lie undetected? Then you read a book written by the director of the lying organization, and you base your truth on that. If you would have said I gleaned this from RT I would have believed it before the CIA. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Really the CIA?

As I stated earlier, if you'd take the time to read his book "Against All Enemies," you'll come to understand that the Bush administration rejected intelligence that did not implicate Iraq in the 9-11 attacks and repeatedly insisted that the CIA develop intel that could be used to justify a war there. This was done despite repeated insistence by the CIA that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by Al Qaeda and NOT Saddam.

So what you're saying is the CIA fabricated documents and/or intel to bolster the Bushes reason for war? And you're telling me this was in Clarkes book and he admits to this crime? You really didn't appear to be the gullible or
dense in the past post.


The same thing happened when Valerie Plame contradicted the Bush administration's claims regarding the famous "aluminum tubes." They rejected her information and exposed her secret identity as a CIA operative for disagreeing with them. In England, the "Downing Street Memo" pretty much showed that the UK government was knowingly in on the deceit leading us into that war as well.

You do realize that the CIA's number one intel partner is England? This is like listening to the two great satans and declaring them as the gospel truth.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Now if you want to talk lying lets talk liar of the year.

Yeah, why don't you try talking that crap to the families of the 4500 americans who lost there lives in that war, not to mention the families of the 32,000 american wounded or the countless Iraqi families who suffered as well.

It's like one person lied about how many marbles they had in their pocket while the other lied about there not being poison in the tea they're serving you. While they're both lies, one has little if any adverse effects while the other can be deadly.

You like so many live in the past, and dwell on the things you can no longer change while these things still go on today and do nothing while you focus on past administrations. Or maybe you think everything is peachy now. I am sure you can check with the CIA for accuracy of this administrations scandals and cover ups. Maybe you could even ask them why they had a building 2 blocks from the Benghazi Embassy running guns in an off the books illegal operation arms deal brokered by the the administration through the ambassador. Then tell me how trustworthy the administration and the CIA are.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
You can't be this dense, the debt limit is established during appropriations. There is no need to mention it until like I said you have exceed approved budget expenditures. Until that happens the debt ceiling isn't reached and there is no need to raise the limit. The administration wanted more money Cruz didn't want to give it to them, hence the useless filibuster. What part of this don't you get?

What a load of Bullsh#t!!! The debt limit is the limit that our nation can borrow to pay the bill for budgets & expenditures that were already approved by Congress, period.

Just because someone or some nation needs to borrow money doesn't necessarily mean that their spending has "exceeded" their pre-approved budget allowances. There are numerous reasons for needing to borrow money.

As I stated previously, budgets are projections of BOTH, income and expenses. Could be that the income side of the projection didn't live up to expectations. Does the term "recession" come to mind? Then again, the need to borrow could arise from some kind of natural disaster or accident.

Or it could even be due to things like enacting the unfunded expansion of Medicare Part D and launching 2 trillion dollar wars based on lies and by the way, also unfunded.

On a more personal level, it could be for something as simple as the need to buy a new car or house and even for something as fundamental as that, there would be a need to periodically increase your debt limit, if for no other reason than to keep up with inflation.

For instance, in 1973 my father bought our 4 bedroom house w/ 5 car garage on a 1/2 acre corner lot for $9,500. Today, $9,500 wouldn't be enough for the down-payment needed to secure a loan on that house.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
So let me see if I understand your line of thinking, you don't trust the POTUS, but you do trust the CIA? A spy organization that is trained to lie, and lie undetected? Then you read a book written by the director of the lying organization, and you base your truth on that. If you would have said I gleaned this from RT I would have believed it before the CIA. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Really the CIA?

Here you go again trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that I "trusted" the CIA. They are a spy agency, that's what they were created to be and for me to expect them to be anything other than that would be naive.

On the other hand, in this particular instance, history shows they were absolutely correct in issuing the PDB that warned of Al Qaeda's intent to strike within the U.S., now weren't they? Furthermore, history also shows that those within the CIA who repeatedly insisted that Saddam was not involved, including but not limited to Richard Clarke, were also right on the money. It's really not a matter of who I trust, it's more of a matter of who was right.

With respect to Bush, as I stated earlier I really don't think that he has the brains to be the mastermind behind anything bigger than a poster sized painting of himself in the shower, but I will admit that seeing how Saddam once tried to have his father killed, he did indeed have the motive to go along with those rotten bastards who were advising him.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
So what you're saying is the CIA fabricated documents and/or intel to bolster the Bushes reason for war? And you're telling me this was in Clarkes book and he admits to this crime? You really didn't appear to be the gullible or
dense in the past post.

I didn't say that Clarke admitted to any crime, other than having a POTUS repeatedly demand that his intelligence agency mold their intelligence to support and justify an invasion of Iraq despite their repeated insistence that Iraq had nothing to do with it. That crime?

And by the way, Richard Clarke isn't the only one saying that. Valerie Plame did it and we all know where it got her and there were others. Remember "Curveball," the fake iraqi informant who's lies were used to bolster claims about Saddam's chemical weapons capabilities? Remember Tyler Drumheller, (chief of the CIA's European division) saying that everyone knew hew was lying or at the very least, extremely unreliable?

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
You do realize that the CIA's number one intel partner is England? This is like listening to the two great satans and declaring them as the gospel truth.

And you're telling me this? Weren't you the one who was trying to support our intelligence reports with those coming out of England, France & Israel at the time? Didn't I bring up the "Downing Street Memo" which revealed that the head of MI6 knew that Bush wanted to remove Saddam and that intelligence and facts were being fabricated to fit the policy?

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
You like so many live in the past, and dwell on the things you can no longer change while these things still go on today and do nothing while you focus on past administrations. Or maybe you think everything is peachy now. I am sure you can check with the CIA for accuracy of this administrations scandals and cover ups. Maybe you could even ask them why they had a building 2 blocks from the Benghazi Embassy running guns in an off the books illegal operation arms deal brokered by the the administration through the ambassador. Then tell me how trustworthy the administration and the CIA are.

In case you hadn't noticed, they're still tracking down and prosecuting WWII war criminals who committed crimes against humanity some 70+ yrs. ago and as far as I'm concerned Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and possibly a few others deserve no less.

Of course we were probably funneling guns to aid in the overthrow of Kadafi and I'm sure it was anything but legal. I've always contended that it was probably something like that and I would just imagine the paperwork that ambassador Stevens was shredding at the time, was done so to conceal the operation. But then that's what the CIA does, Stevens knew what was going on, he knew the risk involved and apparently he was willing to take that risk.

I'm not now, nor have I ever, stated that I approve of everything the CIA does, but to expect open transparency from a national spy agency kinda negates the whole purpose of having them in the first place, now doesn't it?