Not really. In fact, if any of those are arguable then your points about Lebanon and HIV are equally so. No, he's guilty of them all and I'm a bit surprised that you'd try to deflect criticism for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
Printable View
Not really. In fact, if any of those are arguable then your points about Lebanon and HIV are equally so. No, he's guilty of them all and I'm a bit surprised that you'd try to deflect criticism for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/...n2008_HP_2.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
EDIT:What he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
So you're better off now then you were 8 years ago when you were what, just a couple years out of college?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
WOW, that's something really surprising.
You personally might be better off, but the economy sure as fuck is not.
That was kinda my point, economic decline can be great for certain people (me, yoshi) but the majority are gonna feel the hurt. But is it right to support people who promote prosperity for a small section of people while many suffer?Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Its realllllly hard for me to say yes.
Reagan is a hard president for me to call a complete failure like Bush. His administration saw the peaceful decline of communism (he talked with out enemies seriously), while dealing with the uprising of Iran. On the world stage he left it better than it was which counts for something. Domestically it he was loltastic, offering anemesty to illegals, providing legislation on immigration which outlawed hiring illegals yet didn't provide for enforcement (leading to the current state of illegals in america), HIV and of course Reaganomics.
He called the USSR the Evil Empire and peppered them with bellicose language. He gave hardliners in the Red Army and KGB the fuel they needed and was the biggest roadblock for Gorbachev's reforms within the Soviet Union to move it towards democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
You mean like making secret political deals with them to trade weapons for hostages? And then later sold weapons to pay to fund the death squads in Nicaragua?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
Tell that to the thousands in Latin America who were raped, tortured, killed or lived under political oppression and exploitation by Reagan's proxies and allies. You have no idea what you're talking about if you think Reagan's influence was a positive on the world stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
America's position was better on the world stage. Thats the position that counts. Fuck Latin America, client states and proxy control are effective tools of influence and power. The difference between then and now is that those in power over there took the heat and not the American Image. We reaped the benefits without the consequences.
My problem with Bush 2nd v. Reagan is that Bush leaves us in a worse world position than where we started.
I think John would agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKiten
Damn. Comando is awesome.
So, your main point is essentially that imperialism and sponsoring genocide is good so long as we can blame everything on the 'darkies' and not accept any responsibility ourselves? Yeah, ok. If proxies and client states are so effective then why do they universally blow up in our faces? It certainly didn't help us in Iraq or Afghanistan, did it? And even though you dimwittedly say 'Fuck Latin America' you turn right around and stress the importance of maintaining our 'image' which I can assure you takes a hit every time we support some despotic fuckhead and Latin America is the undeniable proof of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
You don't understand the effect Reagan had, so I don't think you're one to gauge the effect Bush has had either. In fact, if what you said above is true you should clamor for more neo-con candidates, they seem to be right up your policy alley.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
Actually yes, I do have a bit of love for neocon methods (granted they suck completely at the domestic). Neocons know the value of the noble lie and empire. Idealism outside of America makes us weak. The ultimate goal if we're going to engage in international politics should be American dominance. We're not the world's police, but America will suffer if radical elements like communists, Islamists or more powerful nations than us emerge and seize power over us.
As a nation we've never the money (we won't raise taxes) for international goodwill projects as a government nor the patience (4-8 year presidencies that usually flip parties in power every 8-16 years). We are barely consistent about what we want or say as a nation.
Does this lead to guys like Chavez and Islamists blaming us for their problems. Yes, but if we're successful in maintaining leaders that are willing to crush these people for us (like Saddam was against Iran) we can keep regional powers contained by having them bleed each other of their resources and focus.
Would I like a more egalitarian and respectful president who pursues international human rights, liberation of humanity and representative government? Absolutely, but the American people will never support it (and pay for it) and it is cheaper to build spheres of influence and setup puppet governments. Because if we abandon a strongman (like Saddam, another could have taken his place)
we can always setup another one when a president is willing to. When a democracy turns against us its messier and harder to control.
Its not a pretty policy but its simple and works to achieve short term goals and hopefully stability so long as those controlled by us do the dirty work that Americans are unwilling or unable to do themselves.
In short: Americans are too cheap and inconsistent to effectively support international liberation and rights movements. Hell we BARELY move on big things like genocide anymore. How can we trust any policy that seeks to do that when the old methods work best.
The problem is that no one outside the U.S. thinks this way. What we call "policing" other countries consider to be meddling. Granted, a lot of times we have to do the dirty work that other countries don't have the balls to do - and rightly so - but we also get ourselves into major headaches like Vietnam and Iraq and then wonder why no one will help us.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
But we haven't been successful at this at all, because we up and abandon or have to go in and clean up the messes of those very leaders we prop up. Batistain Cuba, Ngô Đình Diệm in Vietnam, Noriega in Panama, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Saddam in Iraq. Our current world crisis, like the radical Islamists, are directly related to our involvement.Quote:
Does this lead to guys like Chavez and Islamists blaming us for their problems. Yes, but if we're successful in maintaining leaders that are willing to crush these people for us (like Saddam was against Iran) we can keep regional powers contained by having them bleed each other of their resources and focus.
... and that's the problem. We achieved our short term goals by aiding the Taliban and Saddam in the '80s and look how well that turned out in the long term. Presidents need to stop only looking as far ahead as the next election and think of the long term repercussions of their actions.Quote:
Its not a pretty policy but its simple and works to achieve short term goals and hopefully stability so long as those controlled by us do the dirty work that Americans are unwilling or unable to do themselves.
[Yoda]This... is why we fail.[/Yoda]Quote:
In short: Americans are too cheap and inconsistent to effectively support international liberation and rights movements. Hell we BARELY move on big things like genocide anymore. How can we trust any policy that seeks to do that when the old methods work best.
We don't support liberation at all, and this is a lie that no one around the world believes anymore. It's why our credibility is in tatters on the world stage. And while many on the right argue that the world's opinion of us doesn't matter, that's pretty naive thinking. The amazing way in which the Bush administration pissed away the good will of the world after 9/11 has left us practically alone in Iraq (Bush's "coalition of the willing" consists of a guy from Poland and 3 FOX News reporters), and we're paying the price for it.
Short term solutions with long term repercussions suck but they're cost effective. Arming Saddam was more effective than fighting him and Iran. Or taking massive loans from China to prop up the United States rather than expecting the gov't to reinvest in basic research and reform the IP system to be more friendly to innovation.
I agree, we're failing but we're mitigating the damage as we can and reaping the short term benefits. Which is why I was always against the Iraq was, no short term benefits, short term repercussions with a long term payout if any only if we did it right, put in the troops, did the PR, handled most things correctly and tried to rebuild the society quickly a la the marshal plan. We weren't going to do any of those things and are quickly headed to a strongman situation again or worse, civil war.
I just feel its quicker, cheaper and just damn expedient to cut out the invasion and do what we always did: fund a coup, keep the strongman and his handlers on the CIA payroll and exploit endlessly.
You have no idea what you're talking about, full-stop. You make a ham-handed assertion that this way is somehow effective, and yet dismiss the ghastly effects it has not only on the people subjected but on their opinion of the United States. If you're so supportive of dictators and fascists, then when one finally does come to power here and starts rounding up all the minorities and LGBT people and starts shoving them in the gas chambers putting them against the wall for the firing squad I wonder if you'll applaud or protest. After all it is so effective in cleaning out the riff-raff abroad, why not here?
EDIT: In other words what I'm saying is that you're a flagrant hypocrite.
Oh come on Gozen, I haven't heard you complain too much about Clinton leaving Bosnia to rot for political expediency. You only care about this stuff when the President has an R after his name.
Yeah pretty much. Thats all america will support and I don't believe we're capable of doing any better as a nation. Trying something new like this half-ass liberation of Iraq has only led to more suffering and chaos for a future that'll for any number of reasons can go astray because America never intended, planned for or expected this.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
If we're going to bastards as usual I'd at least like them to do it right.
Leaving Bosnia to rot? He went into Bosnia under fierce opposition by the Republicans who called it overreach of executive authority and an unnecessary war. When it was over Milosevic was in custody, the genocide was stopped, and the UN took over the job of maintaining the peace and rebuilding infrastructure in Kosovo.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
Mars and Gozen, sitting in a tree, T R O L L I N G.
Leave the lesbians alone.
He made a campaign promise in 1992 to put an end to the ethnic cleansing only to ignore that promise (and allow 250,000 to be murdered over the next four years) when Hillary feared it would take attention away from her health care reforms. I think OJ's a democrat, tell us about how he was framed.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Judge Doom?
Along with a Republican Congress from '94 on, who would have allowed hundreds of thousands MORE to die. Sorry, you don't have a pot to piss in here.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
Good God why do I read these threads and do this to myself anymore.
Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
Gozen I love you, but you have to stop caring what Spo thinks.
Its the only way for you to not die of high blood pressure within the next few years.
I'm just going to post Youtube clips the rest of the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy
And hope Doc posts more and g0zen/spo post less.
I'll tell you what, if you never post again I'll cut back to one post a week.
Gozen and I are in agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Deal. Lover.
Thanks for that great video that still works.
http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...0/1321?1243567
LOL! Nice job, clowns.
Right place this time, heh.
http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1020
LETTERMAN: That is a true story. You can look that up. You can — bblllpphh. So here is what happened on Tuesday. Hillary Clinton barely won my home state of Indiana. And she lost in the State of North Carolina. But here is the good news. She has a substantial lead in the state of denial. Thank you so much. (applause)
LETTERMAN: I was thinking about this. And i’m no political genius. I’m no pundit but it occurred to me that Hillary Clinton has one thing in common with President Bush. Neither of them has an exit strategy.
Yeah, she hasn't conceded yet, but all the pundits are sticking a fork in Hillary and framing the race as officially Obama v McCain.
So, people here are excited because Puerto Rico has the most delegates of all the remaining states (55, more than 25 U.S. states). Too bad the remaining primaries mean squat. Even if Hilary won 100% of all six, she'd still fall short of the count needed to win the nomination.
The Super Delegates are the ones who will determine the winner, and they've already started defecting to Obama.
LOL, dems are playing for second place again. This personal attack campaign has killed both of them. Idiots.
Yeah, Hillary's advantage with the Superdels has all but vanished. This race is pretty much done, though Obama probably wants to downplay that to keep his showing strong.
Who fucking cares? really?
On the contrary. Marketing is all about timing, you know this. McCain would have LOVED to play the Rev Wright card in October, but now anything he brings up will be old hat, the media won't run with it the same way because it's exhausted the controversy, and its impact will fade over time. It's actually very much to the party's benefit to get this over with before the Republicans get to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
Unless you're naive enough to think McCain wouldn't have brought up all this shit anyway on his own schedule.
Here's what I know lib, want in one hand and shit in the other. see which one fills up first.
I can see why you think you'd be lonely
I never tried to make you think or let you see one thing for yourself
but now your off with someone else and I'm alone
and see I thought I might keep you for my own.
HILARY WHAT YOU WANNA DO?
What is this, context-free cliche day or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
ALLS IM SAYIN IS DONT SHIT WHERE YOU EAT, RITE?
Nope, but when you lose AGAIN, don't come up in here and scream CONSPIRACY! Just accept it, Edwards jr.
WHATS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER LOLOLELE
All I'm saying is that if you take away McCain's cards, it's going to cost him an advantage he would have had in the general election. So if the democrats had a chance of winning to begin with, they have a better chance for having gotten this out of the way and giving themselves a long time to distance themselves from it.
If McCain pulled the Rev Wright controversy 3 weeks before the election, Obama would get CREAMED, but now he can't do that. You think the timing was an accident? We've known about Rev Wright for like a year now, and Hillary launched a controversy blitz leading up to the PA primary that she desperately needed to win. You think McCain is stupid and wouldn't have sat on that to play it at the right time if he could?
Trust me, the party is no worse off for having done this. That has nothing to do with wish/want, nor does it mean they'll win. But it hasn't hurt them.
True, but if McCain played the Wright card or the race card or the elitist card it wouldn't have resonated with nearly as many Democratic voters as it did when Hillary played them. No outsider could damage Obama in the eyes of Democrats the way Hillary did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
It definitely feels that way right now, because people on the democratic side feel like they can jump ship without abandoning the party, but I'd be really surprised if you don't see the part resolidify by the time we reach the general election. The second Obama wins the nomination, he and Hillary are going to hug on camera, and she's going to talk about how great he is for the next 6 months.
It's going to be an interesting 6 months, for sure. Obama has a major advantage on the issues that will supposedly define this election (the war, and the economy). Rememeber McCain keeps saying he's not an economics guy, he doesn't want to drastically change any of our present policies, and that's scary to people. So McCain has a hard fight right now.
That said, they're both strong personalities, and that can decide an election too, along with "relatability" and other nonsense, so it's going to be a hard fight, and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
sourceQuote:
McCain, blogger trade barbs over his 2000 vote
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Did Republican presidential candidate John McCain vote for President George W. Bush in 2000?
Liberal Internet blogger Arianna Huffington says McCain told her he did not. But the Arizona senator says he did vote for Bush, a fellow Republican, in 2000 and campaigned for him all over the country after his own attempt to win the party's nomination failed...
..."I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004," he said in an interview with Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor" that aired on Thursday night.
"And not only that, far more important than a vote, I campaigned everywhere in America for him," McCain said. "I enjoyed it. I campaigned with him. I did everything I could to get him elected and re-elected president."
(Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by John O'Callaghan)
sourceQuote:
MCCAIN DENIES REPORTS OF SNUBBING BUSH IN 2000
...The presumptive GOP nominee defended himself after Arianna Huffington wrote in The Huffington Post Monday that McCain and his wife Cindy told her at a Los Angeles dinner party shortly after the 2000 election that neither of them voted for Bush. She wrote that Cindy McCain even said she voted for her husband as a write-in candidate.
The Los Angeles Times then claimed Wednesday that an anonymous source who attended the dinner confirmed the Cindy McCain account.
And Friday, The Washington Post and The New York Times reported two “West Wing” actors heard the same thing from the Arizona senator — only their version of the story was a little different.
According to the Post, actor Bradley Whitford said McCain told a group of people at the Hollywood dinner that Bush was “horribly unqualified and untested.”
Asked if he supported Bush, McCain then “put his finger up to his lips, shook his head and mouthed, ‘No way,’ ” according to Whitford.
Actor Richard Schiff gave a similar account. Neither remembered Cindy McCain describing how she voted.
Click here to read the latest account of the Hollywood dinner with McCain in The Washington Post.
FOX News’ Mosheh Oinounou contributed to this report.
also, a new contender??
sourceQuote:
BOB BARR ANNOUNCES PRESIDENTIAL BID
Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr announced Monday that he’s running for president as a Libertarian, candidacy that could hurt John McCain.
“I will be a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and it is precisely to give the American people a voice, to give them a meaningful choice so that they do not have to once again go into the polling booth on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, hold their nose and pull a lever — or touch one of those magical touch-screens that seem to be so much in vogue now — and vote for the lesser of two evils. America deserves better,” Barr told reporters at his Washington, D.C., announcement.
The former Republican congressman said that having spent several weeks roaming the U.S. and abroad and talking to people from all walks of life, he has heard the same complaints.
“They want a choice. They believe America has more to offer than what current political situation is serving to us,” he said.
Barr said “protecting the defense and defending the United States” is a first priority, and that would include not leaving open military bases abroad that serve no advantage. He added that overturning the status quo by bringing discretionary spending under control, limiting the size and scope of the federal government and reducing the deficit are also among his objectives.
“The status quo has given us the litany of problems that we’re all very familiar with — the debt, the deficit, the problems that we see in the economy, the trade imbalance and a whole host of problems, the occupation of Iraq. These are all children of the status quo,” he said.
Barr first must win the Libertarian nomination at the party’s national convention that begins May 22. Party officials consider him a front-runner thanks to the national profile he developed in Congress from 1995 to 2003.
Barr, 59, is likely most famous for serving as an impeachment manager against Bill Clinton. He served as a U.S. attorney before entering Congress.
Early last month, Barr announced he was forming a presidential exploratory committee to investigate whether he should run. He argued that he did not want to sit on the sidelines while the country faces a grave moral crisis.
Barr left the GOP in 2006 over what he called bloated spending and civil liberties intrusions by the Bush administration.
Since leaving office, he has maintained the political action committee he formed as a congressman. In the current two-year election cycle, he has raised more than $1.2 million, spending most of it on direct mail. His staff said the mailings are intended to spread his “message of liberty.”
Barr currently runs a lobbying and public affairs firm with offices in Atlanta and outside Washington. His clients have included the American Civil Liberties Union and the Marijuana Policy Project, a group pushing Congress to allow medical marijuana use and to cut spending for what it says are failed anti-drug media campaigns aimed at young people.
Barr also holds the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union Foundation and is a board member of the National Rifle Association.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I thought it was common knowledge (at the time) that McCain hated Bush after the 2000 election. Which was why it was so weird seeing him snuggle up to Bush on the torture issue.
The whole Huffington thing is lame. Of course McCain hates Bush and of course he can't admit that now. People that like Bush will probably believe McCain's denial and people that don't like Bush will see this as another reason to vote for McCain.
I'd agree that it's a non-issue. Lots of people regret voting for Bush twice.
What about trust? Doesn't this tarnish his free thinking Maverick approach?
That's long gone, but the brand identity remains. The challenge for Obama (?) is going to be convincing people that the brand is a myth.
Which is what this helps do, right? He's tight roping the Bush vote. Like Obama did with Wright, only he's offensive to more people.
Obama's going to have a hard enough time convincing rednecks that he's not a Muslum.
No. He's still butting heads with his party over global warming, torture, spending, taxes, immigration, etc. He's not openly spitting venom at Bush anymore (to the dismay of many) but he's the same guy he always was. He's certainly no worse than Hillary or Obama when it comes to fudging the truth to get elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
I don't think they'd vote for him anyway. Not the ones I know.
Right now, the only thing I have against Obama is that he's obstinate about not considering Clinton as a VP. That kind of thinking killed Regan in 76 with Ford, and the opposite, worked in 80 with Bush. It also worked well with his icon, Kennedy in 60.
To those who say it’s his right to pick a VP, I say not when he hasn’t shut out the number two. When a race is this close, you have to lose some privileges.
EDIT: Anyhow that's enough to make me vote McCain, depending on who the pick is for VP and the hints toward a cabinet, considering those were the guys that actually ran the nation for the last eight years.
Kucinic's hot wife should be VP.
Can he take a Republican as his VP?
vaginally penetrated?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowutopia
EDIT:There's rumors about Hagel as VP or Secretary of Defense under Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
Obama would lose all credibility with a lot of people if he turned around and took Hillary as his VP. He also wants to craft his own political legacy without being tied to the Clintons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Yup. There's a chance McCain could take Lieberman too, which would make things really interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
And he could've had that, if he shut her out in month 2. Now he no longer can afford that luxury.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
Obama's answer to that would be that he's taken the high road while she's pulled out every dirty trick in the book to stoke fear and prejudice and hang in the race. His supporters hate the Clintons so much at this point that they threatened to abandon ship at the mention of Obama helping pay down Hillary's campaign debt in exchange for her dropping out.
Yawn, wtf are you guys talking about?
Obama will tab Edwards for the white vote
McCain will go for Powell, fail, and settle for Lieberman or Rice.
Vice President Powell, first Black President when McCain meets with the Vietnamese ambassador to the UN and has a stroke from all his pent up rage. I could dig that.
I hope he chooses Bill Clinton for vice-president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
IBTNQuote:
Originally Posted by Error
I would take Powell light years over Obama.
On a side not, it would be fucking awesome if mccain flipped out on national TV and went total hulk hogan on the vietnamese ambassador and his entire staff, steel chair shots and all.
Everyone knows Bill Clinton was the first black president.
I have come to the conclusion that no candidate in the last 8 years (at least) is mentally and physically qualified to run this country.
I think I might just skip this one.
I vote for Yawa.
I think the Rev. Wright thing might have just been a way to make sure everyone remembers he's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Oh bullshit frog, most southern americans hit the off button on Obama the minute that retard opened his mouth. Why are you trying to "spin" a video game forum dude?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
That's the disconnect. Look at this thing with West Virginia. The retard redneck vote thinks he is a) Muslum because of his name and b) Anti-American because of his pastor, but does not see any connection between the two. At all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Nevermind that an Anti-American would not be running for President (one presumes), and a Muslum would not be going to a Christian church...
It was a joke, stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
On the contrary, how awesome would it be for the muslims if an anti-american had guys like frog voting him into the white house? Yeah, chew on that for a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
There's a Muslim Race now?
Shit. We're DOOMED. Stupid.
Well fucksicles.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24582429/
The really sad part? I can see myself voting for him over the other three. Maybe.
Welcome to last page.
Guess that's what I get for being busy.
Next time read the thread before you post.
Yes... :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Too bad lots of them don't regret voting for him once.
I do (the second time) but not really, would Kerry have been any better? Nope
Seriously. Now people are pretty much lining up to vote for him a third time. When does regret begin to actually influence your decisions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
WTF are you talking about? If Bush ran again he'd get destroyed by Kuchinich much less anybody viable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Yeah. You can't get worse than Bush. There's never been a President in history that grasped so much power for the executive branch, essentially setting in motion a huge potential corrosion of the three branches in general. I like a lot of what Republicans stand for, and it's a shame to see him drag their name through the mud with his legacy of corruption and mismanagement. I bet McCain's nomination would be a walk in the park if he hadn't screwed the pooch so royally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
You know, I'm kinda tired of hearing that Gore or Kerry would have been worse, or just as bad. Can you really sit there and say that George W has not been an unmitigated and total disaster in office? I don't care if Katrina wasn't his fault, his handling of it was. Sometimes a President can just sit back and say yup, my guy is doing a fabulous job. This guy can't. Everything he's touched has turned to shit. I mean really.
People who vote for one party only, EVER, should look into one party systems to see how well they turned out.
Nope, he'd win. Cuz the worse option would be a fuckin democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
He's in the lower tier, no doubt. But he's not quite the special kind of fuck-up that Jimmy Carter was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
This is the wrong answer.Quote:
I don't care if Katrina wasn't his fault, his handling of it was.
Recovery efforts are to be handled at the state levels. The President's only job is to authorize federal relief funds, which he did in advance of the storm. Using all available resources to assist the people as quickly as possible falls to the state level. And the inept Louisiana leadership is where the ball was dropped.
Note that while Biloxi and Gulfport were hit much worse than New Orleans, they bounced back quicker. Mississippi state leadership handled the crisis properly, relief assets were streamlined in a most efficient manner, and all was (relatively) well.
Now pan over to New Orleans. We all know what a piss-poor job Ray Nagin did before the storm, because his chocolaty delicious comments made for good punchlines. But the real clusterfuck could be found in Governor Kathleen Blanco's impotent leadership. Money was squandered, relief supplies misdirected, and her use of Louisiana National Guard resources were horribly mismanaged; all this culminated in the perfect shitstorm of ineffective aid.
Bush did his part, and then did more in sending active duty troops into New Orleans to help when it became terribly clear that Blanco had no clue what the fuck she was doing. I was here, and I know what I'm talking about on this.
There are many, many things you could say that Bush fucked up royally, and I could not dispute you. But his handling of Katrina certainly wasn't one of them.
Same corporation, new spokesmodel. Give me one substantial policy difference between Bush and McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
i do. first time only, learned my lesson by the second. Rather liked kerry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
You can't be real.Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
actually, no. FDR tried to overthrow the supreme court and appoint six new judges to get his new deal policies passed in 1936. Of course he also signed on for first and second generation japanese americans to be forced into internement camps to prevent espionage in 1942 with executive order 9066. im not saying that bush is better than FDR, but as far as trying to expand the powers of the president well beyond their limits, and invalidate and entire branch of the government, there were worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Mccane supports using government funds to support embryonic stem cell research, bush only approved it for a few lines. also, He has said that if china and india sign on, he would sign a successor to the kyoto treaty, bush opposed the kyoto treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Who really gives a fuck about either of those things? I mean I care to a very limited extent, but do either have a real impact on your lives in the forseeable future?Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
That's very short-sighted of you.
Now you are being silly, Stem cell research has the very real possibility to be the next biggest breakthrough in medicine since penicillian. Read up on it a bit, if i recall you are diabetic(forget wether you are type 1 or 2), yours is one illness that has a very real possibility of seeing an outright cure from expanded research. and as for kyoto, A real government focus of dealing with global warming, both through reduction of carbon emmisions, and investment in efficient renewable energy resources will unquestionably have a real difference in our lives. so yeah both will impact my life in the forseeable future.
Stem cell research will continue with or without federal funding. Suporting it is a good thing, but it will not dramatically affect our quality of life.
The environment will be ruined whether or not we sign an agreement. Do you realize the carbon output of China? We're not going to win this battle.
I think being on the right side of this issues shows your priorities in order, but they aren't substantial, meaningful issues that the president of the country needs to be chiefly accountable for, and the measurable impact is negligible.
And I am not diabetic, but I don't need to be to appreciate medical research.
Political trickery is afoot.
Look, I'm just saying the policies for which Bush is most despised are shared by McCain. Bush has dug us into a deep hole, and McCain wants to take that shovel and dig for China. If he whistles a different song while digging, it won't make me feel any better.
Stem-cell research is by and far the most important thing that any of these presidents have the capability to toy with. Direct impact and future impact. How much they support it, well who knows, sky's the limit.
It's immaterial to this election anyway. All parties support it. However McCain supposedly for minimal federal spending of anything that doesn't blow up bad mans, so take that as you will.