OT: US Pres election

[Azselendor]

One of this things this country needs is a law, preferably an amendment that states no elected office can be held for more than a certain amount of terms and none of them can be consecutive terms. America suffers amid stagnation of the political body

[lch]

Originally Posted by Agema

Sorry for the double post but...

We all know now that two of the most prominent reasons to invade Iraq (WMD, Saddam supporting terrorism) were a load of utter rubbish, and we were sold a pack of lies where contradictory evidence was removed and the evidence supporting it inflated.

I will probably offend others and make me look like a lunatic, but I knew even before the fighting began that Saddam was a scapegoat and there were other interests at work. Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue on television where he mistook Saddam for bin Laden was a farce, and I thought "nobody is going to fall for that, right? right?" but evidently that thought was wrong. As bad as the Iraq leadership was, and as much as Saddam has openly threatened Israel, the Iraq was a sovereign country, and I don't accept the self-righteous act of overriding an U.N. decision by the U.S. government just because it differed with their opinion and because they can. It was a war of aggression from the U.S. and seeing how easily they ignored any other aspects instead of listening to reason with that tunnel vision made me fear who else would be safe from an overzealous attitude like that.

When 9/11 happened it was already clear, at least to some, that there was going to be a war. It wasn't possible that that terroristic act would go without a reaction. The way things jumped and gone head over heels didn't portray the U.S. in a good light, though. Rather like the school bully, if I wanted to express it in the least negative way. Let's hope the future leadership learns from that.

[HoneyBadger]

I completely and totally agree, Ich. Declairing war on Iraq as an act of aggression was one of the worst, most shameful things we've ever done as a country. Whatever the provocation may have been, it's something we've never done, and we could be proud of that.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Agema

We all know now that two of the most prominent reasons to invade Iraq (WMD, Saddam supporting terrorism) were a load of utter rubbish, and we were sold a pack of lies where contradictory evidence was removed and the evidence supporting it inflated. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now dead (although things wouldn't have been much better under Saddam), thousands of servicemen from various countries are dead. It's incited terrorism against the West, and the country was heavily infested by Al-Qaida, which before it had no support there. It's still in near civil-war. And then there's the stuff like Abu Ghraib.

I think that you are stepping into a land mine here.
I do agree with you (even more so since I feel there is never a good reason for one country to invade another country and taking out their leader even if it all had been true).

But you need to look closely at the arguments that have been given. When someone says it was not a mistake and then points at the polls, he is trying to say that it was apparently not a political error for that politician to do it. At the same calling it a blunder means he is agreeing that the reasons given for the action turned out to be false.

As much as it irritates me, I would have to agree with those. We as americans in general did not get nearly as ticked off at Bush about it as I wish we had.

Gandalf Parker
--
Its easy to understand.
Under the Democrats we will be the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will be the Ferrengi.

[Skirmisher]

[quote=Gandalf Parker;641562]

Originally Posted by Agema

We as americans in general did not get nearly as ticked off at Bush about it as I wish we had.

Very good point here. Richard M Nixon was impeached for far less. George W Bush may be the worst US president ever.
He took a robust ecomony left by Bill Clinton and utterly ruined it. Now he's trying to ruin it more by passing that 700 billion dollar bail out. Why should ordinary people have to foot the bill for stupid decisions made by financial firms?
I'm glad they didn't pass it.

[Azselendor]

This bailout is not some gesture to save the economy. It's a ploy to rule from the grave. By spending $700b out of the treasury, Bush will cripple any plans the next president or two plans to do. Doesn't matter if McCain or Obama wins as both would be limited to only what exists in the current budget.


Why is this a bad idea: David Corn summarizes the left's case against the bailout in this article. His main points are:

• The taxpayers will not only bail out U.S. companies, but also foreign ones
• Million-dollar-a-month CEO salaries will continue
• The five-member oversight board will include three Bush appointees
• Few home owners will be saved from foreclosure
• There are no guarantees that the treasury will get warrants commensurate with its investment
• There is no regulatory reform in the bill

[Edratman]

I am voting for Obama both with my checkbook and ballot.

Does he impress me as the absolute ideal candidate? No. But he is very intelligent and we have spent eight years with a president who is not intelligent. As for McCain, he strikes me as a man of mediocre intelligence who has skated through life using charisma, a broad smile, money and bluster.

Palin is not even worthy of standing in Hillary's shadow.

But my big question is, FDR where are you now that we need you again?

[Skirmisher]

George W Bush has been using fear on the american people ever since 9/11.

If you carefully look at all the evidence suurounding 9/11 ,it makes you wonder if it was really a terrorist attack. Those buildings seemed to come down in a controlled fashion. Like they were demolished along the main support beams.

Now he's using fear of economic collapse to attempt to pick our pockets.

[Azselendor]

Oh no, not this.

In a city full of sky scrapers, you don't want buildings tip over like dominoes. Builders have known this for over a century. All modern skyscrapers (I'd say mid-60's and on) are designed collapse in upon themselves in case of catastrophic structural collapse and fall in on their own supports instead of outwards. Ask any engineer who's designed a skyscraper.

[Skirmisher]

The jet fuel that was supposed to have caused the failure all went up in a big fireball upon impact. So how could it have caused that to happen?