View Full Version : Who signed the legislation.....
Vegas
05-16-2007, 11:53 AM
......making regime change in Iraq the official US policy?
This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
hannitykillspuppies
05-16-2007, 11:58 AM
......making regime change in Iraq the official US policy?
does who signed it make it any less retarded to ignore the long existing confilct between shias and sunnis? does who signed it make the horrible planning for war and occupation any less horrible?
All I know is that I sure didn't sign it.
hannitykillspuppies
05-16-2007, 12:58 PM
i'm tired of this administration and it's cronies trying to have their cake and eat it too. anything positive that has come or will come of this war they want all the credit for, bring up anything negative and the company line "democrats voted for the war too" comes flying out of their mouths. can't have it both ways. but then again most of them reside in bizarro world, so perhaps they can.
All I know is that I sure didn't sign it.
Me too. If your objective is to say the war sucks and that every person voting for it deserves blame then Mission Accomplished and I agree with you. If your objective is to muddy the waters (which i think it is), then I don't know what to tell you, as I think that is a bad way of trying to move forward and past this.
Vegas
05-16-2007, 03:43 PM
Me too. If your objective is to say the war sucks and that every person voting for it deserves blame then Mission Accomplished and I agree with you. If your objective is to muddy the waters (which i think it is), then I don't know what to tell you, as I think that is a bad way of trying to move forward and past this.
My point was to see whether anyone knows what president made regime change in Iraq the official US policy.
My point was to see whether anyone knows what president made regime change in Iraq the official US policy.
Oh, Roosevelt? Are you one of those that thinks Bush I made a mistake by not taking out Saddam then? What do you think his reasons were?
Additionally, I would say that my question is answered, and this bringing up Clinton does nothing but muddy the waters. Do you disagree with him? Does that mean you like rape rooms and torture chambers and Uday and Qusay raping women?
Vegas
05-16-2007, 03:52 PM
Oh, Roosevelt? Are you one of those that thinks Bush I made a mistake by not taking out Saddam then? What do you think his reasons were?
Additionally, I would say that my question is answered, and this bringing up Clinton does nothing but muddy the waters. Do you disagree with him? Does that mean you like rape rooms and torture chambers and Uday and Qusay raping women?
The conditions were different after the first gulf war. I thought at the time that the military should have gone after Sadam and had a war crimes trial. It would have been warranted. I'm not sure that it was a "mistake" for not invading Iraq at the time, because it was an impossible sell to the Arab countries at that time.
The conditions were different after the first gulf war. I thought at the time that the military should have gone after Sadam and had a war crimes trial. It would have been warranted. I'm not sure that it was a "mistake" for not invading Iraq at the time, because it was an impossible sell to the Arab countries at that time.
Well, they were more behind that war than this one, right?
The conditions were different after the first gulf war. I thought at the time that the military should have gone after Sadam and had a war crimes trial. It would have been warranted. I'm not sure that it was a "mistake" for not invading Iraq at the time, because it was an impossible sell to the Arab countries at that time.
Bush I didn't finish the job because he had insight and/or foresight, which apparently isn't a heritable trait.
Vegas
05-16-2007, 03:54 PM
Well, they were more behind that war than this one, right?
The Saudis were certainly more for getting Sadam out of their country, but that was a far different situation than we see today.
hannitykillspuppies
05-16-2007, 04:12 PM
My point was to see whether anyone knows what president made regime change in Iraq the official US policy.
what is the relevance of this point?
Jiddy78
05-16-2007, 04:18 PM
what is the relevance of this point?
That the hypnotoad philosophy has been founded by an adulterer.
hannitykillspuppies
05-16-2007, 04:21 PM
That the hypnotoad philosophy has been founded by an adulterer.
you are one odd individual.
Jiddy78
05-16-2007, 04:27 PM
you are one odd individual.
You're welcome.
That the hypnotoad philosophy has been founded by an adulterer.
Yes, he is an adulterer. A marginal too. Better than a complete failure though.
Jiddy78
05-16-2007, 04:38 PM
Yes, he is an adulterer. A marginal too. Better than a complete failure though.
In terms of how well the country got along in comparison to now...I'd semi-agree, although rolling the wheel up the hill is part of the process of rolling it down IMO...
Of course, an adulterer is a failure at life.
In terms of how well the country got along in comparison to now...I'd semi-agree, although rolling the wheel up the hill is part of the process of rolling it down IMO...
Of course, an adulterer is a failure at life.
Well, I wouldn't quite go that far, but I am never sure when you are joking. I don't despise him, and I do despise Bush. Clinton could put words together to form a sentence, and he could even articulate these "sentences" in a way that made a point. The guy we have now? Not so much. He is like a broken record of excuses and lies. Clinton also had to work against a Repub congress. Bush had a rubber stamp congress and look where it got us.
Jiddy78
05-16-2007, 04:56 PM
Well, I wouldn't quite go that far, but I am never sure when you are joking. I don't despise him, and I do despise Bush. Clinton could put words together to form a sentence, and he could even articulate these "sentences" in a way that made a point. The guy we have now? Not so much. He is like a broken record of excuses and lies. Clinton also had to work against a Repub congress. Bush had a rubber stamp congress and look where it got us.
Clinton "rubber-stamped" the home gain exclusion. He is dead to me. Even if he does know the definition of the word budget. Busts result from bubbles. Clinton was all over the formation of the stock and home bubbles (the stock bubble occurred while he was in office)....yet gets credit for being Mr. Economy. Horsecrap.
Clinton "rubber-stamped" the home gain exclusion. He is dead to me. Even if he does know the definition of the word budget. Busts result from bubbles. Clinton was all over the formation of the stock and home bubbles (the stock bubble occurred while he was in office)....yet gets credit for being Mr. Economy. Horsecrap.
Fair enough.
Hotpapa666
05-17-2007, 01:28 AM
Bush I didn't finish the job because he had insight and/or foresight, which apparently isn't a heritable trait.
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding! Forsight is a damn fine thing.
Hotpapa666
05-17-2007, 01:35 AM
Clinton "rubber-stamped" the home gain exclusion. He is dead to me. Even if he does know the definition of the word budget. Busts result from bubbles. Clinton was all over the formation of the stock and home bubbles (the stock bubble occurred while he was in office)....yet gets credit for being Mr. Economy. Horsecrap.
Don't the every decreasing Fed rates of Greenspan and the deregulation of banks (a republican move) deserve some fault for the housing bubble as well?
Allot of people out there were getting loans that they didn't deserve/wouldn't pay/couldn't pay as a result of these two factors.
Jiddy78
05-17-2007, 07:28 AM
Don't the every decreasing Fed rates of Greenspan and the deregulation of banks (a republican move) deserve some fault for the housing bubble as well?
Allot of people out there were getting loans that they didn't deserve/wouldn't pay/couldn't pay as a result of these two factors.
Lower tax rates appeals to the richies....No taxes on gains appeals to the not-so-richies...The fed monumentally f*cked up...But the changing of the tax law created a whole new attitude towards property...Every f*cking person I know was touting 1031's and tax free home gains...Like they were rockefeller....The greed mounted from there when low interest rates reared their ugly head...
But why did those low interest rates rear their ugly head?
The stock market crash...
Follow the timeline backward.
Hotpapa666
05-17-2007, 11:04 AM
Lower tax rates appeals to the richies....No taxes on gains appeals to the not-so-richies...The fed monumentally f*cked up...But the changing of the tax law created a whole new attitude towards property...Every f*cking person I know was touting 1031's and tax free home gains...Like they were rockefeller....The greed mounted from there when low interest rates reared their ugly head...
But why did those low interest rates rear their ugly head?
The stock market crash...
Follow the timeline backward.
Backwards to where? I'm not being a smart-ass; I just prefer discourse to be laid out in plain English, that gets rid of confusion. Again, no offense.
What about deregulation? Without deregulation we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Deregulation of banks (combined with low interest rates which lowered the risk of high risk loans) was a huge driving force in the housing bubble. We saw shit like interest only loans on Supers. We saw folks with marginal credit getting loans that 15 years before they wouldn't have dreamed of getting. We saw predatory loans for large sums of money. We saw my Brother get a loan with ease; this is a guy who had to beg a bank to give him a checking account after all of the bad paper he wrote around town.
Without all of these previous non-buyers driving up the market the bubble wouldn't have been so big...
Vegas
05-17-2007, 11:53 AM
Lower tax rates appeals to the richies....No taxes on gains appeals to the not-so-richies...The fed monumentally f*cked up...But the changing of the tax law created a whole new attitude towards property...Every f*cking person I know was touting 1031's and tax free home gains...Like they were rockefeller....The greed mounted from there when low interest rates reared their ugly head...
But why did those low interest rates rear their ugly head?
The stock market crash...
Follow the timeline backward.
The (several thousand page) tax simplification act of 1987 had a much bigger impact on the real estate market than more recent tax changes. That one was horrible. Prior to that time, all interest on real estate purchases was deductible. The act limited deductibility to two loans and real estate prices collapsed. The same politicians who passed such a drastic change and caused the price collapse blamed the S&L scandal, but the reality was that the S&L collapse was more caused by imploding real estate prices.
Jiddy78
05-17-2007, 12:27 PM
The (several thousand page) tax simplification act of 1987 had a much bigger impact on the real estate market than more recent tax changes. That one was horrible. Prior to that time, all interest on real estate purchases was deductible. The act limited deductibility to two loans and real estate prices collapsed. The same politicians who passed such a drastic change and caused the price collapse blamed the S&L scandal, but the reality was that the S&L collapse was more caused by imploding real estate prices.
Bah....Hindsight compels you...No way the 87 changes match the pain ensuing. No f*cking way. Same sh*t different day may apply....But so does the bigger they are...The harder they fall.
Jiddy78
05-17-2007, 01:32 PM
Backwards to where? I'm not being a smart-ass; I just prefer discourse to be laid out in plain English, that gets rid of confusion. Again, no offense.
What about deregulation? Without deregulation we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Deregulation of banks (combined with low interest rates which lowered the risk of high risk loans) was a huge driving force in the housing bubble. We saw shit like interest only loans on Supers. We saw folks with marginal credit getting loans that 15 years before they wouldn't have dreamed of getting. We saw predatory loans for large sums of money. We saw my Brother get a loan with ease; this is a guy who had to beg a bank to give him a checking account after all of the bad paper he wrote around town.
Without all of these previous non-buyers driving up the market the bubble wouldn't have been so big...
I was talking about my own individual post with the backwards timeline concept...
Tax laws shifted to make real estate gains favorable....The market shifted along with it....thus the pressure on real estate loans became greater...Fraud ensued, of course, because our Babylonian citizen base will do anything for that easy buck...
There you go:
Law leads to whores leads to fraud.
Backwards timeline would be fraud comes from whores who came from law.
That help?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.