25 Oct 08
See http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/06/thomas.frank/
Conservatives, social and otherwise, have wrecked this country's economy, its' standing in the world, its' infrastructure, its' national security, and set government up to fail.
This is not to say that anyone else has done such a great job, either.
But, at the very least, it is time for the conservatives to put a lid on it and go away. Oh, and take all your talk radio and TV host yahoos with you, pls. Come to think of it, while I'd sure like to see Pat Buchanan sent back to whatever planet he came from, I'd send the rest of the MSNBC crowd along with him.
I miss actual journalism -- having once been a journalist, I know what that means. It is entirely absent from today's broadcast media.
It is in short supply in today's print and online media, as well.
26 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioHas it ever occurred to you that "W" was just a fall guy and scapegoat for the powers that be? Case in point is the war in Iraq. It was inevitable to be unpopular and it was inevitable to be expensive and drawn out. Just take a look at his father book telling why Bush Senior did not invade Iraq and it will show you they all knew what would happen before his son ever invaded Iraq. "W" was just playing the same game all those who had come before him had done which is to protect foreign oil. He just payed a much higher price. In addition, "W" has become one of the most fiscal liberal presidents in history. Of course, this is yet another unpopular position in American politics. Just look at the bail out plan he proposed recently. However, the Congress went along didn't they but fortunately for them, people like yourself are more concerned with "W" being the bad guy. If you ask me, they all wanted these things to occur, for one reason or another, but did not want to take the blame so if these things had to happen, why not pin them all on only one man?
I am disgusted with both Democrats and Republicans for voting for the bail out. But it was
spearheaded by the President, as you well know. For all intents and purposes, he introduced the
legislation and he signed it into law.
And the vote to go to war was predicated on the intelligence that Powell immolated himself on,
the intelligence which was absolutely 100% false. In so doing, we've stimulated terrorism, not
crippled it.
Nemesio
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyWhy not "pin it" on the President who did them? No gun was placed to W's head that forced him to invade Iraq. No one forced him to massively cut taxes for the wealthy while sharply increasing defense expenditures which resulted in high deficits. W is responsible for the results of his policies, isn't he?
Has it ever occurred to you that "W" was just a fall guy and scapegoat for the powers that be? Case in point is the war in Iraq. It was inevitable to be unpopular and it was inevitable to be expensive and drawn out. Just take a look at his father book telling why Bush Senior did not invade Iraq and it will show you they all knew what would happen before hi ...[text shortened]... take the blame so if these things had to happen, why not pin them all on only one man?
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by CliffLandinWhat about a Congress over the last 2 years that has protected Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac from evil conservative attacks? People like Barney Frank who was more concerned about preventing the conservatives from preventing low income individuals from getting a mortgage than he was concerned about the consequences for doing so. In addition, what about the Democrats that are in Congress today that voted for going to war in Iraq?
Any reasoning person isn't going to blame the financial fiasco on the congress that has been in power for less than 2 years, but rather the one that was for the previous decade.[/b]
Turn a blind eye if you like. 😉
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyAh, yes, the classic "he was just a fall guy" defense. I have heard it said that he is so damned stupid that there is no way that he could have done all of these things. If that is the case, then the fault lies with the people that elected an idiot to run their country. Therefore, you and your ilk are to blame for the state of the nation. If it was his handlers, then you enable them to do what they have done.
Has it ever occurred to you that "W" was just a fall guy and scapegoat for the powers that be? Case in point is the war in Iraq. It was inevitable to be unpopular and it was inevitable to be expensive and drawn out. Just take a look at his father book telling why Bush Senior did not invade Iraq and it will show you they all knew what would happen before hi ...[text shortened]... take the blame so if these things had to happen, why not pin them all on only one man?
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderMy point is that he could not do it alone. Of course he is accountable for what he has done as we all are.
Why not "pin it" on the President who did them? No gun was placed to W's head that forced him to invade Iraq. No one forced him to massively cut taxes for the wealthy while sharply increasing defense expenditures which resulted in high deficits. W is responsible for the results of his policies, isn't he?
As for the pressure he faced in doing something about Iraq, we can only speculate. One thing is for sure, however, and that is that the US was addicted to foreign oil when he took office. He then had the choice of feeding the addiction or possibly suffering the consequences for watching the supply run dry if nothing was done with Saddam.
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyHow long are you right wing liars going to try to blame the failure of the financial system on low and middle income homeowners?
What about a Congress over the last 2 years that has protected Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac from evil conservative attacks? People like Barney Frank who was more concerned about preventing the conservatives from preventing low income individuals from getting a mortgage than he was concerned about the consequences for doing so. In addition, what about the Democ ...[text shortened]... are in Congress today that voted for going to war in Iraq?
Turn a blind eye if you like. 😉
The fact of the matter remains that while foreclosure rates are up a bit in the last few years, that wouldn't have caused a crisis except for the fact that the financial industry had created in the last few years mortgage based securities and sold trillions of dollars worth of them.
26 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThat's complete nonsense. We haven't imported any Iraqi oil since before the first Gulf War. How exactly was the oil supply going to run dry? In fact, Saddam would have loved to sell oil to the US.
My point is that he could not do it alone. Of course he is accountable for what he has done as we all are.
As for the pressure he faced in doing something about Iraq, we can only speculate. One thing is for sure, however, and that is that the US was addicted to foreign oil when he took office. He then had the choice of feeding the addiction or possibly suffering the consequences for watching the supply run dry if nothing was done with Saddam.
Stop repeating silly platitudes and fairy tales and deal with the facts.
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by CliffLandinAre those who voted for him responsible? As I recall, "W" was touted as being a "conservative", however, nothing was further from the truth. You see, when you vote for Obama he could turn out to be the biggest conservative in the history of the nation and a pro-life president to boot. Then if you elect him, is it your fault that he did the opposite of why you elected him in the first place?
Ah, yes, the classic "he was just a fall guy" defense. I have heard it said that he is so damned stupid that there is no way that he could have done all of these things. If that is the case, then the fault lies with the people that elected an idiot to run their country. Therefore, you and your ilk are to blame for the state of the nation. If it was his handlers, then you enable them to do what they have done.
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderIt was not merely the Iraqi oil fields, rather, it was Saddam's propensity to invade sovereign nations such as Iran and Kuwait. As I recall, he made Saudia Arabia quite nervous by massing troops on their border.
That's complete nonsense. We haven't imported any Iraqi oil since before the first Gulf War. How exactly was the oil supply going to run dry? Stop repeating silly platitudes and fairy tales and deal with the facts.
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyWhat policies did GW follow in your deluded mind that weren't consistent with the positions he stated beforehand?
Are those who voted for him responsible? As I recall, "W" was touted as being a "conservative", however, nothing was further from the truth. You see, when you vote for Obama he could turn out to be the biggest conservative in the history of the nation and a pro-life president to boot. Then if you elect him, is it your fault that he did the opposite of why you elected him in the first place?
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyMore nonsense. In 2003, Saddam was completely contained; his military never recovered from the first Gulf War. Bush I and Bill Clinton didn't seem to feel it was necessary to militarily occupy Iraq to protect our oil supply, did they?
It was not merely the Iraqi oil fields, rather, it was Saddam's propensity to invade sovereign nations such as Iran and Kuwait. As I recall, he made Saudia Arabia quite nervous by massing troops on their border.
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderSo why did Clinton try to impose "no fly zones" that he subsequently ignored if he did not have a care about Saddam?
More nonsense. In 2003, Saddam was completely contained; his military never recovered from the first Gulf War. Bush I and Bill Clinton didn't seem to feel it was necessary to militarily occupy Iraq to protect our oil supply, did they?
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderMy point is that his policies were not fiscally conservative, or do you view spending like a drunken sailor being fiscally conservative?
What policies did GW follow in your deluded mind that weren't consistent with the positions he stated beforehand?