3 AM ring...ring...ring

TheresaCPA · March 1, 2008, 7:16pm

The nations education system is in dire straights, can ANYONE answer the call?

ring ring ring

The nations economic system is near collapse, can ANYONE answer the call?

ring…ring…ring…

The nations health system is broken , who will answer the call?

RIng ring

I dont really care which foreign country is calling at 3 AM, I need my country fixed today.

enderkin · March 1, 2008, 7:28pm

i was unaware that superman was running for president.

Opie_ofMaybery2 · March 1, 2008, 8:07pm

actually, I’d be kinda mad if hillary or obama or john called me at 3 am…

bz2010 · March 2, 2008, 8:54am

enderkin - Superman IS running! Vote for John McCain! :)

This commercial is very effective for JM - if Hillary plays the Foreign Policy / National Defense card, McCain trumps them every time!

Yes, McCain has the experience AND the judgement - He’s the only one who should answer that call!

gbesq · March 2, 2008, 9:08am

^I think that McCain is a decent guy, and I certainly respect his past military service and personal sacrifice, but I think that he’s more of the same from the Republicans (smaller government, lower taxes, etc., etc.). Frankly, the Republicans have had their chance and I’m not impressed with the results (Iraq war, economy on the verge of recession, housing market/subprime lending crisis, 50 million uninsured Americans, crumbling infrastructure, etc., etc.). I don’t know if the Democrats can do any better, but I’m fairly confident that they can’t do much worse.

raimius · March 2, 2008, 1:38pm

Bush has not worked toward a smaller government…he has lowered taxes, without a viable way to keep paying for most things. That’s not exactly what the traditional Republicans wanted to see.

gbesq · March 2, 2008, 1:50pm

^Yes, I agree. In my prior post I was referring to the “traditional” Republican platform generally.

StitchInTime · March 2, 2008, 3:01pm

<a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059871945-post1.html]#1[/url]”>quote</a> The nations education system is in dire straights, can ANYONE answer the call?..

…The nations economic system is near collapse, can ANYONE answer the call?..

…The nations health system is broken , who will answer the call?

[/quote]

Via the Wall Street Journal: [Great</a> American Dream Machine](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113513427028228173.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep]Great”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113513427028228173.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep)

By STEPHEN MOORE and LINCOLN ANDERSON
December 21, 2005

New reports by the Census Bureau and the Federal Reserve Board on the economic well-being of the typical American family reveal that over the past three decades, the vast majority of families have experienced a rapid growth in their income and wealth. Now that nearly six out of 10 households own stock and two out of three own their own homes, the average family – for the first time ever – has net worth (assets minus liabilities) of more than $100,000. Median family income has climbed to more than $54,000 a year.

Almost no one in the national media has taken notice of this good news, which has been camouflaged by a barrage of misleading and gloomy stories on “stagnant wages,” “the growing income gap between rich and poor,” “the disappearing middle class” and “rising poverty in America.”…

…What the reports tell us is that the vast majority of Americans have not bumped into income glass-ceilings, but rather are experiencing an astonishing pace of upward income mobility. The Census data from 1967 to 2004 provides the percentage of families that fall within various income ranges, starting at $0 to $5,000, $5,000 to $10,000, and so on, up to over $100,000 (all numbers here are adjusted for inflation). These data show, for example, that in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%.

But it’s not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades. The percentage of families with real incomes between $5,000 and $50,000 has been falling as more families move into higher income categories – the figure has dropped by 19 percentage points since 1967. This huge move out of lower incomes and into middle- and higher-income categories shows that upward mobility is the rule, not the exception, in America today…

…We can say with certainty that most working Americans are achieving levels of wealth and income that far surpass those of their parents. It’s reassuring to know that the U.S. is still the pre-eminent meritocracy, where economic success is still predominantly powered by hard work and saving, not inheritance and privilege.

poetsheart · March 2, 2008, 3:24pm

You’re a Republican, aren’t you?:rolleyes:

gbesq · March 2, 2008, 5:22pm

Another view: [Economic</a> Mobility of Families Across Generations - Brookings Institution](<a href=“http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/11_generations_isaacs.aspx]Economic”>http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/11_generations_isaacs.aspx)

UriA702 · March 2, 2008, 5:25pm

I think Americans have been living outside their means and been spoiled for too long. The economic system is not near collapse. Americans are frequently making purchases they can not afford and obtaining too much debt. That is a major problem with the people in this country, all they do is complain. In the words of Barack Obama “We should be happy to live in a country where our immigration problem is with people trying to come in, not people trying to leave”

The problem I have with the democratic candidates are the empty promises. Their plans do not generate enough income to the fed to pay off it’s debt and commit to all these glamorous plans. Another issue is with these wars. War has always been a part of life, and as much as I would like to live in a world where everyone is peaceful and there is no war, that is simply never going to happen. We should be standing up for ourselves.

I also don’t understand pulling troops out of Iraq. My two concerns with that are the citizens who will be left with nothing, and the families of those who lost their lives. In my neighborhood there are 2 families who have lost sons in the War in Iraq. I do not think it is anyway fair to imply that the war was pointless and that their children died for nothing.

As for the economy, there are steady patterns in growth and recession, The economy has grown astronomically in the 20th century and early part of the 21rst century and it seems a recession is inevitable. As I mentioned earlier, something that goes hand in hand with economic growth is increased debt due to people living outside their means. A bit of slow growth or recession in the economy may give Americans a better understanding of how to manage their money accordingly. What has happened with regards to the sub-prime mortgage industry is a good indicator of this. At least in the north east MANY MANY people purchased homes and other properties outside of their means with this false notion that the property value will keep growing at a unstoppable rate. TSK TSK TSK AMERICA

Consolation · March 2, 2008, 5:41pm

<<i also=“” don’t=“” understand=“” pulling=“” troops=“” out=“” of=“” iraq.=“” my=“” two=“” concerns=“” with=“” that=“” are=“” the=“” citizens=“” who=“” will=“” be=“” left=“” nothing,=“” and=“” families=“” those=“” lost=“” their=“” lives.=“” in=“” neighborhood=“” there=“” 2=“” have=“” sons=“” war=“” i=“” do=“” not=“” think=“” it=“” is=“” anyway=“” fair=“” to=“” imply=“” was=“” pointless=“” children=“” died=“” for=“” nothing.=“”>><i also=“” don’t=“” understand=“” pulling=“” troops=“” out=“” of=“” iraq.=“” my=“” two=“” concerns=“” with=“” that=“” are=“” the=“” citizens=“” who=“” will=“” be=“” left=“” nothing,=“” and=“” families=“” those=“” lost=“” their=“” lives.=“” in=“” neighborhood=“” there=“” 2=“” have=“” sons=“” war=“” i=“” do=“” not=“” think=“” it=“” is=“” anyway=“” fair=“” to=“” imply=“” was=“” pointless=“” children=“” died=“” for=“” nothing.=“”>

So we should throw away billions of dollars and thousands MORE lives in a vain attempt to “prove” that their children did not die for nothing?

UriA702 · March 2, 2008, 5:46pm

Of course we should. When your child makes a mistake do you not make sure they suffer the consequences in order for them to learn from it. Wasn’t the United States founded on a principle that all men are created equal? We went in and destroyed infrastructure, government, and other things, and we would be better off pulling out living these people with a far inferior quality of life than they had prior just so the government can save money?

What ever happened to morals and values? We did the damage, we NEED to fix it. Those citizens are innocent and do not deserve to be propagated so American tax payers can save more money.

gbesq · March 2, 2008, 6:00pm

^Given that we have managed to destabilize the entire region by engaging in a war that never should have been fought (in my humble opinion), I too am not in favor of pulling out of Iraq before we fix the mess that we made. That is not to say, however, that I approve of the current administration, its handling of the war, or of domestic issues generally. It may very well be that the Democrats can’t do any better than the Republicans when it comes to foreign affairs and the domestic agenda, but at this point, I am disgusted enough to give them my vote and let them try.

bz2010 · March 2, 2008, 7:22pm

Fortunately we can elect McCain who can resolve the mess in Iraq.

I heard him talking recently about what he expects to do - can’t remember all the details right now, but I was impressed with his grasp of the situation. He’s been correct about strategy from the very beginning.

No matter how you feel about whether this war was justified or not (who knows how McCain would’ve voted if he’d had accurate intelligence), we ARE in it now. It must be resolved in the most beneficial manner possible…

McCain is the one to do it!

lje62 · March 2, 2008, 7:32pm

" I dont really care which foreign country is calling at 3 AM, I need my country fixed today."

I am not so sure that I want a foreign country " fixing" it for us.
I don’t think it can be fixed today either.
Careful what you wish for…think Venezuela…maybe Iran or another less stable government will make you an offer. Doesn’t make it right.

1of42 · March 2, 2008, 8:24pm

But what if their children did die for what, in the final reckoning, may amount to nothing (or very little)? I’m not saying this is necessarily the case, but I don’t think the number of soldiers dead should EVER be reason to continue the war - letting more soldiers die is not going to make their deaths any less horrible. It’s like a gambling addiction - the fact that the addict has already lost a couple of grand on the slots is not reason to continue playing and try to recoup the money - it’s reason to quit, and cut the losses.

Your point here is founded upon the premise that staying in Iraq will eventually solve the problems the country has right now. I’m not sure that is true - my reasoning for why I think the US should withdraw from Iraq is that I think the foreign presence on Iraqi soil is just turning the whole thing into a long-term, festering wound. Better, in my opinion, to leave and let the situation resolve itself as it will.

StitchInTime · March 2, 2008, 9:39pm

<a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059877371-post14.html]#14[/url]”>quote</a> Given that we have managed to destabilize the entire region by engaging in **a war that never should have been fought<a href=“in%20my%20humble%20opinion”>/b</a>…

[/quote]

[House</a> Joint Resolution 114](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.RES.114:]House”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.RES.114:)

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in <code>material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President</code>to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 andconstitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to <code>work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to</code>work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

1of42 · March 2, 2008, 9:49pm

StitchInTime, while it’s nice to see that you’re capable of quoting, Googling and copy-pasting, I am curious as to what relevance you think the text of the authorization of force against Iraq has to this? All it adds to the discussion is the fact that there were a number of reasons given to invade Iraq… we are all aware of this. Many of us think those reasons were insufficient to justify a war, especially a war with this many complications that were obvious from the start. The fact that our representatives, when presented with over-hyped intelligence 5 years ago, reacted differently and arguably without foresight, is essentially irrelevant - we all know it happened.

mini · March 2, 2008, 10:17pm

Let’s be clear: the conclusion of David Kay was that post-1991, there was NEVER any production capability, any planning for a production capability, or any actual production of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons in Iraq. None. Zippo.

There was the Clinton genocide (failed), and two failed coup attempts prior to 1998. Then the U.S. Congress, at the urging of Pres. Clinton, passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, in clear violation of international law. Then the U.S., not Iraq, but the U.S., kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Then the U.S. bombed the country in the largest bombardment of any sovereign nation since Viet Nam.

Then along came Curveball, the sole source of “intelligence information” about the WMD program, and whom the CIA never even spoke to before Powell’s speech and before the U.S. began the aggressive, hostile occupation. (Bob Drogin’s book “Curveball”, by the way, is an extraordinary ready.

The reason this is relevant is that NOT ALL members of the Senate and House were duped, so let’s not pretend they were. I feel certain that John McCain was duped; I’m not convinced one way or the other whether Hillary was - since she claims credit for White House goings-on during those 8 years, perhaps some of the responsibility for the mass child murders accrues to her, and would account for why she didn’t need to read the classified intelligence report in her possession.

“I do not think it is anyway fair to imply that the war was pointless and that their children died for nothing.”

I wouldn’t dare imply it: I would say it. They died for nothing. Except they didn’t. They died for the malfeasance, ineptitude, pride, greed, and corruption from Bill Clinton to General Betrayus, whose actions and malfeasance armed Al-Qaeda in Iraq with tens of million of dollars in U.S. weapons, and everyone in-between.

3 AM ring...ring...ring

CONNECT WITH US