|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Tiger Beer"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| McCain is NOT a liberal, and wouldn't appeal to 'liberals'. |
he did in 2000 cause he was against Bush. John Kerry thought of making McCain VP. |
| Quote: |
| He appealed to 'moderates' not 'liberals'. Again, your definition of liberal is skewed. |
well it shows that McCain isn't far right.
| Quote: |
| Kerry's campaign also shifted so far to the right he became 'Bush Lite'. He promised to do EVERYTHING Bush was doing but thought he'd be likeable to Europeans to rebuild alliances. It was a failed strategy, and obviously with the 'Bush Lite' image he was trying to project, a guy like McCain would have appealed at that time (who seemed to be working on his 'moderate' image - wow, that has certainly changed). |
Kerry moved to the center, it wasn't Bush lite. There aren't so many options when you become president. People can blast Bush all they want , they don't offer alternative solutions to the security problems the US faces , except to deny the problem exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Correction, it shows McCain WASN'T far right (4 years ago, or at least he was trying to represent himself as not being far right).
Like Kerry, McCain has been trying to sound very far right (regardless if people believed either one), however McCain took a step further and actually really followed through with it by inviting Palin to be intimately involved as VP in his potential administration.
Kerry did move to the center, and yeah, you are right for anyone who wants to become President it is important to appeal to the middle ground.
I guess that is the thing so peculiar with McCain, I think its almost unprecident for someone to get the nomination and then select a VP to shift them significantly to the right (or to the left, for that matter) for the national election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TexasPete
Joined: 24 May 2006
Location: Koreatown
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I have to agree with you. The sex education ad was a terrible ad and unfair. McCain ought to apologize for that ad. That is not a subject to play politics with.
The lipstick ad wasn't . No one knows what Obama meant by it and I think Obama is good enough with words to know what he was implying. |
Who the he!! gives a flying f**k about lipstick? Give me a break! I want to hear about issues and not stupid distractions that ultimately mean nothing. I don't care what Obama meant by lipstick on a pig because that won't fix the country. I firmly and whole-heartedly believe that McCain's policies won't fix the country either. But I'd be much more willing to listen to what he had to say if he'd actually say it in an ad, rather than nitpick ever godda*mn word in Obama's speeches.
Lipstick on a pig? Eff that. What's your plan, McCain to start paying off the Iraq fiasco? What's your plan to start paying off and fixing the Wall Street debacle and meltdown? How do you intend to invest in green technologies to help make us independent? That's the stuff i want to hear about, but maybe i'm in the minority here...McCain is depressingly close to Obama in the polls. What kind of change does anyone think a 72 year old man will bring? Or his conservative battle ax of an ideologue who wouldn't be anywhere be in any position of power without thee progressive movement (and yet wants to take the country for a ride in the way back machine?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TexasPete wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I have to agree with you. The sex education ad was a terrible ad and unfair. McCain ought to apologize for that ad. That is not a subject to play politics with.
The lipstick ad wasn't . No one knows what Obama meant by it and I think Obama is good enough with words to know what he was implying. |
Who the he!! gives a flying f**k about lipstick? Give me a break! I want to hear about issues and not stupid distractions that ultimately mean nothing. I don't care what Obama meant by lipstick on a pig because that won't fix the country. I firmly and whole-heartedly believe that McCain's policies won't fix the country either. But I'd be much more willing to listen to what he had to say if he'd actually say it in an ad, rather than nitpick ever godda*mn word in Obama's speeches.
Lipstick on a pig? Eff that. What's your plan, McCain to start paying off the Iraq fiasco? What's your plan to start paying off and fixing the Wall Street debacle and meltdown? How do you intend to invest in green technologies to help make us independent? That's the stuff i want to hear about, but maybe i'm in the minority here...McCain is depressingly close to Obama in the polls. What kind of change does anyone think a 72 year old man will bring? Or his conservative battle ax of an ideologue who wouldn't be anywhere be in any position of power without thee progressive movement (and yet wants to take the country for a ride in the way back machine?) |
You are right except that McCain was criticized for the ad. The ad was fair.McCain ought not to have been criticized for the ad.
McCain will invest in alternative energy as much as Mr Obama.
Victory is important not change.
Changing back to 9-10 will not make the enemy go away.
Mr. Obama doesn't have any great financial expertise.Based on his resume Mr Obama is not much more than an improved version of Dan Qualye or a liberal George W. Bush.
By the way if anything drilling will generate more revenue for the govt since the govt can then charge for the rights.Drilling isn't the solution but a band aid is better than not having one. Doesn't cost the tax payers anything. It will keep money in the US and out of the mideast.
Green technology is the future , but that does not mean the US ought not to drill or invest in nuclear power.
Remember Neither Osama Bin Laden nor Zawahari not anyone in Al Qaeda's leadership was from Afghanistan. None of the 9-11 hijackers was from Afghanistan.
Anyway I want the gas tax raised and I want imported oil taxed so that it is more expensive than domestic oil. Then and only then tax the oil companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
well it shows Obama was refering to her with the lipstick.
|
Have you never heard of the expression "like lipstick on a pig"? It's old and it refers to have something stupid that is given some foolish superficial change. The intent is to make it look better, but in fact, it looks more foolish.
I seem to recall that Obama was referring to a bill McCain and written? Something like that.
Am I to assume that Obama will be roundly scrutinized if he uses the word "lipstick" during the campaign? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
well it shows Obama was refering to her with the lipstick.
|
Have you never heard of the expression "like lipstick on a pig"? It's old and it refers to have something stupid that is given some foolish superficial change. The intent is to make it look better, but in fact, it looks more foolish.
I seem to recall that Obama was referring to a bill McCain and written? Something like that.
Am I to assume that Obama will be roundly scrutinized if he uses the word "lipstick" during the campaign? |
Well more than a few new organizations put up the quote right away, as I said Obama is good with words and no one can know for sure what he meant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TexasPete
Joined: 24 May 2006
Location: Koreatown
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
well it shows Obama was refering to her with the lipstick.
|
Have you never heard of the expression "like lipstick on a pig"? It's old and it refers to have something stupid that is given some foolish superficial change. The intent is to make it look better, but in fact, it looks more foolish.
I seem to recall that Obama was referring to a bill McCain and written? Something like that.
Am I to assume that Obama will be roundly scrutinized if he uses the word "lipstick" during the campaign? |
Well more than a few new organizations put up the quote right away, as I said Obama is good with words and no one can know for sure what he meant. |
Again, does it matter what he meant? Not at all. It's making mountains out of molehills and if the McCain camp thinks that's a low dig, they need to get some thicker skin. How much crap has Hilary had to put up with, but she kept on keeping on. John McCain made an absolutely vicious joke about Chelsea Clinton on Letterman 10 years ago (when she was a teenager) and this lipstick on a pig comment is about a hundred shades paler than the sh!t John McCain has painted his opponents with over the years. I would say it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, save for the fact that there would have to be some sort of parity between what Obama said (assuming he actually meant it the way McCain claims) and the vicious lies, smears, and general ugliness coming from ex-uber lobbyist and current McCain campaign chairmen, Rick Davis, and the rest of the McCain camp.
I'll give it to the Republicans though. They sure know how to take the focus off of legitimate criticism by crying foul and acting like babies any time someone calls them on their BS. They're also, generally speaking, pretty damn good at sticking to their talking points memos and repeating mantras (no matter the truth of them) over and over again until the public can't tell the difference. I'll tell ya what; if the Republicans could run a country as good as they run campaigns, they'd have my vote every time.
As a side note, does anyone here ever notice how they keep extolling the virtues of McCain and how he "took on his own party" never once mentioning the word Republican (or the fact that he voted with Bush on every issue the American people have taken issue with)? And that Sarah Palin tackled the "good ol' boys network" in Alaska and its never mentioned that they were Republican too? So basically they're saying that yes, they were a big bunch of douches, but if you give Superman and Wonderwoman a shot at the White House, they'll flex their muscles and magically straighten out those fat cats in Washington and take on the lobbyists. The campaign which is chock full of lobbyists? We're supposed to trust them and pretend that the Republicans didn't criminally mismanage this country for the past 8 years? I don't think so.
As for the recent economic apocalypse, many are pointing to the deregulation and neutering of oversight bodies' authority as the reasons Wall Street imploded. McCain/Palin's solution? Less regulation. Eff that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aka Dave
Joined: 02 May 2008
Location: Down by the river
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is the only way Republicans have any chance of winning elections. They try to distract everyone by creating this mini-non-issue controversies because they know the mainstream media LOVES that shit and it drives news cycles.
If there were an actual discussion of policies and issues, they wouldn't have a change because their governance has been a toxic disaster.
McCain actually said fairly recently that we should model our health care system on the financial system, which just imploded before our eyes.
Insanity, I tell you, insanity! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="TexasPete"][
| Quote: |
| Again, does it matter what he meant? Not at all. |
only as much as an ad.
| Quote: |
| It's making mountains out of molehills and if the McCain camp thinks that's a low dig, they need to get some thicker skin. |
Well Obama has complined about McCain ads it goes both ways.
| Quote: |
| How much crap has Hilary had to put up with, but she kept on keeping on. John McCain made an absolutely vicious joke about Chelsea Clinton on Letterman 10 years ago (when she was a teenager) and this lipstick on a pig comment is about a hundred shades paler than the sh!t John McCain has painted his opponents with over the years. I would say it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, save for the fact that there would have to be some sort of parity between what Obama said (assuming he actually meant it the way McCain claims) and the vicious lies, smears, and general ugliness coming from ex-uber lobbyist and current McCain campaign chairmen, Rick Davis, and the rest of the McCain camp |
.
The Obama camp is just as guilty of smears and distortions. If it is bad when McCain does it then it is bad when Obama does it. Obama hasn't taken the high ground in this election. Not by a long shot.
| Quote: |
| I'll give it to the Republicans though. They sure know how to take the focus off of legitimate criticism by crying foul and acting like babies any time someone calls them on their BS. They're also, generally speaking, pretty damn good at sticking to their talking points memos and repeating mantras (no matter the truth of them) over and over again until the public can't tell the difference. I'll tell ya what; if the Republicans could run a country as good as they run campaigns, they'd have my vote every time |
.
Well it is not like the Democrats have any good ideas for protecting the US or managing the economy.
| Quote: |
| As a side note, does anyone here ever notice how they keep extolling the virtues of McCain and how he "took on his own party" never once mentioning the word Republican (or the fact that he voted with Bush on every issue the American people have taken issue with)? And that Sarah Palin tackled the "good ol' boys network" in Alaska and its never mentioned that they were Republican too? So basically they're saying that yes, they were a big bunch of douches, but if you give Superman and Wonderwoman a shot at the White House, they'll flex their muscles and magically straighten out those fat cats in Washington and take on the lobbyists. The campaign which is chock full of lobbyists? We're supposed to trust them and pretend that the Republicans didn't criminally mismanage this country for the past 8 years? I don't think so. |
Just remembe the last time a liberal democrat was president Aytollah Khomeni came to power. Maybe the greatest foreign policy failure in the history of the US.
At any rate the Democrats -especially liberals don't have any ideas about protecting the US except to pretend that all of the 9-11 hijackers and Bin Laden were from Afghanistan. (Still haven't seen / heard a good response to that FACT. ) Of course 9-11 was being planned before Bush was president.
Oh and one more thing Iran has been after the US for a long time - that is another fact. The liberals are in denial about that too.
Not only that Democrats don't have any real good ideas for managing the economy -100$ oil would have messed up the economy no matter which party was in the white house . The Democrats are just lucky demand begain to surplass the supply of easy to get to oil when they weren't in the white house.
I am still waiting to see a democratic plan to protect the US and to manage the economy that isn't a cliche.
| Quote: |
| As for the recent economic apocalypse, many are pointing to the deregulation and neutering of oversight bodies' authority as the reasons Wall Street imploded. McCain/Palin's solution? Less regulation. Eff that |
As I said all the Democrats have are cliches - no solutions.
Obama doesn't have any background in economics and in fact the only difference between Dan Qualye and Obama is that Obama is a better public speaker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Maybe the greatest foreign policy failure in the history of the US.
|
Actually, Iran is not even close. Almost certainly the worst foreign policy debacle we had was a series of steps taken by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison...the Embargo of 1807 followed by the War of 1812. First we shot ourselves in the foot by embargoing all exports and then stumbled into a completely unnecessary war...Now that you mention it, it kinda sounds like modern times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TexasPete
Joined: 24 May 2006
Location: Koreatown
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| At any rate the Democrats -especially liberals don't have any ideas about protecting the US except to pretend that all of the 9-11 hijackers and Bin Laden were from Afghanistan. (Still haven't seen / heard a good response to that FACT. ) |
You are aware of the fact that Afghanistan and the Taleban harbored and abbetted Al Qaida, right? They provided money, support and sanctuary to Bin Laden and his crew of thugs. AQ and OBL and the Taleban are all in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq never had anything to do with AQ or OBL or 9/11 no matter how many documents people tried to doctor or how many outright lies Bush & Co. told to the American people. Seven years after 9/11 we still haven't found/caught OBL--a 6'6" Arab (in a non-Arab country) who requires a dialysis machine to live. Don't you think that's ridiculous?
I still don't know what your getting at with this line of reasoning... OBL and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Is that who you want us to invade? I'm sure that will go down REAL well. When do we stop invading countries? Why is that the only answer you have for the problems we're having?
Final point. If you think Barak Obama is no better/different than Dan Quayle, you've swallowed the Republican talking point hook, line and sinker and are beyond arguing with. If you truly think 2008 McCain (not the 2000 Maverick Media Darling he WAS) is different than Bush and represents real change, i can't argue with you. If you think the best thing for the country is to continue Bush/Republican policies after we've seen 8 years of them and their end result, you're beyond arguing with. Goodbye and good luck with your voting. If McCain wins--and i sincerely hope he doesn't--you'll get the president you deserve and you can take that any way you wish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="TexasPete"][
| Quote: |
| You are aware of the fact that Afghanistan and the Taleban harbored and abbetted Al Qaida, right? They provided money, support and sanctuary to Bin Laden and his crew of thugs. AQ and OBL and the Taleban are all in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq never had anything to do with AQ or OBL or 9/11 no matter how many documents people tried to doctor or how many outright lies Bush & Co. told to the American people. Seven years after 9/11 we still haven't found/caught OBL--a 6'6" Arab (in a non-Arab country) who requires a dialysis machine to live. Don't you think that's ridiculous? |
That is right Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and before that they were in the Sudan.
Iraq didn't have much to do with 9-11 BUT THE WAY THE MIDEAST WAS WAS! TERROR HAPPENS CAUSE MIDEAST REGIMES AND ELTIES ENCOURAGE IT.
| Quote: |
a 6'6" Arab (in a non-Arab country) who requires a dialysis machine to live |
Not be proven that Bin Laden requires a dialysis machine to live
| Quote: |
| I still don't know what your getting at with this line of reasoning... OBL and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Is that who you want us to invade? I'm sure that will go down REAL well. When do we stop invading countries? Why is that the only answer you have for the problems we're having? |
Right and get mideast regimes to violate the human rights of those that support Al Qaeda or Hizzbollah is the quick way to end those groups.
The US out to stop the pressue when the war against the US ends.What you think the war against the US is acceptable? You think it is acceptable for mideast regimes and elties to encourage terror and fund Al Qaeda?
This was the real reason for the war
| Quote: |
FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.
Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.
Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.
"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.
Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.
"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.
"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."
He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.
Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.
He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.
But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.
"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.
"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."
Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.
"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.
"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.
"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.
"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people." |
| Quote: |
| Final point. If you think Barak Obama is no better/different than Dan Quayle, you've swallowed the Republican talking point hook, line and sinker and are beyond arguing with. |
Really what has Obama done that is so great? He is a better speaker than Dan Quayle and not much more. Since Quayle was in fact a republican how is that a Republican talking point?
| Quote: |
| If you truly think 2008 McCain (not the 2000 Maverick Media Darling he WAS) is different than Bush and represents real change, i can't argue with you. If you think the best thing for the country is to continue Bush/Republican policies after we've seen 8 years of them and their end result, you're beyond arguing with. Goodbye and good luck with your voting. If McCain wins--and i sincerely hope he doesn't--you'll get the president you deserve and you can take that any way you wish. |
Nothing against Bill Clinton but
Clinton had Russia down and out (before he was president)
Oil at 20 dollars a barrel or less.
While
Bush had 9-11
Oil at 100$ a barrel
And an angry Russia.
Who had the more difficult situation to deal with? The situation not Bush is the reason for US problems.
I don't care about change I want to see the US win. The change the US doesn't need is to go back to 9-10.
This is what the US ought to do in view of the world situation.
1) Bring back the Clinton mideast plan. ( In fact make Bill Clinton US envoy to the middle east. That way he won't make trouble back home. )
2) Don't attack Iran- not now anyway.
3) Talk to Iran and Syria.
4) Tax imported oil , raise the gas tax
5) Invest in alternative energy , clean coal , nuclear power, better exploration methods with the same effort that the US put in to winning WW II.
6) Pressure the Europeans to , in fact apply horrible pressure to Europe to list Hezzbollah as a terror group.
7) Make the Patriot act permanent.
8 ) Introduce a national ID card like Korea has
9) Set up permanent US military bases in the Kurdish areas.
10) End the CIA ban on assassinations. From now on anyone of note who calls for holy war against the US is legitimate target for assassination. Anyone of note who funds Al Qaeda is a legitimate target for assassination.
11) announce that the US will withdraw from the NPT treaty if Iran tests a nuclear bomb.
12) Do NOT agree to any treaty that limits the deployment of space weapons.
13 ) Fully invest in the next generation of weapon systems.
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=MWJw8Wn3jpk
If the US were to do the above what would the results be? I would bet you all that the US would be in a much better strategic situation than now.
Maybe more would need to be done later - in the end it has to be whatever it takes - but the above would be a start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Who had the more difficult situation to deal with? The situation not Bush is the reason for US problems.
|
In general terms, no one can predict all the problems a president will be faced with. There are always surprises. That's the way the world works. You have to play the cards you are dealt. The question is how well does he play the hand he is dealt.
70% of the people think Bush has handled things poorly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TexasPete
Joined: 24 May 2006
Location: Koreatown
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Bush had 9-11
Oil at 100$ a barrel
And an angry Russia.
Who had the more difficult situation to deal with? The situation not Bush is the reason for US problems.
|
Who's been in charge the last 8 years? You're saying the situation and not Bush is the problem, but if the problems happen under his watch and not much gets done to make it better, what's that say about him and his policies? To say the situation and not Bush is the reason for our troubles, completely ignores that this sh!t has happened on his watch and his policies, actions and philosophies have, IMO, caused things to get worse, not better. Yes, the situation is very complex with many nuances, but the problem with Bush and the Republicans is they only see black and white, good and evil, with us or against us--there's no shades of gray or appreciation of the larger picture in their world views.
The Republicans/Bush are against welfare for people, but not corporation. They're against socialized medicine, but they've just nationalized the US financial sector, sticking the tax payer with the bill (as if we didn't have enough debt as it is.) They're hypocrites on the biggest stage on Earth yet have managed to fool half the country with slights of hands, misdirection, and smoke and mirrors, saying they've had nothing to do with what's happening.
Now, to answer your other points:
Bush ignored the warnings about AQ the Clinton administration left him prior to 9/11 or failed to do anything about it in the 8 months between his inauguration and the planes hitting the towers.
Bush invaded Iraq, destablilizing the Middle East and pushing the price of oil up. The emerging economies of India and China don't help matters much either and i won't put that blame on Bush. But i still maintain that Bush's/McCain's/Graham's policies of deregulation and neutering of oversight created a situation in which investors could artificially inflate the price of oil by betting on futures, thereby making their bets become reality (the public be damned). If you want more deregulation, less oversight, and less accountability, look at the headlines over the last week for the end result of that doctrine and tell me if the country (or the world) really needs more of that?
Bush continuously provoked Russia with the missile shield and encourage of Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO. The real situation is Putin outsmarted him at every turn and Bush played right into his traps and made promises he couldn't deliver (ie Georgia).
If the last 8 years on corruption, scandal, incompetency, religious pandering and undermining of the rule of law hasn't shown you how hollow, empty and merit-less the Republican party's platform was, then nothing can open your eyes. McCain and Palin just represents more of these failed policies. When Bush came to office, he said he was going to change things and he did (he broke the system). McCain is promising the same stuff, but I can't see how he is demonstrably different (well maybe on the environment and green techs, but Bush made similar promises 8 years ago and delivered somewhere along the lines of jack and sh!t).
The bottom line is I don't trust the Republicans AT ALL. Their actions speak louder than their words and while their platform and the Contract With America seemed reasonable and promising, what they've done with the power the American people gave them has been anything but. But go on, keep drinking their Kool-aid.
I don't know that the Dems and Obama will do things better, but it would be pretty damn hard to do worse though i must admit i don't know how anyone could fix the mess that is the Bush Legacy. But they'll have my vote because i've seen what the Republicans have done and can do to the country i love and it's time to give the other side the football and see how they run with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TexasPete
Joined: 24 May 2006
Location: Koreatown
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you say the real reason we went to war was for the reasons outlined in that article, then you are outright admitting that Bush & Co. straight up lied to the American people. Got in front of a podium, scared the crap out of average Americans, cowed the opposition and straight up lied through his teeth to push this war through. There could be no reasonable or honest debate on the war when the whole premise for the invasion was a bald-faced lie. How can our nation confront any major challenge or turning point when the foundations of decision making options are lies, half-truths and distortions? If we have a President who represents his party and the nation resorting to these tactics, then i don't want any part of him or his.
Finally, if you are going to lie to the American people and the world and predicate your doctrine on fearmongering, you should be goddamn well prepared with a goddamn good plan for invasion and post invasion. Not playing nepotism with important positions in reconstruction and putting numb-nuts in charge of delicate post war operations and rebuilding. Face it, if they ran a war or a country as well as they run campaigns and lies, they'd get my freaking vote every time. At every chance Bush & Co. were given a golden opportunity, they dropped the ball and failed utterly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
