Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on April 19, 2006, 12:28:42 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/19/mcclellan/index.html
-
Interesting shakeup.
-
I would have never guessed the true subject of this thread had I not read the author's name.
-
I would never have guessed it had I not read the link. Anyway: This is just a typical "we'll bump some people who matter less" instead of the man people are blood-lusting for.
-
unlike evolution, israel-palestine, and the existence of god, i think most people can pretty much agree that this administration is comprised mostly of crooks.
-
Being misguided doesn't make you a crook. An idiot maybe, but not a crook.
-
they're more than misguided
-
they're more than misguided
Can you geninuely peer inside their heads, using l33t m3nt4l p0\/\/3rz! now, or what?
-
they're more than misguided
Can you geninuely peer inside their heads, using l33t m3nt4l p0\/\/3rz! now, or what?
don't have to
how many times do they have to engage in criminal activity before people will admit the administration is criminal?
Warrantless Wiretapping: violation of the constitution and the FISA
Leak of CIA Operatives name: violation of top secret security acts [considered treason], engandering our national security by rendering useless a shell organization, all it's employees and their contacts
Holding people without trival: violation of the constitution
and on and on
-
well it seems there is more disagreement than he thought. we can all agree that Bush sucks though, right?
-
*Glad he lives in Hobbiton*
-
they're more than misguided
Can you geninuely peer inside their heads, using l33t m3nt4l p0\/\/3rz! now, or what?
don't have to
how many times do they have to engage in criminal activity before people will admit the administration is criminal?
Warrantless Wiretapping: violation of the constitution and the FISA
Interesting that FISA has upheld it repeatedly then.
What do you have to say about that?
-
country's fuct?
-
Interesting that FISA has upheld it repeatedly then.
What do you have to say about that?
um.... wtf are you talking about? since when has it? the court cases are still in play
he _violated_ FISA and the constitution by not getting warrants
-
bill gets all kinda **** for gettin blowed and lying about it
bush comes in, lies about wmd's, starts a war, resulting in thousands of american deaths (the only ones that seem to matter on the news here), monitors phones without warrants, and lets his oil buddies do all sorts of corrupt ****
and he hasnt gotten any official **** (i.e. impeachment) from anybody.
why?
-
Clinton: Democrat
Congress Under Clinton: Republican
Bush: Republican
Congress Under Bush: Republican
the clinton impeachment wasn't about the law and a perceived violation of it (they defined "sexual relations" in court in a manner in which he did not commit perjury) - it was a which hunt.
-
vote with a bullet
-
he _violated_ FISA and the constitution by not getting warrants
I highly recommend you learn to, y'know, read. There have never been requirements for a warrent on wiretapping any phonecall that goes to a foriegn county. Only domestic phonecalls.
The answer on the impeachment is because he didn't lie. The brillant folks at the CIA really did think there were MWDs. A leader is no better then his information.
-
are you actually defending bush?
*goes off to sharpen axe*
-
he _violated_ FISA and the constitution by not getting warrants
I highly recommend you learn to, y'know, read. There have never been requirements for a warrent on wiretapping any phonecall that goes to a foriegn county. Only domestic phonecalls.
you seem to be unable to comphrend something
he is monitoring phonecalls involving domestic parties and claiming the FISA allows him to do so - it does if he gets a warrant either before hand or within a 72 hour retroactive period. He is not getting warrants while listening to the phone calls of US citizens, it is also possible [due to this lack of oversight] that he is listening to wholly domestic calls.
The answer on the impeachment is because he didn't lie. The brillant folks at the CIA really did think there were MWDs. A leader is no better then his information.
no, they didn't. The intelligence reports you are making reference to are the same ones bush did. They said "there is this evidence that he has WMD, but there is this BETTER evidence that he does not"
bush merely redacted everything after the comma.
you've been hoodwinked
-
I'll admit Bush sucks - but mostly because he's not conservative.
Re "he lied about wmd" - then so did Congress - they authorized the war and had the same info available to them. Democrats included.
-
I'll admit Bush sucks - but mostly because he's not conservative.
I'll agree that he's not a conservative, but that isn't why he sucks - conservatism aka "me me me me me me" sucks too
Re "he lied about wmd" - then so did Congress - they authorized the war and had the same info available to them. Democrats included.
um... nooooo
they did that vote based upon the incomplete intelligence reports bush showed them, without telling them they were incomplete
you cannot blame someone for a bad decision based upon bad information if they didn't know, and had no way of knowing, the information was bad
bush knew the information was bad because he had the other half of the reports that stated the claims were not credible and why.
-
Re "he lied about wmd" - then so did Congress - they authorized the war and had the same info available to them. Democrats included.
True. Kazan, if the same information from the CIA was available that you say was, then why did many Democrats in Congress vote to authorize the attack?
On Clinton, the reason that he was impeached was because he actually did break the law: he lied to a Grand Jury under oath. Now, had he simply admitted that he had gotten action in the Oval Office, then he would have been off without a problem.
You know, Bush isn't the only president to have carried out searches without warrants. Try Clinton and Aldrich Ames, for instance. No warrant issued there, but the man was found guilty of treason and leaking classified information to the USSR. What's the difference between Clinton breaking the law to search the home of a suspected CIA mole and Bush doing the same to monitor phone conversations of suspected terrorists?
-
Re "he lied about wmd" - then so did Congress - they authorized the war and had the same info available to them. Democrats included.
True. Kazan, if the same information from the CIA was available that you say was, then why did many Democrats in Congress vote to authorize the attack?
I already covered this - it's a matter of record: the CIA gave bush the intelligence, bush then turned around and gave congress HALF of it - only the half that supported his position, not the half that called it into doubt
On Clinton, the reason that he was impeached was because he actually did break the law: he lied to a Grand Jury under oath. Now, had he simply admitted that he had gotten action in the Oval Office, then he would have been off without a problem.
um the only incident I can thing of that you can claim he lied was when he said he didn't have sexual relations - the problem is he didn't commit perjury there, in court they defined sexual relations in a fashion in which he would have been committing perjury if he said YES
You know, Bush isn't the only president to have carried out searches without warrants. Try Clinton and Aldrich Ames, for instance.
Clinton? horse**** - he got his FISA
the Aldrich Ames talking point is debunked on the first page of google http://www.brainshrub.com/aldrich-ames-case
No warrant issued there, but the man was found guilty of treason and leaking classified information to the USSR. What's the difference between Clinton breaking the law to search the home of a suspected CIA mole and Bush doing the same to monitor phone conversations of suspected terrorists?
No the difference is: Clinton got his FISA warrants - Clinton performed NO Warrantless wiretaps
-
Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.
-
True. Kazan, if the same information from the CIA was available that you say was, then why did many Democrats in Congress vote to authorize the attack?
Because at the time it was political suicide not to vote for it. Max Cleland (or however his name was spelled) was a war hero in Vietnam. He lost both his legs and one arm saving his men from an enemy grenade. He later became a democratic senator from Georgia. He voted no for the Iraq war. Because of that, in the next election his republican opponent called him a coward (even though this republican had never served a day in the military, much less in a warzone). This sinlge remark was enough to swing the election and Max lost. Just because he voted no on Iraq.
-
i guess the facts are democrat fanbois too
---
as for authorization of force
they didn't vote "for" the iraq war- if you look at the notes, context, comments, etc of the vote they were voting for the authorization of force so that it was on the table when bush went to the table of diplomacy and they expected him to go for a diplomatic solution first and force only as a last resort
he jumped straight to force once he had the authorization
-
Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.
of course our friend representing the corporations would align himself with the repubs, they let his buddies run free and exploit whoever they want.
-
You are very sure of yourself Kazan. Are you sure you weren't there or something? Throw us at least a dubious link, please!
i guess the facts are democrat fanbois too
A master debator at work. :rolleyes:
as for authorization of force
they didn't vote "for" the iraq war- if you look at the notes, context, comments, etc of the vote they were voting for the authorization of force so that it was on the table when bush went to the table of diplomacy and they expected him to go for a diplomatic solution first and force only as a last resort
he jumped straight to force once he had the authorization
When you put force on the table, there is the chance that it will be used. According to some, Bush rused into Afgahnistan - shouldn't our good Congress have suspected that Bush would rush into Iraq?
Because at the time it was political suicide not to vote for it. Max Cleland (or however his name was spelled) was a war hero in Vietnam. He lost both his legs and one arm saving his men from an enemy grenade. He later became a democratic senator from Georgia. He voted no for the Iraq war. Because of that, in the next election his republican opponent called him a coward (even though this republican had never served a day in the military, much less in a warzone). This sinlge remark was enough to swing the election and Max lost. Just because he voted no on Iraq.
How very noble and principled of the Democrats, then. These are the saviors of our race?
And wouldn't this logic apply to the Republicans as well? Aren't elected officials supposed to represent their constituents? If something is "political suicide" then that means the public is against it. Shouldn't they follow the will of the people, at least to some degree?
Clinton lied to the American public. He said himself when he was an Arkansas governor and Nixon was president, that if a President of the US ever lies to the American people, he should resign. But enough about Clinton. We're here about Bush.
I'll agree that he's not a conservative, but that isn't why he sucks - conservatism aka "me me me me me me" sucks too
Wow. That's the core of conservatism right there. :rolleyes: You got it. And liberalism is the best thing since sliced bread.
Happy 4/20, everybody! :rolleyes:
-
Well, that's the backbone of politics, though. Not to carry out the will of the people, but to convince the people the what you is what they want too. This is why I've always felt there should be some kind of legal obligation for Politicians to at least attempt to meet their campaign promises.
-
Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.
of course our friend representing the corporations would align himself with the repubs, they let his buddies run free and exploit whoever they want.
(http://www.starkeith.net/infinity_pages/images/coredump/stfu_n00b_small.jpg)
Tasteless right? Well so is your comment.
-
This is why I love you Deepblue, you're as petty as your opponents. Fun to watch too.
-
:lol: @ this thread.
-
Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.
The correct term is, I think, "water-bailer".
-
Tasteless right? Well so is your comment.
Nah, that's not tasteless, just ineffective. "Tasteless" is laughing during Saving Private Ryan. Not that this particular example comes to mind because I've done it or anything, 'cause I totally haven't....
-
We beLIEve you.
-
I don't know who claims he rushed into afghanistan - we had clear intelligence coroborated by all our allies, and they were lining up to assist us
now actual management of the war in afghanistan was completely and totally incompetant to the point of letting a primary target escape, allowing the drug industry to boom, and generally not increasing the stability of the region
That's the core of conservatism right there. You got it. And liberalism is the best thing since sliced bread.
yes, that is conservatism right there, and liberalism IS the best thing since sliced bread :D
you can thank liberalism for the existance of the United States of America and those precious rights that you claim to have, yet freely support the curtailing of in the name of the illusion of security.
Conservatism historically and today has always been more worried about numeral uno and less concerned about anyone else to the point of not seeing when giving of oneself will reap a greater reward than keeping to oneself - ESPECIALLY when it comes to money.
n1ghtmare - troll on!
-
Question Kazan:
Revolutionary War or War for Independence?
-
what the hell difference is it suppose to make
-
It's a way of determining how someone thinks and/or has been taught history.
-
French supported anti-government Insurgency.
*runs*
-
Kazan - thank you for the copious sources for your information. You've really supported your arguments. :rolleyes:
And the liberalism you speak of that formed the US is not the same as popular liberalism today. What you refer to as liberalism in the 1780's would be so conservative today as to be reactionary. Our liberal Founding Fathers would be shocked today to see what "liberalism" is today.
Conservatism historically and today is about having a respect and appreciation for the past, and a realization that progress for the sake of progress is a bad thing.
Of course, on individual issues, conservatism means different things to different people at different times. I would argue that modern liberalism (which is itself a conglomeration of left-wing causes and movements) is more dedicated to selfish individualism than conservatism. Why else is everything under the sun declared a "right" and an "entitlement" whenever a leftist wants it?
-
How very noble and principled of the Democrats, then. These are the saviors of our race?
Where did I say that? Are all of them war heroes? No. I think he was the only one (I can't remember exactly), but what happened to Max shows just how sleezy the Republican party really is.
Aren't elected officials supposed to represent their constituents? If something is "political suicide" then that means the public is against it. Shouldn't they follow the will of the people, at least to some degree?
Perhaps, but what if public opinion is being manipulated by those in power? The Republican party has shamelessly exploited the tragedy of 9/11 for their own gain. They made everyone as scared as they could possibly be. So is that any better?
Clinton lied to the American public. He said himself when he was an Arkansas governor and Nixon was president, that if a President of the US ever lies to the American people, he should resign. But enough about Clinton.We're here about Bush.
Then why did you bring it up? Bush has also lied. He has lied about a great deal of things.
-
Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.
One does not have to be a "Democrat fanboy" to be against Bush's administration.
I mean, "lol":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13297-2004Jun28.html
Quick Quotes
Look Up Tables | Portfolio | Index
The Business of Rebuilding
Immunity Provision Extended for U.S. Firms With Reconstruction Contracts
By Ellen McCarthy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2004; Page A18
U.S. contractors working in Iraq will be exempted from the legal processes of the country's new interim government when they are performing official duties and most reconstruction contracts will continue uninterrupted, U.S. officials said yesterday.
Under an order signed Sunday by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, the contractors' immunity provision covers "official acts that they perform in contracts in support of the Iraq reconstruction effort," said Scott Castle, general counsel for the occupation authority. In matters unrelated to their contract work, they will be subject to Iraqi rules.
lololollfffololmao god damnit
-
Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.
One does not have to be a "Democrat fanboy" to be against Bush's administration.
I mean, "lol":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13297-2004Jun28.html
Quick Quotes
Look Up Tables | Portfolio | Index
The Business of Rebuilding
Immunity Provision Extended for U.S. Firms With Reconstruction Contracts
By Ellen McCarthy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2004; Page A18
U.S. contractors working in Iraq will be exempted from the legal processes of the country's new interim government when they are performing official duties and most reconstruction contracts will continue uninterrupted, U.S. officials said yesterday.
Under an order signed Sunday by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, the contractors' immunity provision covers "official acts that they perform in contracts in support of the Iraq reconstruction effort," said Scott Castle, general counsel for the occupation authority. In matters unrelated to their contract work, they will be subject to Iraqi rules.
lololollfffololmao god damnit
There was horrendous theft & fraud by contractors during the 'rebuilding' period under the US' interim government in Iraq, IIRC. Stuff like billing many times the actual cost, putting stolen items like Iraqi airlines forklifts on expenses, stealing from the vast tonnes of new banknotes shipped in with minimal security post-delivery (soldiers played american football with bags of $100 bills), that sort of thing.
There was a company - Custer Battles - who were hired to replace every dinar note with one without Saddams face. They set up shell companies to vastly inflate costs, invoicing $10m for expenditure costing $3m (including respraying Iraqi Airline forklifts and renting them to the CPA). They actually managed to leave behind a spreadsheet of their fraudulent invoices in a meeting with CPA authorities. The US took no legal action.
Contractors could just - and did - steal and steal and steal without any fear of repercussions; the result is a multi-billion dollar black hole (made even worse by the frantic spending of cash reserves - derived from Iraqi oil - before it could be handed to the Iraqi government; $5bn in the last month with little or no accounting) and a country which produces less electricity, less clean water and less oil than it did before the war in spite of supposedly massive spending.
I remember watching a documentary, filmed partly (for Channel 4; Dispatches: Iraq's Missing Billions) in Iraq by a Baghdad doctor, who went to a supposedly refurbished hospital that had to buy the most basic drugs on the black market and improvise child intensive care incubators (held together by tape and wire, usually shared by multiple children because they only had 14) by placing an air tube directly on the mouth. When you see a baby die (and you did) for lack of equipment that costs mere cents, and be carried home in a cardboard box because they don't have anything to store the body in you realise the horror that's been visited on that country.
The man put in charge of the reconstruction of the Iraqi health service was James Haveman, a former health administrator from Michigan. He had absolutely no experience of international healthcare, no qualifications for this sort of urgent rebuilding job - but he was an evangelican Christian and had campaigned for Jeb Bush. So he focused on showy, big spends rather than basic health care like clean water, basic drugs, etc. He was interviewed on the aforementioned documentary, and you could tell he was essentially an idiot. Or to be kinder, completely incompetent at that type of (essentially) disaster management. Saddam did more to rebuild the Iraqi service in 6 months after the 1991 Gulf War than has been achieved atall since the last one, and that was in spite of sanctions and Saddam being a ****ing evil nutcase (who used to be our friend, actually - wonder which former UK ally will next be targeted?).
-
There was horrendous theft & fraud by contractors during the 'rebuilding' period under the US' interim government in Iraq, IIRC. Stuff like billing many times the actual cost, putting stolen items like Iraqi airlines forklifts on expenses, stealing from the vast tonnes of new banknotes shipped in with minimal security post-delivery (soldiers played american football with bags of $100 bills), that sort of thing.
There was a company - Custer Battles - who were hired to replace every dinar note with one without Saddams face. They set up shell companies to vastly inflate costs, invoicing $10m for expenditure costing $3m (including respraying Iraqi Airline forklifts and renting them to the CPA). They actually managed to leave behind a spreadsheet of their fraudulent invoices in a meeting with CPA authorities. The US took no legal action.
Contractors could just - and did - steal and steal and steal without any fear of repercussions; the result is a multi-billion dollar black hole (made even worse by the frantic spending of cash reserves - derived from Iraqi oil - before it could be handed to the Iraqi government; $5bn in the last month with little or no accounting) and a country which produces less electricity, less clean water and less oil than it did before the war in spite of supposedly massive spending.
I remember watching a documentary, filmed partly (for Channel 4; Dispatches: Iraq's Missing Billions) in Iraq by a Baghdad doctor, who went to a supposedly refurbished hospital that had to buy the most basic drugs on the black market and improvise child intensive care incubators (held together by tape and wire, usually shared by multiple children because they only had 14) by placing an air tube directly on the mouth. When you see a baby die (and you did) for lack of equipment that costs mere cents, and be carried home in a cardboard box because they don't have anything to store the body in you realise the horror that's been visited on that country.
The man put in charge of the reconstruction of the Iraqi health service was James Haveman, a former health administrator from Michigan. He had absolutely no experience of international healthcare, no qualifications for this sort of urgent rebuilding job - but he was an evangelican Christian and had campaigned for Jeb Bush. So he focused on showy, big spends rather than basic health care like clean water, basic drugs, etc. He was interviewed on the aforementioned documentary, and you could tell he was essentially an idiot. Or to be kinder, completely incompetent at that type of (essentially) disaster management. Saddam did more to rebuild the Iraqi service in 6 months after the 1991 Gulf War than has been achieved atall since the last one, and that was in spite of sanctions and Saddam being a ****ing evil nutcase (who used to be our friend, actually - wonder which former UK ally will next be targeted?).
While horrific, you really have to hand it to the lads in charge. I mean, to have the nation effectively falling apart and still be able to [mostly] cover it up... those magnificent bastards...
But then, we have to ask ourselves; is it actually being covered up, or do we just not care?
-
So Saddam's better then, eh? A "bat****" insane man who keeps claiming that his own trial is false, and he "rejects" it just because he's finally in the spotlight for crimes he's comitted?? Someone who still thinks he's in control of that country? I'd rather have someone who's TRYING to get things back together in charge than THAT crazy guy.
-
So Saddam's better then, eh? A "bat****" insane man who keeps claiming that his own trial is false, and he "rejects" it just because he's finally in the spotlight for crimes he's comitted?? Someone who still thinks he's in control of that country? I'd rather have someone who's TRYING to get things back together in charge than THAT crazy guy.
Hey, you rip Bush out of power and put him on trial, he'd act the exact same way. And that goes for most political leaders these days. Hell, if and when you're in a trial where your chances of being acquitted are as high as myself being crowned Supreme Overlord of the Earth, wouldn't you call that s*** 'false' and reject it?!
Iraq under Saddam may have been a somewhat shady regime, but it was a hell of a lot more stable and safer for the populous when he was in charge, even you can admit that.
-
I'd rather have someone who's TRYING to get things back together in charge than THAT crazy guy.
They're not trying. They're using rebuilding Iraq as an exuse to line their own pockets. In that process they have to have something to show for it so they'll stick up a few buildings or do something that makes it look like they are making improvements when really they've done very little.
What you should be demanding is that you actually have someone who IS rebuilding Iraq. You should demand that the money spent on the reconstruction (Which is your money if you are an America citizen) is actually being spent on Iraq not going into the pockets of those companies in the form of outright theft.
Sure the companies there may (in your opinion) be better than Saddam but considering how easy it would be to have someone better that Saddam OR what's there now you really have to wonder why on Earth you are defending the wholesale theft that is going on over there.
-
So Saddam's better then, eh? A "bat****" insane man who keeps claiming that his own trial is false, and he "rejects" it just because he's finally in the spotlight for crimes he's comitted?? Someone who still thinks he's in control of that country? I'd rather have someone who's TRYING to get things back together in charge than THAT crazy guy.
Genuinely, I don't know now. Saddam was an evil ****er, no doubt. On the other hand, we've swapped a repressive dictatorship for complete chaos replete with rampant murder, kidnapping and terrorism, where the police are still being accused of ethnic cleansing and torture and there are strong Iranian links to the ruling parties. I mean, it's a choice between bloody anarchy or repressive government (it's not even that distinct) - who can make that?
$23bn later, and there is still less water, healthcare, and electricity than before the war, Surely it's not supporting Saddam to ask where the **** that vast amount of money - mostly Iraqi oil money - went?
-
Well, let's put it this way; we've moved from state-organized murder, terror, and kidnapping to random murder, terror, and kidnapping of greater proportions. Is this progress? In which direction?
-
ngtm1r arguably dependant on PoV, and legality of activities engaged in, there is still state sponsored murder, terror and kidnapping
-
Conveniently you've ignored my post, Kazan. And continued to spout dubious implications. Feeling lucky? ;7
-
Conveniently you've ignored my post, Kazan. And continued to spout dubious implications. Feeling lucky? ;7
You just ignored mine too, but no matter. :p
-
there was nothing substantive in your post to reply to eightball - some BS about the founding fathers being "Conservative" which isn't even true by todays standards on most counts (socially conservative on some issues, but "raging left wing liberals" on government through and through)
-
there was nothing substantive in your post to reply to eightball - some BS about the founding fathers being "Conservative" which isn't even true by todays standards on most counts (socially conservative on some issues, but "raging left wing liberals" on government through and through)
I'm not quite sure how, if you adhere to the actual meaning of the word, someone founding a new government could be anything but liberal anyways.
-
there was nothing substantive in your post to reply to eightball - some BS about the founding fathers being "Conservative" which isn't even true by todays standards on most counts (socially conservative on some issues, but "raging left wing liberals" on government through and through)
Of course what I love about this sort of stuff is when you give exact examples of how each person wasn't a good old conservative boy you get the reply: "Well Jefferson, Hancock, Franklin, Washington, (list goes on) may have been liberals but they were the immoral and corrupt ones of the founding fathers, god's will still meant that there were used for good!"
-
"Raging Left-wing liberals" suggests Marxists, to me. I don't think there were too many Marxists among the Founding Fathers. They were liberal for their time, yes, but for some reason I don't think they'd have been big fans of Social Security, for one thing. Or the big spending popular with both Democrats and Republicans.
Kazan - I was looking for some proof for your statements that you post as fact regarding Bush "lying." Or do you apply to the school of thought that "if I want it to be true, it is"?
Kosh - here goes.
Where did I say that? Are all of them war heroes? No. I think he was the only one (I can't remember exactly), but what happened to Max shows just how sleezy the Republican party really is.
About as sleazy as the Democrats. Or most political parties, for that matter.
Perhaps, but what if public opinion is being manipulated by those in power? The Republican party has shamelessly exploited the tragedy of 9/11 for their own gain. They made everyone as scared as they could possibly be. So is that any better?
On this point, all I have to say is don't blame the Republicans if the Democrats are incompetent. They simply failed to shamelessly exploit the tragedy of 9/11. It's not like they wouldn't have if they could.
Then why did you bring it up? Bush has also lied. He has lied about a great deal of things.
Yeah, I shouldn't have brought it up. But I contest the statement about Bush. What has he lied about? Remember, there is a difference between being wrong and lying.
Note - I don't like the Republicans; they're just slightly better than the Democrats.
(Constitutionalist party for the win!) :p
-
Yeah, I shouldn't have brought it up. But I contest the statement about Bush. What has he lied about? Remember, there is a difference between being wrong and lying.
Aw ****. You just done stepped on a land mine, son.
-
Then blow me away. :doubt:
-
I'm not involved. I'm just prepping you for the ****storm you've kicked up.
-
Then blow me away. :doubt:
How about the entire Iraq WMD intelligence farce. Or Katrina and the levees, just to name two big things?
-
We don't know about the WMD thing - or no one has any proof they're willing to share. Bush may have made a legitimate mistake (though he'd never admit even if he did).
Katrina/levees? I forget the "lie" there - care to elaborate.
I'm not involved. I'm just prepping you for the ****storm you've kicked up.
Thanks! :D
-
There's a general consensus in the military that the WMD excuse was the CIA screwing up. They genuinely believed they were there, and they were genuinely completely friggin' wrong. A product of the age of recon satellites, gentlemen; we don't listen to people on the ground much anymore, and we don't have many of them anymore either. Photos are inherently more convincing, and don't cause international incidents when discovered. But they have their restrictions too. We learned that in the first Gulf War, but the lesson didn't sink in. It doesn't seem to have sunk in this time either.
-
Yellowcake uranium. Mobile biological warfare labs (incredibly implausible in any case). Iraqs nuclear programme. Ignoring evidence from a defector who testified to the destruction of CBW projects (yet citing other useful titbits from that defector). Failing to provide supposed WMD intelligence to the UNSCOM inspectors and blocking French suggestions to increase the number of inspectors, as well as setting the CIA to find 'dirt' on Hans Blix (apparently Wolfowitz went mental when they failed).
Hans Blix book of his experiences at the time is very interesting, and remarkably impartial for someone treated so shoddily.
EDIt; sorry, not UNSCOM. I forget the name of the new agency. Worth remembering there was both an agency and a directive for the removal of WMD without war, though, and it was sidelined with nowhere near the time it required.
EDIt; sorry, that should have been 1 post up. Top bit, which is now a mite off-context, is a list of very obvious failures that spring to mind.
-
"Raging Left-wing liberals" suggests Marxists, to me. I don't think there were too many Marxists among the Founding Fathers. They were liberal for their time, yes, but for some reason I don't think they'd have been big fans of Social Security, for one thing. Or the big spending popular with both Democrats and Republicans.
Considering Jefferson's dislike of industrialization and romanticism towards farming which is similar to Marx's idealizing hunter-gatherers, they'd be more likely to swap notes.
Most of them wouldn't be irritated so much at the idea of social security itself per se, more that society deviated from the "simple ideal" to begin with. The main irritation would be the idea that such a system shouldn't be necessary to begin with.
While there was support for unregulated economics, they'd be pretty disgusted at consumerism as a side effect of industrialization. (because of it deviating so much from this ideal of the simple, noble, citizen)
There would also be the whole being ticked that Deism didn't take off too :p
-
Jefferson was fairly unique, I don't know if we can generalize for the whole Founding Fathers solely on him...
Really, I think most Founding Fathers would vote Libertarian. :p
-
The question of what the founding fathers would say about the present is meaningless. Their political theories and beliefs were formed by the reality in which they existed, and you can't simply extrapolate on what they said about their world to ascertain what they would say about ours. I'm not using this to defend present-day liberalism; I'm just saying that nobody in the present day is justified in claiming any of the founding fathers on ideological grounds.
-
I didn't start it. And I think you're right.
-
On this point, all I have to say is don't blame the Republicans if the Democrats are incompetent. They simply failed to shamelessly exploit the tragedy of 9/11. It's not like they wouldn't have if they could.
So you're defending exploiting a tragedy in which 3,000+ of your own people died for political purposes? It has nothing to do with "incompetance", it has to do with ethics.
Katrina/levees? I forget the "lie" there - care to elaborate.
How convienient. Bascially when Katrina hit New Orleans, the levees broke which caused massive flooding throughout the city. Bush told everyone that he didn't know the levess would break. A little while ago, it was discovered that the Army Corps of Engineers did tell him that they needed more money to fix the levees because they could not even stand up to a Cat 1 hurricane (much less a cat 5). In fact, they were screaming at him to give them the money to fix it (their budget was cut a few years ago). He didn't give them the money, despite the warnings that the levees would break without significant repairs.
-
So you're defending exploiting a tragedy in which 3,000+ of your own people died for political purposes? It has nothing to do with "incompetance", it has to do with ethics.
I'm firstly not sure it has been "exploited" more than any other major event in US history. FDR "exploited" Pearl Harbor; the Founding Fathers "exploited" the Boston Massacre; Wilson "exploited" the Lusitania; Lincoln "exploited" Fort Sumter.
Secondly, I wasn't defending it so much as saying the Dems would've done it if the shoe was on the other foot.
How convienient. Bascially when Katrina hit New Orleans, the levees broke which caused massive flooding throughout the city. Bush told everyone that he didn't know the levess would break. A little while ago, it was discovered that the Army Corps of Engineers did tell him that they needed more money to fix the levees because they could not even stand up to a Cat 1 hurricane (much less a cat 5). In fact, they were screaming at him to give them the money to fix it (their budget was cut a few years ago). He didn't give them the money, despite the warnings that the levees would break without significant repairs.
Eh, didn't remember that. However, Congress approved the budget cut, so it's not like he was the only one to blame. Still, OK, one lie - maybe. I wonder why this wasn't brought up on with the other impeachment allegations?
-
I wonder why this wasn't brought up on with the other impeachment allegations?
Most of the people who died in NO were poor black people. :p
-
The question of what the founding fathers would say about the present is meaningless. Their political theories and beliefs were formed by the reality in which they existed, and you can't simply extrapolate on what they said about their world to ascertain what they would say about ours. I'm not using this to defend present-day liberalism; I'm just saying that nobody in the present day is justified in claiming any of the founding fathers on ideological grounds.
Actually their political theories weren't even based on the reality that they were in considering the schisms between wanting to go agrarian (not anything based in reality) and industrialization (based on mimicing Britain).
-
You're interpreting it too specifically. People in every time and place form epistemic communities that are necessarily the product of that setting. Whether the theories are reactions, continuations, departures, or any combination of these movements, their formation is always in relation to that time and place.
-
The times affect the people as emphatically as the people effect the times, it's kinda like the Schrodingers Cat argument with Media, does reporting (observing) the fact change the fact?