Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on November 12, 2008, 10:23:53 AM
-
Quotes
"The Republican idea factory has dried up. And we’ve got to catch up
on the key issues of our times -- health care, renewable energy and education."
-- Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Link http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15357_Page2.html
Hey Tim, I have some free advice for you:
Stop being super-Nazi pricks on every issue.
Stop borrowing money to give to the super-rich and
stop pretending affordable health care means we're all "socialists."
And what do you have against education?
You tell kids to stay in school - why?
So they can get a degree and be called "egg headed Harvard elites"
by uneducated dirtbags like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh?
http://www.bartcop.com/
I thought that those were fairly astute comments by both commentators. Some of the moderate republicans, like Pawlenty, get it. It's the other 99% of republicans that drag the republican party into the 19th century.
-
It's true. No message. No leader.
-
It's true. No message. No leader.
I like Pawlenty an awful lot. I think he's the future of the republican party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty
-
I like Pawlenty an awful lot. I think he's the future of the republican party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty
Looks pretty solid. I'd like to hear more about him in the coming months and years.
-
Will definitely have to keep an eye on Pawlenty. We need more moderate republicans!
-
I'm sure they have a few ideas left.
The real problem is that all of their ideas have been proven to SUCK
-
If Barack Obama backs out of campaign promises will people realize left and right are both false ideas? I believe a dictatorship is being steered into place no matter who is in office.
-
I'm sure they have a few ideas left.
The real problem is that all of their ideas have been proven to SUCK
Think what you will but since 1953 when Eisenhower took office, the republican party has been in control 38 of those years. That is by far the majority of the time. It's hard to argue against the fact the most of America's power and wealth has been built during the past 50+ years, 50+ years that the republican party has run the majority.
Now enter people saying, "but look where we are now." IMO that's a ridiculous statement. We've always had ups and downs, doesn't matter which party is leading. That's the nature of any economy.
-
No, the ideas don't all suck. Thats a stupid generalization. The economic foundation of the country is at least partly conservative. Bush and the neocons parted from traditional conservativism. We need a social moderate, economic conservative. The religious right cannot speak for the whole republican party if the party is to flourish again. There's nothing wrong with conservative social ideas but there must be some tolerance.
Looks like the party is starting to reach out to more women & minorities, that trend needs to continue.
-
No, the ideas don't all suck. Thats a stupid generalization. The economic foundation of the country is at least partly conservative. Bush and the neocons parted from traditional conservativism. We need a social moderate, economic conservative. The religious right cannot speak for the whole republican party if the party is to flourish again. There's nothing wrong with conservative social ideas but there must be some tolerance.
Looks like the party is starting to reach out to more women & minorities, that trend needs to continue.
Tell me one good idea that the neocons have implemented successfully in the last 8 years
-
If we were a socialist country, we would not be a superpower. We'd be just like most European nations. thats why they like when we move toward socialistic policies anyway, no one outside of the US wants to see us as the superpower in the world. (Well, until there is a conflict)
-
No, the ideas don't all suck. Thats a stupid generalization. The economic foundation of the country is at least partly conservative. Bush and the neocons parted from traditional conservativism. We need a social moderate, economic conservative. The religious right cannot speak for the whole republican party if the party is to flourish again. There's nothing wrong with conservative social ideas but there must be some tolerance.
Looks like the party is starting to reach out to more women & minorities, that trend needs to continue.
Excellent post and I agree, the chokehold the religious right seems to have needs to be tampered, and also yes they need to diversify. Economic conservatism I am all for and think many are, they need to get back to that.
-
Strawman, we don't disagree. I separated Bush/Cheney out. They damaged the rep party greatly with their intolerance for the public and big gov/big corporation ways. Thats why thereBush/Cheney did not represent traditional conservatism which champions personal freedom, smaller government, constitutional principles and lower taxes.
-
If we were a socialist country, we would not be a superpower. We'd be just like most European nations. thats why they like when we move toward socialistic policies anyway, no one outside of the US wants to see us as the superpower in the world. (Well, until there is a conflict)
How does capitalism engender superpower status?
I thought that our country had an abundance of natural resources and a representative democracy that made all of old Europe's governments obsolete and undesirable.
-
If we were a socialist country, we would not be a superpower. We'd be just like most European nations. thats why they like when we move toward socialistic policies anyway, no one outside of the US wants to see us as the superpower in the world. (Well, until there is a conflict)
One thing I never get when people complain about socialism what per se do they see it as? I've been told by some people here my nation is socialist as we get free college and health - even though we barely pay taxes maybe $25 a year for average income people. Americans are gouged with taxes just like the "socialist" nations now - the real difference is on where the tax money is later spent.
-
One thing I never get when people complain about socialism what per se do they see it as? I've been told by some people here my nation is socialist as we get free college and health - even though we barely pay taxes maybe $25 a year for average income people. Americans are gouged with taxes just like the "socialist" nations now - the real difference is on where the tax money is later spent.
Excellent post.
Government contracts for families like Bush's...little work, shitty workproduct, priced at exorbitant gouging rates. That's how many of these free marketeers make and retain their fortunes.
-
Excellent post.
Government contracts for families like Bush's...little work, shitty workproduct, priced at exorbitant gouging rates. That's how many of these free marketeers make and retain their fortunes.
Socialism only works when there is an excess of revenue from one source that pays for the social spending of the rest.
Places like Norway thrive under socialism, however the test of their system will be when the oil runs out.
I came from a province that was heavily into socialism and it worked for most when the wealth from the farms was redistributed to the cities.
When the farm wealth dried up so did socialism. What we were left with was massive deficits and no way of paying for it.
-
I hear some (HH6, shoot, Ron, and others) say that Republicans need a moderate, or at least a social moderate to run. Why do you say this? What specific issues are social conservatives either wrong about or out-of-step with the majority of the country?
-
Socialism only works when there is an excess of revenue from one source that pays for the social spending of the rest.
Places like Norway thrive under socialism, however the test of their system will be when the oil runs out.
I came from a province that was heavily into socialism and it worked for most when the wealth from the farms was redistributed to the cities.
When the farm wealth dried up so did socialism. What we were left with was massive deficits and no way of paying for it.
How does the wealth dry up if the farms are productive and engage in a system of shared burden/benefit not unlike commercial insurance companies?
-
The republicans need a strong conservative.
They need a leader that has lots of charisma and someone that is young.
Personally I think they need an anti Obama.
From this election I found that it is easier for the media to believe that someone can moderate. Then they can go the other way.
McCain could never be viewed as social conservative, but Obama could easily be viewed as moderate Democrat.
They should also make sure their Candidate is a governor.
The group they need to target are the blue dog democrats, formerly know as Regan democrats and Women.
They performed badly with Women only getting 40% of their votes.
-
How does the wealth dry up if the farms are productive and engage in a system of shared burden/benefit not unlike commercial insurance companies?
Overhead.
Someone has to be paid to manage the system and when times are good management grows, when times are bad they are first to start to collect.
-
Socialism only works when there is an excess of revenue from one source that pays for the social spending of the rest.
Places like Norway thrive under socialism
Norway is not a Socialist country.
Eg, Norway has free enterprising, offers private schools, private drug stores and private health care.
Compare that to the the Socialist state of Soviet where no private corps where allowed.
-
Norway is not a Socialist country.
Eg, Norway has free enterprising, offers private schools, private drug stores and private health care.
Compare that to the the Socialist state of Soviet where no private corps where allowed.
Many business are owned by the state, especially their nationalized oil company.
This has lead to their high standard of living.
-
The group they need to target are the blue dog democrats, formerly know as Regan democrats and Women.
They performed badly with Women only getting 40% of their votes.
Yes, and 40% with a woman on the ticket is laughable.
I was flamed to a crisp for saying months ago Palin would not draw the female vote really, and she didn't. As a female that was obvious to me quickly.
Other issue they have is another female VP back to back will look far too gimmicky, as Palin was a gimmicky pick anyway. A female outright winning the nomination is a more feasible idea to attract female voters, but Palin won't do, she won't perform any better with women in 2012.
-
I'm sure they have a few ideas left.
The real problem is that all of their ideas have been proven to SUCK
This is what happens when you stray from your fiscally conservative and socially liberal roots.
-
I hear some (HH6, shoot, Ron, and others) say that Republicans need a moderate, or at least a social moderate to run. Why do you say this? What specific issues are social conservatives either wrong about or out-of-step with the majority of the country?
All the issues that have been used to divide the country (you probably know what they are) for the past 8 years.
-
All the issues that have been used to divide the country (you probably know what they are) for the past 8 years.
No I don't. That's why I asked the people saying Republicans need a social moderate to explain. Disagreements always "divide" people. A person or party isn't divisive because they hold a contrary viewpoint.
-
Many business are owned by the state, especially their nationalized oil company.
This has lead to their high standard of living.
Most business are privately owned.
A few big corps like the oil corps, power plants, one bank and the phone company is partly or fully owned owned by the state.
But everyday business is fully privatized, and the reason it is not Socialism - there are no laws against starting new enterprises.
It's very much an open market.
I think all developing countries should nationalise their natural resources.
But that don't mean I support Socialism.
I just think there needs to be a clear break of the leeching of the natural resources of these countries - otherwise they'll stay primitive and underdeveloped forever.
-
I'm sure they have a few ideas left.
The real problem is that all of their ideas have been proven to SUCK
;D
-
Here's a nice addendum:
In short, they’re out of ideas. Partly due to what I believe was a cynical decision to politicize the 9 / 11 tragedy by scheduling an Iraq war vote shortly before the 2002 elections, the GOP ran the table. Conservative ideologues had complete control of the government for six years, during which they invaded Iraq on false pretenses, bungled the war catastrophically, failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, turned Afghanistan into a running sore, allowed a major American city to drown, resorted to kidnapping and torture, gutted Fourth Amendment privacy rights, ran up massive government debt and oversaw the near-implosion of the nation’s financial system.
It’s been straight downhill from “Mission accomplished” onward. So now many of the same pundits who marveled over Bush’s manly profile in his flight suit caution Obama to go slow, be mindful that America remains a “center-right” country and take care not to offend conservative sensibilities. Fortunately, the best thing I can say about Obama is that he’s far too tough and smart to listen.
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/243290/
-
How niave to blame all those things on republicans. decker, this kind of one sided exaggerated finger pointing is why many people have come to hate politics in this country.
Afghanistan is the fault of the taliban and middle eastern radical nuts.
Both parties and the faulty gov intell have some fault with the war, though I agree that Bush was at the helm and pushed for it.
"Allowed a major city to drown"...bullshit, that was a local, state and federal failure that was a wakeup call to all involved. We learned and all did much better this fall with the hurricaines. Where's the credit? Nowhere, its fun to criticize ::)
"Oversaw the near-implosion of the nation's financial system"- Its well known that certain democratic leaders ignored documented warnings about Fanny and Freddie.
I am not a fan of Bush/Cheney but why don't we blame snowstorms and tornados on them as well.
-
How niave to blame all those things on republicans. decker, this kind of one sided exaggerated finger pointing is why many people have come to hate politics in this country.
Afghanistan is the fault of the taliban and middle eastern radical nuts.
Both parties and the faulty gov intell have some fault with the war, though I agree that Bush was at the helm and pushed for it.
"Allowed a major city to drown"...bullshit, that was a local, state and federal failure that was a wakeup call to all involved. We learned and all did much better this fall with the hurricaines. Where's the credit? Nowhere, its fun to criticize ::)
"Oversaw the near-implosion of the nation's financial system"- Its well known that certain democratic leaders ignored documented warnings about Fanny and Freddie.
I am not a fan of Bush/Cheney but why don't we blame snowstorms and tornados on them as well.
we can certainly blame our leaders for how they react to problems
Fannie/Freddie was not the cause or even a large contributor to the current financial mess.
-
Its a large part of the banking mess. IMO, the changed culture of the country is also to blame.
The point I try to make is that government, in general, often fails us. Too much red tape, partisan politics, and abuse of power...all with our tax dollars! No way in hell would I vote for anyone who wants more of our $ for an inefficient system.
-
Here's a nice addendum:
In short, they’re out of ideas. Partly due to what I believe was a cynical decision to politicize the 9 / 11 tragedy by scheduling an Iraq war vote shortly before the 2002 elections, the GOP ran the table. Conservative ideologues had complete control of the government for six years, during which they invaded Iraq on false pretenses, bungled the war catastrophically, failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, turned Afghanistan into a running sore, allowed a major American city to drown, resorted to kidnapping and torture, gutted Fourth Amendment privacy rights, ran up massive government debt and oversaw the near-implosion of the nation’s financial system.
It’s been straight downhill from “Mission accomplished” onward. So now many of the same pundits who marveled over Bush’s manly profile in his flight suit caution Obama to go slow, be mindful that America remains a “center-right” country and take care not to offend conservative sensibilities. Fortunately, the best thing I can say about Obama is that he’s far too tough and smart to listen.
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/243290/
Partisan drivel.
-
Exactly, thats the partisan crap we need to stop.
-
How niave to blame all those things on republicans. decker, this kind of one sided exaggerated finger pointing is why many people have come to hate politics in this country.
Afghanistan is the fault of the taliban and middle eastern radical nuts.
Both parties and the faulty gov intell have some fault with the war, though I agree that Bush was at the helm and pushed for it.
"Allowed a major city to drown"...bullshit, that was a local, state and federal failure that was a wakeup call to all involved. We learned and all did much better this fall with the hurricaines. Where's the credit? Nowhere, its fun to criticize ::)
"Oversaw the near-implosion of the nation's financial system"- Its well known that certain democratic leaders ignored documented warnings about Fanny and Freddie.
I am not a fan of Bush/Cheney but why don't we blame snowstorms and tornados on them as well.
no no no no.
First drop the 'faulty intel' meme. That's a diversion.
The intel was just fine. The CIA said Iraq was no threat and WMD inspectors on the ground were finding nothing.
So naturally Bush ordered an invasion of the country to protect us from the weapons they didn't have in case they didn't attack.
Can we put that 'faulty intel' to bed?
As for Katrina, yeah, Bush's response to the disaster from his millionth vacation was just great. Why he lied about 'no one could've foresaw the levees breaking" is beyond me. Even Bush acknowledged (rarity) that he bungled it.
I get so fucking tired of people trying to be even-handed with obvious corruption and ineptitude. "They all screw up"..."there's plenty of blame to go around"...."both sides of the aisle are equally responsible"
That is all 100% bullshit.
I am not a relativist. Everyone's not equal.
Christ, just look at the facts re Iraq. Anyone telling me that blame should be apportioned equally for the illegal invasion/occupation just hasn't been paying attention and is trying to take some high road that does not exist.
-
Most business are privately owned.
A few big corps like the oil corps, power plants, one bank and the phone company is partly or fully owned owned by the state.
But everyday business is fully privatized, and the reason it is not Socialism - there are no laws against starting new enterprises.
It's very much an open market.
I think all developing countries should nationalise their natural resources.
But that don't mean I support Socialism.
I just think there needs to be a clear break of the leeching of the natural resources of these countries - otherwise they'll stay primitive and underdeveloped forever.
Social Democracy is the cornerstone of Norway and to large extend every Scandinavian country.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=kGdbX4EEUgkC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=%22social+democracy%22+norway&source=web&ots=nGsWBStlUn&sig=kHXWWWjNuVDKDQJ5NohwYKLrqTY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
That is what I meant by socialism.
Countries in colder climates share more with their people because it is a necessity to keep people from dying.
Warm climates not so much.
It is a way over simplification, but social democracies and socialism rule the North.
Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia all either social democracies or are truly socialist.
-
The Iraq blunder is the biggest reason I don't defend the Bush/Cheney administration, I agree on that one...but I still say its not their fault alone.
I don't know what to say about the intelligence, we didn't see it, however, reputable people said that the Intell pointed to WMDs in Iraqi posession. Also, the problem with Iraq had been mounting since George Bush Sr and Clinton acknowledged the serious growing threat...so looking at it over a 10 yr period from that perspective may have been different. Still wrong decision though and in hindsight, a horrible decision.
-
The Iraq blunder is the biggest reason I don't defend the Bush/Cheney administration, I agree on that one...but I still say its not their fault alone.
I don't know what to say about the intelligence, we didn't see it, however, reputable people said that the Intell pointed to WMDs in Iraqi posession. Also, the problem with Iraq had been mounting since George Bush Sr and Clinton acknowledged the serious growing threat...so looking at it over a 10 yr period from that perspective may have been different. Still wrong decision though and in hindsight, a horrible decision.
Iraq was not a bad decision.
How it was handled after "mission accomplished" and until the surge was.
Rumsfeld will always be responsible for not having a proper plan to deal with Iraq after the liberation.
-
The Iraq blunder is the biggest reason I don't defend the Bush/Cheney administration, I agree on that one...but I still say its not their fault alone.
I don't know what to say about the intelligence, we didn't see it, however, reputable people said that the Intell pointed to WMDs in Iraqi posession. Also, the problem with Iraq had been mounting since George Bush Sr and Clinton acknowledged the serious growing threat...so looking at it over a 10 yr period from that perspective may have been different. Still wrong decision though and in hindsight, a horrible decision.
The intel from 10 years ago was faulty b/c it was from 10 years ago. When the CIA and WMD inspectors took up the cause of determining whether Iraq still had WMDs or was a threat to the US, that stuff was the latest most relibable intelligence.
Yeah, Iraq was a problem.
Was it such a problem that we had to devastate the country and kill all those people?
Not by a long shot.
-
Iraq was not a bad decision.
How it was handled after "mission accomplished" and until the surge was.
Rumsfeld will always be responsible for not having a proper plan to deal with Iraq after the liberation.
Would you take a bazooka to a thumbwrestling fight?
The needless death and destruction of the invasion is a criminal price to pay for something that could have been solved by political resolution.
Killing all those people to--what the fuck--remove Hussein, WMDs or whatever the flavor of the day reason was is an abomination and crime against humanity.
Why is that so hard to see?
Or did the Iraqi people get what they deserved?
-
Would you take a bazooka to a thumbwrestling fight?
The needless death and destruction of the invasion is a criminal price to pay for something that could have been solved by political resolution.
Killing all those people to--what the fuck--remove Hussein, WMDs or whatever the flavor of the day reason was is an abomination and crime against humanity.
Why is that so hard to see?
Or did the Iraqi people get what they deserved?
I have already posted why I think Iraq is better off without Saddam.
That they have more power, more drink water, more sanitary sewer services.
That the ethnic cleansing is now largely subsided for the first time in over 20 years.
If Bush is judged solely by Iraq, I would be one of the very few that said he did he right thing.
Many Americans suffered for this, but in the end the US military and its allies performed valiantly, through some of the most trying domestic times for the military.
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/08/28/iraq_vote_540.jpg)
-
The intel from 10 years ago was faulty b/c it was from 10 years ago. When the CIA and WMD inspectors took up the cause of determining whether Iraq still had WMDs or was a threat to the US, that stuff was the latest most relibable intelligence.
Yeah, Iraq was a problem.
Was it such a problem that we had to devastate the country and kill all those people?
Not by a long shot.
Let's not forget the tab which is estimated to be ~ 3 TRILLION $$$ to the US Tax Payer
-
I have already posted why I think Iraq is better off without Saddam.
That they have more power, more drink water, more sanitary sewer services.
That depends on who you ask. Are you equally thrilled with the raw sewage corrupting the potable water source. The US inspectors just deemed this success a "100 million dollar failure" http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/27/mideast/rebuild.php
That the ethnic cleansing is now largely subsided for the first time in over 20 years.
It subsided b/c the majority is running out of victims. How in the hell is that a success?
If Bush is judged solely by Iraq, I would be one of the very few that said he did he right thing.
Many Americans suffered for this, but in the end the US military and its allies performed valiantly, through some of the most trying domestic times for the military.
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/08/28/iraq_vote_540.jpg)
The 100,000+ dead is a success to you? The 4 million Iraqis fleeing the country is a success to you? The destruction....
For what? That bullshit symbolic purple finger?
For the hundreds of billions of dollars we paid to destroy and rebuild the country, we could have just made a straight cash pay off bribing every single Iraqi citizen to vote.
-
That depends on who you ask. Are you equally thrilled with the raw sewage corrupting the potable water source. The US inspectors just deemed this success a "100 million dollar failure" http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/27/mideast/rebuild.phpIt subsided b/c the majority is running out of victims. How in the hell is that a success?
She said that the backbone of the sewer system would be capable of serving the entire city of Falluja but that the Iraqi government would be responsible for connecting much of that system to individual homes.
"This has been unbelievably challenging and indescribably dangerous, both from a security and a construction safety standpoint. People have died in an effort to bring the city its first wastewater treatment system, a fundamental service, with health and environmental benefits most Americans take for granted."
As I said better then before.
Falluja had no sanitary sewer service, now they do.
Sure it could go better, but many Iraqi's are now getting things they never had before.
While you close your eyes and label everything as a failure. Now you are projecting failure on things that by any definition would be a success.
-
She said that the backbone of the sewer system would be capable of serving the entire city of Falluja but that the Iraqi government would be responsible for connecting much of that system to individual homes.
"This has been unbelievably challenging and indescribably dangerous, both from a security and a construction safety standpoint. People have died in an effort to bring the city its first wastewater treatment system, a fundamental service, with health and environmental benefits most Americans take for granted."
As I said better then before.
Falluja had no sanitary sewer service, now they do.
Sure it could go better, but many Iraqi's are now getting things they never had before.
While you close your eyes and label everything as a failure. Now you are projecting failure on things that by any definition would be a success.
Fallujah had families and homes and streets and stores and the US flattened it. Killing and destroying.
And we give them a defective waste treatment plant in return.
Only an American would view that as an equitable trade.
"...the project, which has tripled in cost from original plans to $100 million and has fallen about three years behind schedule, has become an example of the failed and often oversold program to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure with U.S. dollars and skill."
"The project was so poorly conceived that there is no reliable electricity to run pumps and purification tanks, and no money left to connect homes to the main sewer lines, which now run uselessly beneath Falluja's streets, according to a report by U.S. investigators released Monday."
-
Fallujah had families and homes and streets and stores and the US flattened it. Killing and destroying.
And we give them a defective waste treatment plant in return.
Only an American would view that as an equitable trade.
"...the project, which has tripled in cost from original plans to $100 million and has fallen about three years behind schedule, has become an example of the failed and often oversold program to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure with U.S. dollars and skill."
"The project was so poorly conceived that there is no reliable electricity to run pumps and purification tanks, and no money left to connect homes to the main sewer lines, which now run uselessly beneath Falluja's streets, according to a report by U.S. investigators released Monday."
Falluja had no sanitary sewer service before the invasion.
Most likely the electrical service is behind, but was supposed to be connected to the plant by the time the sewage system was done.
It is called phasing projects.
They wouldn't hold back one part of the schedule because it is an awarded contract.
It was also three years behind schedule because of a small matter of an uprising.
Oh well continue your hate.
-
Falluja had no sanitary sewer service before the invasion.
Most likely the electrical service is behind, but was supposed to be connected to the plant by the time the sewage system was done.
It is called phasing projects.
They wouldn't hold back one part of the schedule because it is an awarded contract.
It was also three years behind schedule because of a small matter of an uprising.
Oh well continue your hate.
You're damn right I hate Bush. Have you seen the pictures of the solders's remains returned to the US?
Of course you haven't. Bush locked them down so that his war would be bloodless to us thereby manageable.
OH the great sacrifice Bush asked of the american people to support the war effort: shop more.
The solidarity at the State of the Union--where members of the audience dipped there fingers in ink to show brotherhood with the voters in Iraq--SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE. Typical rightwingers.
The lies, the death, the torture, the destruction, the incompetence, the lies heaped on lies...not a damn good thing has come out of this.
This entire Iraq disaster has the sickengly sweet stench of corrupted death.
-
You're damn right I hate Bush. Have you seen the pictures of the solders's remains returned to the US?
Of course you haven't. Bush locked them down so that his war would be bloodless to us thereby manageable.
OH the great sacrifice Bush asked of the american people to support the war effort: shop more.
The solidarity at the State of the Union--where members of the audience dipped there fingers in ink to show brotherhood with the voters in Iraq--SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE. Typical rightwingers.
The lies, the death, the torture, the destruction, the incompetence, the lies heaped on lies...not a damn good thing has come out of this.
This entire Iraq disaster has the sickengly sweet stench of corrupted death.
Too bad things are better.
Hopefully Obama doesn't make it worse.
-
Too bad things are better.
Hopefully Obama doesn't make it worse.
The damage is done.
And all it took to make it better was 600+ billion dollars, 4100 american lives, 100,000+ dead kids, women and men, and some 40,000 wounded us soldiers and ruined country....not to mention the strain on each soldier's domestic life--relatives and all.
Shit, even the barest risk/reward analysis shows the Iraq debacle was flop.
-
The damage is done.
And all it took to make it better was 600+ billion dollars, 4100 american lives, 100,000+ dead kids, women and men, and some 40,000 wounded us soldiers and ruined country....not to mention the strain on each soldier's domestic life--relatives and all.
Shit, even the barest risk/reward analysis shows the Iraq debacle was flop.
It depends on the next 4 to 5 years.
If a stable ally appears in the region next to Iran and Syria then it would a major success.
-
It depends on the next 4 to 5 years.
If a stable ally appears in the region next to Iran and Syria then it would a major success.
Not in 4 years and not in 50 years.
The dead are still dead and the billions still wasted and the middle east is still a shit hole.
-
Not in 4 years and not in 50 years.
The dead are still dead and the billions still wasted and the middle east is still a shit hole.
I see it as a success now.
Heck cities that never had services like potable water or sanitary sewer are receiving them.
Oh well to each there own.
-
I see it as a success now.
Heck cities that never had services like potable water or sanitary sewer are receiving them.
Oh well to each there own.
It's a useless arguement. Those who are as adamantly apposed to the Iraq war as Decker will never see what you or I see. They can't.
These people are blinded by an idea of all man kind living in harmony on gum drop lane in lolly pop city. If we can just all agree to hold hands and get along, if we just try it all the bad monsters will go away and we can sing and rejoice and frolic in the marshmallow patch.
Unfortunately, that's not real life or the real world. The real world is an evil place made up of many evil people who could give a rats ass about peaceful ideology. The real world is made up of evil people who you cannot talk to, you can't reason with, you cannot even get them to consider your side of the arguement.
-
It's true. No message. No leader.
The Republicans are lost.....
They don't have an Obama on their side.
All they have are factions.
DIV
-
The Republicans are lost.....
They don't have an Obama on their side.
All they have are factions.
DIV
maybe they should lean farther to the right
that might work
-
I have already posted why I think Iraq is better off without Saddam.
That they have more power, more drink water, more sanitary sewer services.
That the ethnic cleansing is now largely subsided for the first time in over 20 years.
If Bush is judged solely by Iraq, I would be one of the very few that said he did he right thing.
Many Americans suffered for this, but in the end the US military and its allies performed valiantly, through some of the most trying domestic times for the military.
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/08/28/iraq_vote_540.jpg)
So much better, that it was questioned whether a dictator that answered to the US would be a thesable option now.
-
The Republicans are lost.....
They don't have an Obama on their side.
All they have are factions.
DIV
I think both parties are suffering from the same problem (no message), but Democrats now have their leader. I don't view this election the same as 94. Republicans actually had a theme and ran on that theme. This election was all about running against Bush, with a huge boost from the war (in 06) and the economic meltdown in 08.
-
I think both parties are suffering from the same problem (no message), but Democrats now have their leader. I don't view this election the same as 94. Republicans actually had a theme and ran on that theme. This election was all about running against Bush, with a huge boost from the war (in 06) and the economic meltdown in 08.
This election was a referendum on Bush -or- Obama.
McCain lost because he had no message to promote other than to vote against Obama which isn't a message at all.
I honestly believe that if he'd ran as the McCain of '00, he'd have had a much better shot.
When he sold his soul to the Republican base, he already lost the election.
Independents and Reagan democrats loved the McCain who bucked the establishment but once he BECAME the establishment there was nothing to run against, therefore he lost whatever edge he had.
He tried to run as the change agent in a year against the ultimate change agent in Obama and it was a failed strategy.
The selection of Palin was the final nail in his coffin.
Initially she boosted his candidacy, but she also failed miserably among suburban whites which is the main reason why Obama won the battle ground states.
I cannot think of a worse candidate than Palin in terms of experience for VP with the exception of Dan Quayle.
McCain ended up looking senile, having to clean up his mess......
DIV
-
It's a useless arguement. Those who are as adamantly apposed to the Iraq war as Decker will never see what you or I see. They can't.
These people are blinded by an idea of all man kind living in harmony on gum drop lane in lolly pop city. If we can just all agree to hold hands and get along, if we just try it all the bad monsters will go away and we can sing and rejoice and frolic in the marshmallow patch.
Unfortunately, that's not real life or the real world. The real world is an evil place made up of many evil people who could give a rats ass about peaceful ideology. The real world is made up of evil people who you cannot talk to, you can't reason with, you cannot even get them to consider your side of the arguement.
So we fight evil with evil? That's showing them!
-
So we fight evil with evil? That's showing them!
Fighting evil by way of force is not evil. If you see a man beating and raping a woman and you walk up and hit him in the face with a bat, does this make you evil? No, it made you a responsible human being who did the right thing.
-
Fighting evil by way of force is not evil. If you see a man beating and raping a woman and you walk up and hit him in the face with a bat, does this make you evil? No, it made you a responsible human being who did the right thing.
I do agree with that.
Who did Iraq attack?
-
How does capitalism engender superpower status?
I thought that our country had an abundance of natural resources and a representative democracy that made all of old Europe's governments obsolete and undesirable.
No we do not.
-
I do agree with that.
Who did Iraq attack?
We attacked the regime of Iraq, an evil regime. Not exactly the same as Bosnia but similar aspects.
In Iraq after the fall of the evil regime, we stayed to fight evil terrorist...not the law abiding good Iraqi people.
Yes, some good Iraqi people have suffered from what's happened, but most would agree the country is better off as a whole then it was before.
-
We attacked the regime of Iraq, an evil regime. Not exactly the same as Bosnia but similar aspects.
In Iraq after the fall of the evil regime, we stayed to fight evil terrorist...not the law abiding good Iraqi people.
Yes, some good Iraqi people have suffered from what's happened, but most would agree the country is better off as a whole then it was before.
The evil must be quantified in accordance with our use of JUSTIFIED force. We can't attack unless Iraq attacked us, an ally or our property interest or, if pursuant to UN authority, to stop an ongoing genocide.
None of that happened.
The terrorists that attacked us were in Pakistan and not Iraq.