NationStates Jolt Archive

And by that I mean McCain voters. First off, we know that McCain will be Bush #3, I mean that's crystal clear. They had 90% voting similarity, and McCain isn't strong willed enough to stand up to the GOP, as has been evident in his choice of Sarah Palin.

So with the following disasters - Iraq, Katrina, FEMA, Guantanamo, Kosovo, Healthcare, the Economy, etc. why? Are you guys naturally sadistic?Masochistic?

The War in Iraq, enabled (just like I predicted) the Taliban to establish an operating base in Pakistan where there are actual nukes. That's scary. In addition it cost Trillions of dollars, destabilized the American Economy and killed over 4,000 American boys and girls and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi boys and girls. But the ones who survive can go to Walter Reed and have a rat as a roommate!

Katrina-FEMA: First the Bush Administration failed to re-enforce the levees. Ray Nagin, the Chocolate Mayor does not command the Army Corps of Engineers, Bush does. After not re-enforcing the levees, the Bush Administration through FEMA provided toxic trailers for the surviviours of Katrina to live in. I mean any sane country at this point would vote out the administration, but not the US. And on top of all that, this administration failed once again at Galveston. Don't these guys ever learn? Haven't you understood by now that they don't?

Guantanamo - two questions: what kind of an idiot would place a secret prison in a country that they view as hostile? And then, what kind of an idiot doesn't apologize for the sheer stupidity of those actions? I mean wow!

Kosovo - a complete, total and utter geo-political disaster. After the recognition of Kosovo, Russia told Kosovo (whom they knew was protected by the US) "Go and fuck yourself" and the extreme majority of the rest of the World, including 6 NATO countries, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, and others, backed Russia, either implicitely or openly. That should have sent a pristine message to the Bush Administration, to maybe review Kosovo? Nope, the Bush Administration boldly continues to support Kosovo, by letting small countries, like Estonia, recognize it. Take away NATO and Australia, and the countries recognizing Kosovo are a joke. And is Australia really going to fight over Kosovo? NATO - 6 members, vs. Rest of World, golden. Current recognition score: 52 in favor, 140 no reaction, most of these oppose. How exactly is the US a Superpower after Kosovo, when the US's recognition of a country matters only as long as it's protected by most of NATO?

Healthcare - going down the tubes. Are you happy with your HMO plan? Satisfied? Just hoping to not get into an accident?

Oil Dependency - the only way that Russia is a threat to mainland US (aside from nukes) is it's management and say in Worldwide oil resources. If OPEC and Russia combine...you get the idea. Well under Bush oil dependancy has increased, while he continues to Bullshit that the Iraqi War really keeps Americans safer.

Economy - This one the Bush Administration blamed on a lot of things, the "Dot Com Bust", Bill Clinton (why not), Nancy Pellosi, Regulators, 9/11, Global Markets, etc. Had this administration actually been responsible, and enforced the regulations that it Constitutionally had to enforce, we wouldn't be in this crisis today, where most Americans lost half of their pensions, while CEOs and oil companies doubled their profits! I mean this is just plain ridiculous!

And you want more of this? More Toxic Trailers? Bigger inflation? Smaller pensions? Everyone ignoring what the US says? More Guantanamo-like embarassments? Need I remind you that had the AARP not acted, the Bush Administration would have privatized Social Security as well! So seriously, are you sadistic? Masochistic? Don't like chocolate men? Think Palin makes sense? I just don't get Red Americans.

And by that I mean McCain voters. First off, we know that McCain will be Bush #3, I mean that's crystal clear.

I stopped reading here. We don't know the future. It may be very likely, but then, with the expected Democratic gains in both the house and senate, even if McCain tried to continue a Bush-like government, he would have to compromise.

Economy - This one the Bush Administration blamed on a lot of things, the "Dot Com Bust", Bill Clinton (why not), Nancy Pellosi, Regulators, 9/11, Global Markets, etc. Had this administration actually been responsible, and enforced the regulations that it Constitutionally had to enforce, we wouldn't be in this crisis today, where most Americans lost half of their pensions, while CEOs and oil companies doubled their profits! I mean this is just plain ridiculous!

Well if the regulations had been taken away during the Clinton Administration things might have been differently. Though not everything that has cause the crisis orginated within America a lot did but not all.

Don't like chocolate men?

Though I'm not an American I love chocolate men and chocolate frogs.

I stopped reading here. We don't know the future. It may be very likely, but then, with the expected Democratic gains in both the house and senate, even if McCain tried to continue a Bush-like government, he would have to compromise.

Umm, with expected gains in the Senate? Do you know how the Senate works? The Dems need 60 seats to control the Senate and prevent Filibusters, seats they're not likely to get. If McCain's elected it's 2006-2008 all over again.

Umm, with expected gains in the Senate? Do you know how the Senate works? The Dems need 60 seats to control the Senate and prevent Filibusters, seats they're not likely to get. If McCain's elected it's 2006-2008 all over again.
Preventing filibuster is very different than having voting majority. Yes, Republicans would still have ability to block certain legislation, but the Democratic majority would enable the Democrats to get strong influence over what is passed (and would then negate Lieberman's current power seat).

All politicians want only one thing. Money and power. That's it. Our country's doomed for eternity. No matter who we elect, they'll be just as shady and greedy as the ones before them. See you all in Greece.

Preventing filibuster is very different than having voting majority. Yes, Republicans would still have ability to block certain legislation, but the Democratic majority would enable the Democrats to get strong influence over what is passed (and would then negate Lieberman's current power seat).

That means that Dems wouldn't be able to pass Legislation without Republicans' approval, just like it is right now. As for negating Leiberman's seat, he betrayed his party, he will be vacating it in the next election, unless he really shmoozes up to the Democrats.

All politicians want only one thing. Money and power. That's it. Our country's doomed for eternity. No matter who we elect, they'll be just as shady and greedy as the ones before them. See you all in Greece.

I didn't like Kerry, but I liked Gore. Plus I haven't see any corruption allegations against either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. And no country's doomed for eternity, after Taft-Wilson-Harding-Coolige-Hoover came FDR-IKE-JFK, so it is possible to do. It's been a while since the US had a respectable president, maybe Americans should've protected JFK better?

That means that Dems wouldn't be able to pass Legislation without Republicans' approval, just like it is right now. As for negating Leiberman's seat, he betrayed his party, he will be vacating it in the next election, unless he really shmoozes up to the Democrats.

They'll have to do this weird thing called cooperate to get legislation passed. Strange, I know, as it hasn't been practiced in a great many years, but that is actually how a system of checks and balances works best...you know...with actual checks and balances, rather than rubber stamps and ignored minority opinions.

As for Lieberman, he doesn't have to suck up to Democrats. They make up 33% of the voting population of CT. Republicans make up 22%, with the rest being independents (many of those registered to a party do so to vote in primaries, and independents do tend to swing liberal, but not all by any stretch). As he is an independent currently, he doesn't need to win a primary in the state...only the general election. There has been increased dissatisfaction with him in the state since the last election, but much of that is from youth voters, many of whom move to Boston and NYC for college. His loss is not definite, and has little to do with Democrats.

I always wondered if campaigny talking point threads like these would bother me as much if they came from 'my side'...and they kind of do. Good to know.

I mean, this isn't new, it isn't a fresh take-it's almost straight out of a campaign rally. This is just crowding up the front page with the same thing that's been hashed and rehashed. The fact that I 'agree' doesn't make it easier, just more embarrassed.

I always wondered if campaigny talking point threads like these would bother me as much if they came from 'my side'...and they kind of do. Good to know.

I mean, this isn't new, it isn't a fresh take-it's almost straight out of a campaign rally. This is just crowding up the front page with the same thing that's been hashed and rehashed. The fact that I 'agree' doesn't make it easier, just more embarrassed.

I actually think I'm more irritated with it coming from my side...with the other side, I usually can atleast read through. This one, I couldn't make it past the first sentence. It may be exhaustion, or true irritation. I lean more towards the latter, given that it isn't only me.

And by that I mean McCain voters. First off, we know that McCain will be Bush #3, I mean that's crystal clear. They had 90% voting similarity, and McCain isn't strong willed enough to stand up to the GOP, as has been evident in his choice of Sarah Palin.

So with the following disasters - Iraq, Katrina, FEMA, Guantanamo, Kosovo, Healthcare, the Economy, etc. why? Are you guys naturally sadistic?Masochistic?

Yes, but Clinton had his share of disasters as well. For instance, Clinton had the opportunity to deal with bin Laden several times, but he did not take it. Why didn't he? Because the idea of foreign policy to the Democrats is Kim Jong Il, Osama bin Laden, and other nasties sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya

I'm not thrilled with McCain either, but Obama is just as bad of a choice for president, too. As the saying goes: "If all you ever choose is the lesser of two evils, all you'll ever get is evil."

America has been betrayed by the two party system, IMO.

And by that I mean McCain voters. First off, we know that McCain will be Bush #3, I mean that's crystal clear. They had 90% voting similarity,
I noticed that the rest of this would have been more appropriate in 2004.

What's more telling is that McCain voted with Republicans far less than Obama voted with Democrats. Something like 75% compared to 97%. Who's going to toe the party line most closely?

I just don't get Red Americans.
Yeah, I don't get American Communists either.:p

I always wondered if campaigny talking point threads like these would bother me as much if they came from 'my side'...and they kind of do. Good to know.

I mean, this isn't new, it isn't a fresh take-it's almost straight out of a campaign rally. This is just crowding up the front page with the same thing that's been hashed and rehashed. The fact that I 'agree' doesn't make it easier, just more embarrassed.

It's also inaccurate on a number of points that I don't care enough to correct. The "Bush didn't shore up the levees" bit really stands out.

Umm, with expected gains in the Senate? Do you know how the Senate works? The Dems need 60 seats to control the Senate and prevent Filibusters, seats they're not likely to get. If McCain's elected it's 2006-2008 all over again.

In practice only ~58 are really needed, since you can usually get a single issue defection. The Dems will be pretty close to that I think.

I always wondered if campaigny talking point threads like these would bother me as much if they came from 'my side'...and they kind of do. Good to know.

I mean, this isn't new, it isn't a fresh take-it's almost straight out of a campaign rally. This is just crowding up the front page with the same thing that's been hashed and rehashed. The fact that I 'agree' doesn't make it easier, just more embarrassed.

Not to mention I have no idea why Kosovo is even being mentioned here. Kosovo deserves its independence and should have its independence protected. Yeah, if you take away NATO and Australia the countries defending Kosovo are a joke, but that's taking away the most powerful countries in the world. That's like saying "Yeah if you take away the 1/3 of seven billion people in the world that believe in Christianity, it's a joke cult!"

All politicians want only one thing. Money and power. That's it. Our country's doomed for eternity. No matter who we elect, they'll be just as shady and greedy as the ones before them. See you all in Greece.

Amen to that, only I'm going to Israel. ;)

why does anyone vote for a dectorship of economic intrests that have no reguard for law or any effect they have on anything other then their own gratuitous accumulation of symbolic value?

well humans ARE gullable, and with their accumulated symbolic value they purchase a lot of persuasion. as far as i can see, that is the unfortunate beggining and end of it.

and we ARE ALL being screwed by being conned into it, by those who have been and remain so. every once in a while though, it gets so blatent that people have to be really determined to be able to blind themselves to it. then, at least for a while, they wake up and realize that if their name isn't halliburton, the're not going to be made the next donald trump by perpetuating makiavellianism.

then there's a good chance, like there seems to be right now, of loosining the stranglehold of corporate crime, at least a little bit.

and i think, yes it do have real hope, not of complete good sense perhapse, but of something a little closer to sanity then we've seen for several decades.

(obviously i'm NOT voting for mccain!)

I noticed that the rest of this would have been more appropriate in 2004.

What's more telling is that McCain voted with Republicans far less than Obama voted with Democrats. Something like 75% compared to 97%. Who's going to toe the party line most closely?

You got a source for that?

I noticed that the rest of this would have been more appropriate in 2004.

What's more telling is that McCain voted with Republicans far less than Obama voted with Democrats. Something like 75% compared to 97%. Who's going to toe the party line most closely?
Why do people keep bringing party loyalty as a bad thing? (It's not just Republicans, Obama ran an ad saying something similar.) I don't have exact numbers, but I know I agree with the Democrats a vast majority of the time. If I didn't, I wouldn't a Democrat. I can't imagine McCain and Obama are that different; the entire reason they are members of their respective parties is because they know they will support the party's policies most of the time.

You got a source for that?

Why? Do the facts bother you? Assuming, for a moment, that they are facts?

Why? Do the facts bother you? Assuming, for a moment, that they are facts?

Not at all. I agree with 90% of the democratic party platform, so I dont object to Obama voting along party lines.

I ask for a source because:
1. 75% for McCain seems low
2. It was coming from you, and you have a habit of not knowing what your taking about, making shit up, and presenting lies and fabrication as facts, and when asked to back it up, you often will respond with some attack, like the above.

Why? Do the facts bother you? Assuming, for a moment, that they are facts?

No, the fact that Ayers and Wright were mentors of Obama don't bother KOL at all. Nor the fact that Obama's strategy in this election comes straight out of Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground handbook.

Probably doesn't bother KOL at all, right up to the point where the Constitution gets suspended, and I'm not sure that would bother him either.

I dont get Obama Democrats. I do get Obama running agianst McCain as if McCain is President Bush as a clever political slogan. Even if McCain voted or supported Bush 90 percent % of the time. Obama voted or supported President Bush 40 percent % of the time. So according to Obama 90 % of the time is bad. But 40 % of the time Obama supported Bush is good.

Obama's slogan change you can believe in is just a clever slogan to mean all things to all voters. Obama is not the candidate of change, his own campaign slogan, he claims to be.

Obama claims to be a uniter, he will unite us all. I dont believe in Liberalism american style as opposed to European, so he cant unite us all. Its just a campaign slogan.


If John McCain were to win the election, President Bush is not running for re-election, John McCain is running for President and McCain would make the decisions of the day in his administration. And that is no slogan.

No, the fact that Ayers and Wright were mentors of Obama don't bother KOL at all. Nor the fact that Obama's strategy in this election comes straight out of Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground handbook.

Considering that the Ayers bit is a lie, yeah, doesnt bother me. Considering that I dont have a problem with what a lot of Wright said, also doesnt bother me.

Im not afraid of the truth like Myrmi, you, and so many other far right wingers are.

Probably doesn't bother KOL at all, right up to the point where the Constitution gets suspended, and I'm not sure that would bother him either.

Excellent. Not only is there a virtually non-existant chance of Obama suspending the constitution (which coming from a McCain and Bush supporter, that accusation is unintended comedic gold), its funny that you of all people accuse me of having facist and authoritarian tendencies.

Obama voted or supported President Bush 40 percent % of the time. So according to Obama 90 % of the time is bad. But 40 % of the time Obama supported Bush is good.

Source.

Obama's slogan change you can believe in is just a clever slogan to mean all things to all voters. Obama is not the candidate of change, his own campaign slogan, he claims to be.

Obama claims to be a uniter, he will unite us all. I dont believe in Liberalism american style as opposed to European, so he cant unite us all. Its just a campaign slogan.


Because "Country First" is so accurate for the McCain campaign.

Do you even try anymore?

Considering that the Ayers bit is a lie, yeah, doesnt bother me. Considering that I ont have a problem with what a lot of Wright said, also doesnt bother me.


It's not a lie. You saying there's no relationship is a lie.

Why don't you sit down and read Prairie Fire for yourself?

It's not a lie. You saying there's no relationship is a lie.


Pretending that Ayers is his "mentor" is dishonost. Pretending that him and Ayers have any real connection outside of being neighbors and mutual aquantences is dishonost.

I am far more concerned about McCains connections to Keating. But that doesnt seem to bother you.

why does anyone vote for a dectorship of economic intrests that have no reguard for law or any effect they have on anything other then their own gratuitous accumulation of symbolic value?

well humans ARE gullable, and with their accumulated symbolic value they purchase a lot of persuasion. as far as i can see, that is the unfortunate beggining and end of it.

and we ARE ALL being screwed by being conned into it, by those who have been and remain so. every once in a while though, it gets so blatent that people have to be really determined to be able to blind themselves to it. then, at least for a while, they wake up and realize that if their name isn't halliburton, the're not going to be made the next donald trump by perpetuating makiavellianism.

then there's a good chance, like there seems to be right now, of loosining the stranglehold of corporate crime, at least a little bit.

and i think, yes it do have real hope, not of complete good sense perhapse, but of something a little closer to sanity then we've seen for several decades.

(obviously i'm NOT voting for mccain!)

Um, what's a dectorship?

Um, what's a dectorship?

Its kind of like a dictatorship. But not as effective.

It's not a lie. You saying there's no relationship is a lie.


Oh that's awesome, he was either a mentor or there was no relationship...I love these leaps, it's like watching contortionists play Twister...

Pretending that Ayers is his "mentor" is dishonost. Pretending that him and Ayers have any real connection outside of being neighbors and mutual aquantences is dishonost.

I am far more concerned about McCains connections to Keating. But that doesnt seem to bother you.

Keating doesn't bother me, because the Special Prosecutor appointed by the Democratic Leadership Cleared him of involvement, and said democratic Leadership admitted to keeping him on the list of charges to prevent the scandal and situation from being percieved as a solely democratic party problem.
Only two men were acquitted of wrongdoing in the Keating five case- John Glenn and John McCain.

Look it up.

Oh that's awesome, he was either a mentor or there was no relationship...I love these leaps, it's like watching contortionists play Twister...

Well, if he admitted there was middle ground, the gullable might not believe him...

Keating doesn't bother me, because the Special Prosecutor appointed by the Democratic Leadership Cleared him of involvement, and said democratic Leadership admitted to keeping him on the list of charges to prevent the scandal and situation from being percieved as a solely democratic party problem.
Only two men were acquitted of wrongdoing in the Keating five case- John Glenn and John McCain.

Look it up.

But if you actually read the report, they said he "exercised extermelly poor judgement" which, isnt that what this whole "hes friends with him!" is all about in the end, judgement?

Besides, I dont want someone who has already exercised extremelly poor judgement in the field of economics in charge of the country, especially now.


So yes, if you have a brain, keating should bother you.

I stopped reading here. We don't know the future. It may be very likely, but then, with the expected Democratic gains in both the house and senate, even if McCain tried to continue a Bush-like government, he would have to compromise.


We saw a few presidents back what happens when the Democratic party has control of the Legislative branch and Executive branch...not much of anything.

The Republicans screw us over if they have control of both but the Democrats are almost appathetic when they have control of both. It is like they just want to be in power but don't actually want to DO anything.

Hell, I remember a couple years ago when we had the elections for the Legislative and the Democrats were running on the platform of 'change'. "Vote the Republicans out and Vote us in! We will end the war, fix the economy and stop Bush!" The American people listened and gave control of the Legislative over to the Dems...but the Dems haven't done a damn thing.

It's funny how citizen supporters both sides drink the poisoned kool-aid but fail to see the reality of how they are boing used.

We saw a few presidents back what happens when the Democratic party has control of the Legislative branch and Executive branch...not much of anything.

The Republicans screw us over if they have control of both but the Democrats are almost appathetic when they have control of both. It is like they just want to be in power but don't actually want to DO anything.

Hell, I remember a couple years ago when we had the elections for the Legislative and the Democrats were running on the platform of 'change'. "Vote the Republicans out and Vote us in! We will end the war, fix the economy and stop Bush!" The American people listened and gave control of the Legislative over to the Dems...but the Dems haven't done a damn thing.

It's funny how citizen supporters both sides drink the poisoned kool-aid but fail to see the reality of how they are boing used.



Actually, they did pass 80% of what they said they would.


Bush just veteod it.

Its really not that hard to do this research folks.

Actually, they did pass 80% of what they said they would.


Bush just veteod it.

Its really not that hard to do this research folks.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

But if you actually read the report, they said he "exercised extermelly poor judgement" which, isnt that what this whole "hes friends with him!" is all about in the end, judgement?

Besides, I dont want someone who has already exercised extremelly poor judgement in the field of economics in charge of the country, especially now.


So yes, if you have a brain, keating should bother you.

It doesn't bother me, KOL, because he didn't Do it again.

As for your man Obama... Obama sold the 700 billion-dollar bailout just like "Economically ignorant" McCain did-that could have been a real separator that showed the Junior Senator From Illionois actually knows something about Economics.

Note that he raced with republicans to get on his knees and polish wall-streets's knob with his mouth and bend over the taxpayers for a seven-hundered-billion-dollar bill that's going to the same bastards that joy-rode the economy into a ditch in the first place. THAT was the point at which I lost any respect for Barack Obama's brilliance as an economist.

Acceptance of lots of money from Freddie and Fannie didn't help with that, by the way. The guy who was in the Senate during Keating was the guy in 2003, and again in 2005 who said "These guys need to be regulated".

YOUR man didn't think so until AFTER the market implosion. McCain showed bad judgement in 1987, your man showed it in 2008 (along with absolute party loyalty and lock-step compliance with the system he ran against in the primaries!)

I'll second Hotwife-you need to sit down and read "Prairie Fire". Seriously, you need to. Call it "Opposition Research", read it, compare the tactics and the rhetoric. I don't trust McCain, but I trust the Junior Senator from Chicago even LESS.

It doesn't bother me, KOL, because he didn't Do it again.

As for your man Obama... Obama sold the 700 billion-dollar bailout just like "Economically ignorant" McCain did-that could have been a real separator that showed the Junior Senator From Illionois actually knows something about Economics.

Note that he raced with republicans to get on his knees and polish wall-streets's knob with his mouth and bend over the taxpayers for a seven-hundered-billion-dollar bill that's going to the same bastards that joy-rode the economy into a ditch in the first place. THAT was the point at which I lost any respect for Barack Obama's brilliance as an economist.

Acceptance of lots of money from Freddie and Fannie didn't help with that, by the way. The guy who was in the Senate during Keating was the guy in 2003, and again in 2005 who said "These guys need to be regulated".

YOUR man didn't think so until AFTER the market implosion. McCain showed bad judgement in 1987, your man showed it in 2008 (along with absolute party loyalty and lock-step compliance with the system he ran against in the primaries!)

I'll second Hotwife-you need to sit down and read "Prairie Fire". Seriously, you need to. Call it "Opposition Research", read it, compare the tactics and the rhetoric. I don't trust McCain, but I trust the Junior Senator from Chicago even LESS.

Know the difference between a Recession and a Depression? About 700 billion dollars. If you let the banks fail, which they are totally deserving of, the market collapses, completely. It'd take a couple decades to dig out of that hole (again).

Know the difference between a Recession and a Depression? About 700 billion dollars. If you let the banks fail, which they are totally deserving of, the market collapses, completely. It'd take a couple decades to dig out of that hole (again).

If you let those banks fail, you get short-term pain that will correct, and you sledgehammer the people that caused the problem.

By propping them up, you've lessened things temporarily, and created conditions where the situation can go from "ow" to "Oh My fucking God!!!".

The roots of the current crisis draw from the conditions of the S&L crisis of the late eighties and the bailout then-note that those institutions weren't allowed to fail, and the bailout-behaviour assured the people responsible (and those that were, at the time, their apprentices) that the Fed will step in to save them again, so it's okay to conduct those types of activities that led to it in the first place. In '89 it was a regional crisis for the most part. In 2008, it's national scale with international echoes. A failure would reset the economic machinery, and the behaviours that caused it would not be acceptable any longer in the business community.

Instead, we've got a bailout,a nd what do you know: the Brokers rescued by it are giving each other tens of millions in bonuses after recieving federal money, the markets are NOT stabilizing, credit is NOT flowing, business is STILL failing.

It's like the guy who treats his cancer with pain-pills and vitamins. the Cancer's still there, and instead of being arrested, it's growing.

And by that I mean McCain voters. First off, we know that McCain will be Bush #3, I mean that's crystal clear. They had 90% voting similarity, and McCain isn't strong willed enough to stand up to the GOP, as has been evident in his choice of Sarah Palin.


I managed to read the whole post but it was all full of the sort of partisan talking points you'd expect from the first line.

I don't see how the Bush#3 idea is "crystal clear." I'm gonna go out on a limb here and presume that you weren't listening to any conservative ideas on McCain before the primaries, or how he was criticized for not always sticking with the Republican party. (I love the concept of a 90% voting similarity with a President who, by definition, doesn't vote. yeah, I know McCain said it first and it was just as stupid then.) In fact, a lot of conservatives weren't going to vote at all in the election because of it.

And I have no idea what the Palin comment was about there... this whole OP sounded like a list of talking points.

You admit that you don't get Conservatives. That's good... because if you're trying to understand them from a standpoint of the assumptions listed in your OP, that should come as no surprise.

In general, I don't get Americans, be them red or blue. But I'm trying, you know.:D

Actually, they did pass 80% of what they said they would.


Bush just veteod it.

Its really not that hard to do this research folks.

KoL, my friend, you know I think the world of you...

But that reply was crap. This is the same buck-passing that's gonna perpetuate this problem until the blame falls where it needs to. Congressional hopefuls made all these promises and now that they've failed miserably to deliver all they can offer by way of excuse is "It's Bush's fault!" and all their little fanboys are lining up to parrot it.

Clinton had a Republican majority in Congress during his term and stuff got done. Know how it got done? By people actually reaching across aisles and making compromises. if our current Congress were capable of that, it wouldn't matter what Bush did because a Veto can be overridden by actual bi-partisan co-operation.

Blaming Bush is a copout. Bush has his failures, but to automatically blame everything on him is intellectually lazy at best.

In general, I don't get Americans, be them red or blue. But I'm trying, you know.:D

Don't try too hard. You'll just give yourself a migraine.

My husband says he's voting McCain to piss me off. It's working.

Don't try too hard. You'll just give yourself a migraine.

One thing is for sure, Americans do entertain me.;)

One thing is for sure, Americans do entertain me.;)

Sometimes I think that's our purpose for being here.

Sometimes I think that's our purpose for being here.

Teh lulz, Neo B, teh lulz. *nod*:D

My husband says he's voting McCain to piss me off. It's working.

My wife supports McCain and I'm a Chuck Baldwin guy. Since my wife and I respect each other, there are no recriminations over it.

My wife supports McCain and I'm a Chuck Baldwin guy. Since my wife and I respect each other, there are no recriminations over it.

I respect him. I'm just annoyed that he'll claim to vote for someone for the purpose of annoying me.

Also, constitution party?! Ick!

Teh lulz, Neo B, teh lulz. *nod*:D

What else can you say about a country whose existence is based on a few barrels of tea getting dumped into a harbor?

I respect him. I'm just annoyed that he'll claim to vote for someone for the purpose of annoying me.

Also, constitution party?! Ick!

Well, voting for someone just for the sake of annoying somebody is kinda goofy, but maybe he has other reasons and is just saying that to get at you.

YEAH Constitution party. W00T!

Tax cuts. People like tax cuts. Whole families that make good money vote for tax cuts.

And there's other reasons, but when I was in college that was a HUGE reason that students were voting for Bush.

It doesn't bother me, KOL, because he didn't Do it again.

As for your man Obama... Obama sold the 700 billion-dollar bailout just like "Economically ignorant" McCain did-that could have been a real separator that showed the Junior Senator From Illionois actually knows something about Economics.

Note that he raced with republicans to get on his knees and polish wall-streets's knob with his mouth and bend over the taxpayers for a seven-hundered-billion-dollar bill that's going to the same bastards that joy-rode the economy into a ditch in the first place. THAT was the point at which I lost any respect for Barack Obama's brilliance as an economist.

Acceptance of lots of money from Freddie and Fannie didn't help with that, by the way. The guy who was in the Senate during Keating was the guy in 2003, and again in 2005 who said "These guys need to be regulated".

YOUR man didn't think so until AFTER the market implosion. McCain showed bad judgement in 1987, your man showed it in 2008 (along with absolute party loyalty and lock-step compliance with the system he ran against in the primaries!)


1. I support the bail out, because Im not nostolgic for the depression.
2. You do know that McCain voted for the bail out too, right?
3. McCain was against regulation until this year, when it was shown what deregulation brings. You can watch his earliy 2007 and 2008 interviews. Up until the economy crashed, he was all about deregulation.

Keep spouting the same right wing BS. Its easier to beat you guys when you rely on the same old defeated arguements.

I'll second Hotwife-you need to sit down and read "Prairie Fire". Seriously, you need to. Call it "Opposition Research", read it, compare the tactics and the rhetoric. I don't trust McCain, but I trust the Junior Senator from Chicago even LESS.

No, I dont. I dont need to read right wing scare mongering and call it anything but "right wing scare mongering".

I just don't get Red Americans

Huh? How do you not get Red Americans? I mean, they were here before white Americans, and they really do run excellent gambling establishments.

All politicians want only one thing. Money and power. That's it. Our country's doomed for eternity. No matter who we elect, they'll be just as shady and greedy as the ones before them. See you all in Greece.
Man are you Greek?If yes then your comment explains a lot!I've been telling the same thing since I was 14 and that was 15 years ago!

KoL, my friend, you know I think the world of you...

But that reply was crap. This is the same buck-passing that's gonna perpetuate this problem until the blame falls where it needs to. Congressional hopefuls made all these promises and now that they've failed miserably to deliver all they can offer by way of excuse is "It's Bush's fault!" and all their little fanboys are lining up to parrot it.

But...um...it is Bush's fault.

Democrats ran on a platform to set a time table for Iraq. They passed a bill with a time table. Bush vetoed it.

They promised to help the poor get health care. They passed SEVERAL bills that would have increased health care for the poor, and many that were just aimed at poor children in an attempt to comprimise. It would be paid for by raising the cigarette tax (which, even though I was a heavy smoker than, I was willing to do). Bush vetoed it.

They promised to help domestic infastructure. They passed a bill that would increase police, fire department, and education funding. Bush vetoed it. They also passed a bill aimed at increasing water supply and purification. Bush vetoed it. Congress overrode his veto.

They promised to increase minimum wage. Bush atually signed that one.

The facts are there. This isnt "buck passing", this is stating reality. The democratic congress passed almost every single bill they said they would. Bush vetoed them.

Clinton had a Republican majority in Congress during his term and stuff got done. Know how it got done? By people actually reaching across aisles and making compromises. if our current Congress were capable of that, it wouldn't matter what Bush did because a Veto can be overridden by actual bi-partisan co-operation.

Blaming Bush is a copout. Bush has his failures, but to automatically blame everything on him is intellectually lazy at best.

No, here is the difference between Clinton and now. Both Clinton and the Republican congress were willing to comprimise. Bush is not. Bush's MO is "my way or the highway". Thats the way its always been. That is the difference. Bush said he would be a "uniter" which after his first year he showed was complete and utter crap, and he became the most partisan president in recent memoy. Unless you have some evidence that Bush is willing to reach across party lines like Clinton was and is anything but a stubborn, childish, divisive, twat?

The only way Bush has united anyone was in uniting 78% of the country in the belief that George W. Bush is an incompetent, God awful president.

No, here is the difference between Clinton and now. Both Clinton and the Republican congress were willing to comprimise. Bush is not. Bush's MO is "my way or the highway". That is the difference. Unless you have some evidence that Bush is willing to reach across party lines like Clinton was and is anything but a stubborn, childish, divisive, twat?

Though I agree that Bush is the biggest twat of the 20th century (excluding the obvious German dictators), you must admit that the Congress is fairly divisive as well. One only needs to look at Nancy Pelosi to see that.

Though I agree that Bush is the biggest twat of the 20th century (excluding the obvious German dictators), you must admit that the Congress is fairly divisive as well. One only needs to look at Nancy Pelosi to see that.

When one is marginalized, ignored, insulted, blamed, called anti-American, and then finally refered to as the "angry left", why are people shocked that when they can finally fight back, they do?


Of course congress is partisian. It is not human nature to roll over and take being beat down for six years. Of course once they could fight back they did.


Why is it Bush's fault? Here is why. If he wasnt so utterly partisian and was actually capable of comprimise and seeing other points of view, if he wasnt a totally inept twat, Congress would not be the molitav cocktail it is now. It starts with him.


Besides, with the time table and health care bills, Congress tried to comprimise with Bush. He just wouldnt. His way or the highway. After that, they just stopped trying, and with good reason.

Fuck it, I'm voting for the Socialists. Time to put some real Red Americans in the White House.

But...um...it is Bush's fault.

Democrats ran on a platform to set a time table for Iraq. They passed a bill with a time table. Bush vetoed it.

Operative word: DEMOCRATS. You're just complaining about not having a supermajority here. What happened to all the promises about bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle?

You know what happened. It was all bullshit meant to get them elected.


They promised to help the poor get health care. They passed SEVERAL bills that would have increased health care for the poor, and many that were just aimed at poor children in an attempt to comprimise. It would be paid for by raising the cigarette tax (which, even though I was a heavy smoker than, I was willing to do). Bush vetoed it.

By they, if you mean DEMOCRATS, I say again, where's the bi-partisanship? Because if all they're gonna do is throw shit at the wall then blame the Republicans for not supporting it, then they have only themselves to blame for not being willing to compromise, ike every other Congress has had to do since the country was founded.

I don't know why you think the current crop of Democrat Congresspeople are somehow special.


They promised to help domestic infastructure. They passed a bill that would increase police, fire department, and education funding. Bush vetoed it. They also passed a bill aimed at increasing water supply and purification. Bush vetoed it. Congress overrode his veto.


So... if Congress overrode the veto, why is it on this list? It's an example of shit ACTUALLY getting done.


They promised to increase minimum wage. Bush atually signed that one.


Then why is it on this list?


The facts are there. This isnt "buck passing", this is stating reality. The democratic congress passed almost every single bill they said they would. Bush vetoed them.


That doesn't mean squat and you know it. When the Republicans had a majority and made all kinds of promises, and failed, would you have accepted an excuse like "Well teh ebil Demokrat Prez wouldn't let us get anythin done..."

You'd have called bullshit, and rightly so. But because it's Bush, suddenly the Congress can do no wrong? Bullshit.


No, here is the difference between Clinton and now. Both Clinton and the Republican congress were willing to comprimise. Bush is not. Bush's MO is "my way or the highway". Thats the way its always been. That is the difference.


So what? The Congress can override (as you noted above) when there's true bi-partisanship.


Bush said he would be a "uniter" which after his first year he showed was complete and utter crap, and he became the most partisan president in recent memoy. Unless you have some evidence that Bush is willing to reach across party lines like Clinton was and is anything but a stubborn, childish, divisive, twat?


Sure, there are certain issues where the President has been disappointingly inflexible. That still doesn't excuse the Congress form being a big bunch of overpaid fuckups.


The only way Bush has united anyone was in uniting 78% of the country in the belief that George W. Bush is an incompetent, God awful president.

That's okay. 89% of it believes that about the Congress.

Kosovo - a complete, total and utter geo-political disaster. After the recognition of Kosovo, Russia told Kosovo (whom they knew was protected by the US) "Go and fuck yourself" and the extreme majority of the rest of the World, including 6 NATO countries, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, and others, backed Russia, either implicitely or openly. That should have sent a pristine message to the Bush Administration, to maybe review Kosovo? Nope, the Bush Administration boldly continues to support Kosovo, by letting small countries, like Estonia, recognize it. Take away NATO and Australia, and the countries recognizing Kosovo are a joke. And is Australia really going to fight over Kosovo? NATO - 6 members, vs. Rest of World, golden. Current recognition score: 52 in favor, 140 no reaction, most of these oppose. How exactly is the US a Superpower after Kosovo, when the US's recognition of a country matters only as long as it's protected by most of NATO?
Didn't Clinton get us into that?

Not to mention I have no idea why Kosovo is even being mentioned here. Kosovo deserves its independence and should have its independence protected. Yeah, if you take away NATO and Australia the countries defending Kosovo are a joke, but that's taking away the most powerful countries in the world. That's like saying "Yeah if you take away the 1/3 of seven billion people in the world that believe in Christianity, it's a joke cult!"

So True!


Besides, I dont want someone who has already exercised extremelly poor judgement in the field of economics in charge of the country, especially now.

What has Obama done to help in the field of economics?

Operative word: DEMOCRATS. You're just complaining about not having a supermajority here. What happened to all the promises about bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle?

You know what happened. It was all bullshit meant to get them elected.

Initially, they tried. With healthcare and Iraq withdrawl. It failed.

By they, if you mean DEMOCRATS, I say again, where's the bi-partisanship? Because if all they're gonna do is throw shit at the wall then blame the Republicans for not supporting it, then they have only themselves to blame for not being willing to compromise, ike every other Congress has had to do since the country was founded.

They tried to comprimise. And ran up against the President saying "my way or the highway".

So... if Congress overrode the veto, why is it on this list? It's an example of shit ACTUALLY getting done.



Then why is it on this list?

Intellectual honosty.

That doesn't mean squat and you know it. When the Republicans had a majority and made all kinds of promises, and failed, would you have accepted an excuse like "Well teh ebil Demokrat Prez wouldn't let us get anythin done..."

If it was actually the case I would. I am not afraid of the truth. I dont run from it. If the case really is the Democratic president isnt comprimising, Id say, yeah, theyre right. And Id understand if they stopped trying to comprimise.

But just because it was true doesnt mean Id object.If, for example, Republicans tried to pass a bill saying people were allowed to fire someone for being gay, and the president vetoed it, and they went and cried to ther homophobic supporters "ZOMGZ TEH PRES WOULDNT LET US DO IT!!111"

Id say, "Damn straight he wouldnt."

You'd have called bullshit, and rightly so. But because it's Bush, suddenly the Congress can do no wrong? Bullshit.

No, they CAN do wrong. And they have been. Theyve been giving into him. Theyve been bending over the barrel and taking it in the ho-ha from him every time he throws a hissy fit.


So what? The Congress can override (as you noted above) when there's true bi-partisanship.

Yeah, the one time they overrode it was when the Republicans were actually willing to comprimise. Apperantly they were willing to comprimise on water projects but were fundimentally opposed to giving poor children healthcare. That doesnt speak well of Republican congressmen.

That's okay. 89% of it believes that about the Congress.

89% of America is misinformed. This doesnt shock me.:p



And lets tie all this in to whats going on now. When Bush tried to get something done with the bailout, he caleld Obama personally and had him come and talk with his advisors and the little committee. Obama afterwords said not as much got done as he would have liked, but it was a start. He never blamed anyone.

McCain on the other hand came into Washington, started playing politics, sunk the bailout, and then said Obama was being too partisan and thats why it failed.

Which future president is more willing to work with the other side?

What has Obama done to help in the field of economics?

Not much. But he has good advisors and sound policies.


And are we really going to pretend like doing nothing is worse than fucking it up?

You see all of these things as your party and your party spinsters want you to see them.
Katrina in no way shape or form was bush's fault. and you only find similarities in Bush and McCain because you want them to be there. The differences in their politiocs is just as evident, and more important. Can George Bush tell Mortgage companies not to give loans to people who won't pay them off? or for see them not paying them off? John McCain is obviously strong willed. THe man was at the Hanoy Hilton... my God Man. Palin was possibly not the smartest choice, but deffinately not the GOP's, and deffinately not the worst choice. Our soldiers are fewer and more at risk because of Bill Clinton, not George Bush, Clinton shut down bases all over the nation to try to cut spending. The economy still sucked, and we were attacked on our own soil with thousands less troops and bases. We don't want 4 more years of Democrats tearing apart our naiton from the inside out.

Katrina in no way shape or form was bush's fault.

No, but fucking up the aftermath is.


and you only find similarities in Bush and McCain because you want them to be there.

McCain himself saying hes voted with the president 90% of the time?

The differences in their politiocs is just as evident, and more important.

Like?

Can George Bush tell Mortgage companies not to give loans to people who won't pay them off? or for see them not paying them off?

WTF?

John McCain is obviously strong willed. THe man was at the Hanoy Hilton... my God Man.

This has what do to with his policies and ability to lead?

Besides, hes running against someone who was raised by a single mother and a self made man. Its not like McCain has a monoply on will power. And McCain has poor character.

Palin was possibly not the smartest choice, but deffinately not the GOP's, and deffinately not the worst choice.

No, see, Im pretty sure she was.

Our soldiers are fewer and more at risk because of Bill Clinton, not George Bush, Clinton shut down bases all over the nation to try to cut spending.

No, no thats really not true. At all actually.

The economy still sucked,

Oh my God. Thats the funniest thing Ive read here yet. Tell me, were you born yet in 2000?

and we were attacked on our own soil with thousands less troops and bases.

Whats with this "thousands less troops" crap? Care to show thats the case? Because I can garuntee you that your wrong.

We don't want 4 more years of Democrats tearing apart our naiton from the inside out.

Who is this "we"? Because the majority of us seem to want not only a democratic president but a filabuster proof Senate.


Im sure youre not old enough to vote, and that makes me happy. Because youre certainly not informed enough to do so.

I'm curious. Even if we did have thousands more troops and bases (Which is a lie by the way) how would that have stopped 9/11?

What else can you say about a country whose existence is based on a few barrels of tea getting dumped into a harbor?

With terrible excuses to the Obama family on the loss of Grandma Odinga, a Cuban guy has this opinion regarding the US of A:

ESTO ESTÁ DE ODINGA.


:D

Didn't Clinton get us into that?


Yeah, but the current fashionable trend is to retroactively blame Bush for everything.

It's easier than thinking.


89% of America is misinformed. This doesnt shock me.:p


Dude... just... dude....

Yeah, but the current fashionable trend is to retroactively blame Bush for everything.

It's easier than thinking.



Dude... just... dude....

Come on my friend, you are going to tell me you didnt see that coming?;)

And by that I mean McCain voters. First off, we know that McCain will be Bush #3, I mean that's crystal clear. They had 90% voting similarity, and McCain isn't strong willed enough to stand up to the GOP, as has been evident in his choice of Sarah Palin.

So with the following disasters - Iraq, Katrina, FEMA, Guantanamo, Kosovo, Healthcare, the Economy, etc. why? Are you guys naturally sadistic?Masochistic?

The War in Iraq, enabled (just like I predicted) the Taliban to establish an operating base in Pakistan where there are actual nukes. That's scary. In addition it cost Trillions of dollars, destabilized the American Economy and killed over 4,000 American boys and girls and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi boys and girls. But the ones who survive can go to Walter Reed and have a rat as a roommate!

Katrina-FEMA: First the Bush Administration failed to re-enforce the levees. Ray Nagin, the Chocolate Mayor does not command the Army Corps of Engineers, Bush does. After not re-enforcing the levees, the Bush Administration through FEMA provided toxic trailers for the surviviours of Katrina to live in. I mean any sane country at this point would vote out the administration, but not the US. And on top of all that, this administration failed once again at Galveston. Don't these guys ever learn? Haven't you understood by now that they don't?

Guantanamo - two questions: what kind of an idiot would place a secret prison in a country that they view as hostile? And then, what kind of an idiot doesn't apologize for the sheer stupidity of those actions? I mean wow!

Kosovo - a complete, total and utter geo-political disaster. After the recognition of Kosovo, Russia told Kosovo (whom they knew was protected by the US) "Go and fuck yourself" and the extreme majority of the rest of the World, including 6 NATO countries, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, and others, backed Russia, either implicitely or openly. That should have sent a pristine message to the Bush Administration, to maybe review Kosovo? Nope, the Bush Administration boldly continues to support Kosovo, by letting small countries, like Estonia, recognize it. Take away NATO and Australia, and the countries recognizing Kosovo are a joke. And is Australia really going to fight over Kosovo? NATO - 6 members, vs. Rest of World, golden. Current recognition score: 52 in favor, 140 no reaction, most of these oppose. How exactly is the US a Superpower after Kosovo, when the US's recognition of a country matters only as long as it's protected by most of NATO?

Healthcare - going down the tubes. Are you happy with your HMO plan? Satisfied? Just hoping to not get into an accident?

Oil Dependency - the only way that Russia is a threat to mainland US (aside from nukes) is it's management and say in Worldwide oil resources. If OPEC and Russia combine...you get the idea. Well under Bush oil dependancy has increased, while he continues to Bullshit that the Iraqi War really keeps Americans safer.

Economy - This one the Bush Administration blamed on a lot of things, the "Dot Com Bust", Bill Clinton (why not), Nancy Pellosi, Regulators, 9/11, Global Markets, etc. Had this administration actually been responsible, and enforced the regulations that it Constitutionally had to enforce, we wouldn't be in this crisis today, where most Americans lost half of their pensions, while CEOs and oil companies doubled their profits! I mean this is just plain ridiculous!

And you want more of this? More Toxic Trailers? Bigger inflation? Smaller pensions? Everyone ignoring what the US says? More Guantanamo-like embarassments? Need I remind you that had the AARP not acted, the Bush Administration would have privatized Social Security as well! So seriously, are you sadistic? Masochistic? Don't like chocolate men? Think Palin makes sense? I just don't get Red Americans.

You oversimplify our beliefs. We are not masochistic, or sadistic. The vast, vast majority of us are not racist.

Why shouldn't Kosovo rule itself? Since when do Russia and China, who are currently embroiled in their own border disputes and are occuping lands like Tibet and Ossetia, have the right to tell them what to do?

There are many factors to the economic crisis. It is unfair of you to blame just one group for the problems taking place in a vast system. Do they deserve some blame? Yes. So do past administrations, businesses themselves, and Congress.

Guantanamo was bought by the U.S. in the 1900s. It wasn't just made in the past 8 years.

You are ignorant. You see a problem and automatically, it's Bush's fault. Yes, he has screwed up, quite often to be sure, but Bush, while very powerful, is not in control of everything.

I stopped reading here. We don't know the future. It may be very likely, but then, with the expected Democratic gains in both the house and senate, even if McCain tried to continue a Bush-like government, he would have to compromise.

Er, compromise to do what, govern? With all due respect, what the hell does governance have to do with anything the Republican Party has done in Bush's second term in office?

McCain has to find common ground with the Democrats only insofar as he actually tries to get anything passed. Given what's left of the Republican coalition, with the discussions about real America, William Ayers, godless money, progressive-taxation-as-socialism, and peppercorns about cutting pork standing in place of actual discussions about policy, McCain has two real means of governing in the nominal sense: he in the more likely circumstance will continue to advocate on behalf of this last bastion of clueless conservativism, in which case he won't compromise with Democrats, or he's going to be crucified by his supporters the moment he does concede the smallest ground to people who hate America in the eyes of his supporters. Neither one of these eventualities lead to good working relationships with the other party. No, he's going to button down and continue the 2006-2008 procedure of blaming everything on the Democrats, while America burns for his choice of support.

I'm curious. Even if we did have thousands more troops and bases (Which is a lie by the way) how would that have stopped 9/11?
More troops, less troops, it's all a red herring. The problems were with intelligence. Those resources were gutted by Frank Church and Jimmy Carter. Why? Because our CIA had to deal with "unsavory" people in the HUMINT world. Not sure we've fully recovered from those days. Then, there was the whole thing about criminal activity being separated from espionage. The FBI and CIA couldn't have compared notes, if they had wanted to. That barrier was solidified during Clinton's term by Ms Gorelick.

It's probably unfair to project those sins onto Obama, but out of the two major candidates, he's the one that has the closest shoe size.

More troops, less troops, it's all a red herring. The problems were with intelligence. Those resources were gutted by Frank Church and Jimmy Carter. Why? Because our CIA had to deal with "unsavory" people in the HUMINT world. Not sure we've fully recovered from those days. Then, there was the whole thing about criminal activity being separated from espionage. The FBI and CIA couldn't have compared notes, if they had wanted to. That barrier was solidified during Clinton's term by Ms Gorelick.

It's probably unfair to project those sins onto Obama, but out of the two major candidates, he's the one that has the closest shoe size.

I'm reading a whisky tango foxtrot, Myrmidon.

Unless I'm much mistaken, our initial intelligence estimates were that Saddam Hussein had at best minimal access to WMD's, no means of delivery, and was not a threat to the United States. Each of these proved correct. How then is our being 100% accurate with respect to estimating the danger posed by Saddam Hussein evidence of our having a problem with intelligence gathering?

Frank Church and Jimmy Carter had nothing to fracking do with any problems in our intelligence program, and if you don't know that, you ought to. Church's efforts were focused on 1) ensuring that if you want a wiretap, first you must get a warrant, if youwere were talking about phone calls in which one or more parties was domestic, and 2) ensuring a seperation between domestic law enforcement efforts and foreign survellance, a stance mirrored in the division between police and the army that just about any officer or enlisted man in the armed forces will tell you is damned near sacrosanct as a division of labor. Please, Myrm, pray tell how these efforts compromised our ability to tell, accurately, that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger to the United States.

If you want the reasoning behind the Iraq War, ask Donald Rumsfield. He's the one who was talking about striking Iraq exactly five hours after 9/11.

Economy - This one the Bush Administration blamed on a lot of things, the "Dot Com Bust", Bill Clinton (why not), Nancy Pellosi, Regulators, 9/11, Global Markets, etc. Had this administration actually been responsible, and enforced the regulations that it Constitutionally had to enforce, we wouldn't be in this crisis today, where most Americans lost half of their pensions, while CEOs and oil companies doubled their profits! I mean this is just plain ridiculous!Where does it in the Constitution that it is the Feds duty to regulate beyond preserving the basic rights of the people?

To remind you, the founding fathers wanted the Federal government to act to ensure that the rights of the people to liberty and PROPERTY were not violated by the states. The clause regarding interstate commerce is to prevent states from controlling trade between the states.

I'm reading a whisky tango foxtrot, Myrmidon.

Unless I'm much mistaken, our initial intelligence estimates were that Saddam Hussein had at best minimal access to WMD's, no means of delivery, and was not a threat to the United States. Each of these proved correct. How then is our being 100% accurate with respect to estimating the danger posed by Saddam Hussein evidence of our having a problem with intelligence gathering?

Frank Church and Jimmy Carter had nothing to fracking do with any problems in our intelligence program, and if you don't know that, you ought to. Church's efforts were focused on 1) ensuring that if you want a wiretap, first you must get a warrant, if youwere were talking about phone calls in which one or more parties was domestic, and 2) ensuring a seperation between domestic law enforcement efforts and foreign survellance, a stance mirrored in the division between police and the army that just about any officer or enlisted man in the armed forces will tell you is damned near sacrosanct as a division of labor. Please, Myrm, pray tell how these efforts compromised our ability to tell, accurately, that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger to the United States.
It's nice to win your own arguments, yes? I was under the assumption that I was responding to a statement about how the attacks of 9-11 could have been prevented with more troops and more bases.

So right back at you -- WTF?

Tax cuts. People like tax cuts. Whole families that make good money vote for tax cuts.

I don't know why people don't see that tax cuts are the ultimate NIMBY argument. NIMBY, in case you live in a cave, means Not In My Back Yard.

Basically, everyone wants safe nuclear power, but doesn't want to be stuck with the nuclear waste. Everyone wants garbage pickup, but nobody wants dumps. People want seafood, but they don't want stinky fishermen. And people want government services, but they don't want to have to pay for them.

I'm a firm believer in TANSTAAFL. (For aforementioned cave dwellers, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".) I'm not saying that government is the most efficient at running all the things we ask it to run, but we do demand strong defense, solid infrastructure, social safety nets, environmental protection, and a host of other services. Don't tell me you can cut my taxes and still provide the level of services I (and my countrymen) demand.

Spending has been cut, and it can probably be cut a bit more, but taxes are the price we pay for the rest of it. Don't tell me you want it and then try to weasel out with that lame NIMBY argument.

You get it? You pay for it. TANSTAAFL.

I don't know why people don't see that tax cuts are the ultimate NIMBY argument. NIMBY, in case you live in a cave, means Not In My Back Yard.

Basically, everyone wants safe nuclear power, but doesn't want to be stuck with the nuclear waste. Everyone wants garbage pickup, but nobody wants dumps. People want seafood, but they don't want stinky fishermen. And people want government services, but they don't want to have to pay for them.

I'm a firm believer in TANSTAAFL. (For aforementioned cave dwellers, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".) I'm not saying that government is the most efficient at running all the things we ask it to run, but we do demand strong defense, solid infrastructure, social safety nets, environmental protection, and a host of other services. Don't tell me you can cut my taxes and still provide the level of services I (and my countrymen) demand.

Spending has been cut, and it can probably be cut a bit more, but taxes are the price we pay for the rest of it. Don't tell me you want it and then try to weasel out with that lame NIMBY argument.

You get it? You pay for it. TANSTAAFL.
There's a tangent to that line of thought. Those who levy the taxes and spend our money ought to do so with the utmost integrity. You can't sell me on the idea that a highway bill ought to have set-asides for anything but roads and related infrastructure. No defense appropriation bill should contain anything but dollars for defense. And so on. What we have now is a group of 535 that think the power to tax is a license to spend freely.

Where does it in the Constitution that it is the Feds duty to regulate beyond preserving the basic rights of the people?

To remind you, the founding fathers wanted the Federal government to act to ensure that the rights of the people to liberty and PROPERTY were not violated by the states. The clause regarding interstate commerce is to prevent states from controlling trade between the states.

The Legislative Branch makes the laws and the Executive Branch carries out these laws. If the Executive Branch ignores what the Legislative Branch does, and acts of its own accord, (like Bush and Nixon) then they do indeed violated the Constitution. Nor is the US Supreme Court allowed to take away Legislative Powers "a disputed election shall be thrown into the House of Congress" not decided by the old five. Thus if Congress passes regulatory laws, then the Executive MUST enforce those laws. Bush failed to do this on an epic scale.

Didn't Clinton get us into that?



Yes, Clinton's Foreign Policy was a disaster. As a Progressive, I'll concede that. However, Bush continued it, knowing it was a disaster. At least Clinton knew how to run the economy. Also Clinton didn't recognize Kosovo when it decided to UNILATERALLY declare independence, AFTER the World said "enough of Unilateral Bullshit". If Kosovo under Bush decided to work with the UN, rather then making a UNILATERAL declaration, it would be different. But Kosovo's has no power. And it makes NATO look like a bully.

As to the problem I have with Kosovo: The Albanians (and I challenge anyone to find a source that was published before the 1970's that mentions the word "Kosovar" and is genuine), decided to jack Kosovo from Serbia, and stareted a guerilla warfare. The Serbs beat the Albanians at their own game, and won the guerilla warfare, using tactics they've learned fighting the Nazis (while Albanians waited in the background during WWII, and are proud of that - nice allies US picks). So after the Serbs gave the Albanians a major beating, Thaci the Thug dragged Albanian guerillas into apartments and dressed them up as civillians, claiming that "Serbia is massacring Albanian Civillians". Enter NATO troops in exchange for a base, raw resources, cheap labor. Just like Good Old Colonial Europe in Africa. Except NATO was losing the ground war to Serbia. So NATO decided to solve this problem: "let's bomb a civillian city, bomb the Serb capital until they surrender". So after several days of bombing, the Serbian Army left intact retreated to the Serbia, and NATO got it's treaty, Resolution 1244, via bombing a civillian city - don't it make you proud? Well then the Albanians, using NATO as shields, burned Serbian Churches and Thaci the Thug ran a campaign of terror so bad, that even the majority of Albanians refused to vote for him in the country's first truly Democratic election. And his brutality produced 200,000 Serbian refugees.

Fast forward to 2008. The Albanians in Kosovo, Nazi allies, declare Independence from Serbia and NATO backs it, except for the countries that fought on the Eastern Front and don't hate Russia/Serbia; Spain (who sent troops to fight the Nazis side by side with the Russians), Slovakia, Greece, Romania (who switched sides and join the Red Army once it could), didn't recognize Kosovo. And the "popular vote" for Thaci? Less then 13%!!! I mean seriously, how's that a mandate. Only 40% show up to vote in 2007, and of these only 34% vote for Thaci the Thug. How again does Kosovo deserve independence? Want to tell that to one of the 200,000 Serbian refugees?

I can see you haven't been here long.

People would rather continue the same failed approaches than try new ones. Because new ones bring unknown results.

Also, it's spelled "reinforce" not "re-enforce."

KOL:

Katrina's aftermath wasn't Bush's fuck-up, it was the fuck-up of the Governor of Louisiana, and the Mayor of New Orleans, and their friends and allies who didn't bother to have a coherent, practiced, plan for handling a disaster that wasn't a matter of "If",but a matter of "When". Instead of maintaining readiness (because, y'know, the city's BELOW SEA LEVEL AND ON THE COAST) and having competent disaster-response (Like, say, every other state in the country?), New Orleans built a football stadium at taxpayer expense to attract an NFL team and spent the rest of the money in graft operating on the assumption that the Army Corps of Engineers and Uncle Sugar would come in and save them, and the State government decided that keeping bob-billy-bob on the payroll so he can obtain kickbacks was more important than maintaining state-level response agencies.

With the Federal government, two weeks to respond to a disaster is pretty damn quick-there's all that red-tape, and earmark-based siphoning to get around, dontchaknow.

[QUOTE=Neo Bretonnia;14163599]Yeah, but the current fashionable trend is to retroactively blame Bush for everything.

It's easier than thinking./QUOTE]



Thanks for clearing that up.

KOL:

Katrina's aftermath wasn't Bush's fuck-up, it was the fuck-up of the Governor of Louisiana, and the Mayor of New Orleans, and their friends and allies who didn't bother to have a coherent, practiced, plan for handling a disaster that wasn't a matter of "If",but a matter of "When". Instead of maintaining readiness (because, y'know, the city's BELOW SEA LEVEL AND ON THE COAST) and having competent disaster-response (Like, say, every other state in the country?), New Orleans built a football stadium at taxpayer expense to attract an NFL team and spent the rest of the money in graft operating on the assumption that the Army Corps of Engineers and Uncle Sugar would come in and save them, and the State government decided that keeping bob-billy-bob on the payroll so he can obtain kickbacks was more important than maintaining state-level response agencies.

With the Federal government, two weeks to respond to a disaster is pretty damn quick-there's all that red-tape, and earmark-based siphoning to get around, dontchaknow.

Umm, as I've said earlier - to fix the levees, would be the job of the Army Corps of Engineers, not the Mayor of New Orleans. And had the levees been fixed, Katrina would have been contained with minor damage. Also I don't recall the Mayor providing toxic trailers. Do you?

And I don't blame Bush solely, I blame his entire team, the five geezers that elected him, the 108th Congress, Brownie who did a "heckuva job" the face-shooter, his advisors, the entire thing was just a complete disaster. And 90% of that is what McCain agrees with.

I can see you haven't been here long.

People would rather continue the same failed approaches than try new ones. Because new ones bring unknown results.

Also, it's spelled "reinforce" not "re-enforce."

Yes, correcting spelling is a remarkably new approach, thank you for showing me how to be annoying. Can't counter-argue, correct spelling. Cute. Also, I come and go, and I also provide glasses.

I don't know why people don't see that tax cuts are the ultimate NIMBY argument. NIMBY, in case you live in a cave, means Not In My Back Yard.

Basically, everyone wants safe nuclear power, but doesn't want to be stuck with the nuclear waste. Everyone wants garbage pickup, but nobody wants dumps. People want seafood, but they don't want stinky fishermen. And people want government services, but they don't want to have to pay for them.

I'm a firm believer in TANSTAAFL. (For aforementioned cave dwellers, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".) I'm not saying that government is the most efficient at running all the things we ask it to run, but we do demand strong defense, solid infrastructure, social safety nets, environmental protection, and a host of other services. Don't tell me you can cut my taxes and still provide the level of services I (and my countrymen) demand.

Spending has been cut, and it can probably be cut a bit more, but taxes are the price we pay for the rest of it. Don't tell me you want it and then try to weasel out with that lame NIMBY argument.

You get it? You pay for it. TANSTAAFL.

Yup, greed in its purest form IMO. GIMMEGIMMEGIMMEBUTIREFUSETOPAY!!

I don't know why people don't see that tax cuts are the ultimate NIMBY argument. NIMBY, in case you live in a cave, means Not In My Back Yard.

Basically, everyone wants safe nuclear power, but doesn't want to be stuck with the nuclear waste. Everyone wants garbage pickup, but nobody wants dumps. People want seafood, but they don't want stinky fishermen. And people want government services, but they don't want to have to pay for them.

I'm a firm believer in TANSTAAFL. (For aforementioned cave dwellers, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".) I'm not saying that government is the most efficient at running all the things we ask it to run, but we do demand strong defense, solid infrastructure, social safety nets, environmental protection, and a host of other services. Don't tell me you can cut my taxes and still provide the level of services I (and my countrymen) demand.

Spending has been cut, and it can probably be cut a bit more, but taxes are the price we pay for the rest of it. Don't tell me you want it and then try to weasel out with that lame NIMBY argument.

You get it? You pay for it. TANSTAAFL.

Heinlein fan?

No, the fact that Ayers and Wright were mentors of Obama don't bother KOL at all. Nor the fact that Obama's strategy in this election comes straight out of Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground handbook.

Probably doesn't bother KOL at all, right up to the point where the Constitution gets suspended, and I'm not sure that would bother him either.

Source that or stop it with the bullshit Hotwife. You've posted this at least twice (that I've seen) and really? enough is enough.

It's nice to win your own arguments, yes? I was under the assumption that I was responding to a statement about how the attacks of 9-11 could have been prevented with more troops and more bases.

So right back at you -- WTF?

Wasn't there a report that there was credible evidence for an attack on the WTC using planes something like a week before September 11th? If I remeber the problem wasn't so much the lack of intelligence but a surplus of it forcing the understaffed agency (note not HUMINT here. . . these are analysts.) to spend to little time on each piece. Anyway just saying, as the son of an intelligence specialist (history of intelligence) its not quite as straightforward as more HUMINT=better! and there is always a fine line one has to walk between civil rights and intelligence gathering techniques. One last problem with HUMINT. There are situations in which one cannot use said HUMINT in that to do so would kill ones source. this has happened multiple times during history so, once again, more HUMINT=/= better intel.

Umm, as I've said earlier - to fix the levees, would be the job of the Army Corps of Engineers, not the Mayor of New Orleans. And had the levees been fixed, Katrina would have been contained with minor damage. Also I don't recall the Mayor providing toxic trailers. Do you?

And I don't blame Bush solely, I blame his entire team, the five geezers that elected him, the 108th Congress, Brownie who did a "heckuva job" the face-shooter, his advisors, the entire thing was just a complete disaster. And 90% of that is what McCain agrees with.

In reverse order:

The toxic trailer situation is what you get, when you let the Federal Government take care of short-term disaster response. "Lowest bidder for the win". The only difference between a FEMA under Bush, and a FEMA under Gore, is that the press wouldn't have bothered with a FEMA under Gore. Those trailers weren't meant, intended, or designed for long-term inhabitation.

The Levees: Needed fixing for about ten years BEFORE Katrina. (closer to twenty, actually-New Orleans' levees were damaged in the prior hurricane twenty years earlier, and had been strained and damaged several times during the nineties). Nothing was staged or ready at the level of the State or City should those Levees fail-and Levees fail FREQUENTLY. A coherent emergency plan takes into account major single-source points of failure-particularly failures of things the locals don't have control over (like, for instance, Levees that have been handed over to the Fed.) Further, key disaster/emergency response personnel weren't just not-trained, but participated in Looting or abandoned their posts-these are DEFINITELY city level responsibilities, while National Guard units weren't ready to move in when the Storm was tracking toward the city (that's STATE level) and weren't equipped to handle floods in a state where flooding is commonplace (STATE level).

The funds that were used to build that concrete donut could have, and should have, gone to insuring that there were evacuation routes and available evacuation equipment (that isn't as vulnerable to wind as, say, helicopters are), response-training and drills, functional emergency communications, and internal cooperation and readiness prep for your first-response levels (police, fire, medevac and National Guard).

Post-Katrina cleanup still hasn't been done, and it's been YEARS. Contrast that with frequently-slammed Florida, or much of the midwestern Tornado corridor, or huge sections of the Great Plains that face flooding on a routine basis...but aren't "The Big Easy". You can't tell me that trailer-park denizens in East Texas and swampies in western Florida are richer than city folk in New Orleans, or have more resources to rebuild with than a population that had vast sums lavished on them from concerned folks around the nation.

The reason it's STILL a mess, and the reason it was SUCH a mess? entirely the fault of LOCAL government having their priorities backward and their collective head up their collective ass.

People hit by Andrew were rebuilt inside of a YEAR.

Yes, the majority of Americans have vindicated themselves. No question there. I still had to rant though, it feels good to occasionally rant. Damn I feel good. Go Obama Go! Now if only the Dems could get those 60 seats! But if not now, they'll get 'em in two years, Republicans, to qoute the Gubnah - you have no idea how badly I wanted to do this - "Hasta La Vista, Baby!" Or "Hit the Road GOP and don't you comeback no more, no more, no more, no more..." And as I predicted, my county had a 20% spread for Obama! :D

other nasties sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya
Truly IS funnier the more you say it, eh? :rolleyes:

Source that or stop it with the bullshit Hotwife. Not his style.
You've posted this at least twice (that I've seen) and really?...that, however, IS his style. :(
Look forward to his anti-Biden threads about gun ownership.