Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
AROCES

Poll: Obama Seen as Greater Failure than Bush

333 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Caesar
No, I just find it interesting how conservatives hide from the fact that the announced reason for the invasion was to remove WMDs and when it became obvious that it was all a smoke screen, they want to change the reason for the war to a "successful effort" to remove Saddam.

How did Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden vote on giving the president the power to use force?

Why did Bill Clinton order air attacks a year before Bush was elected?

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Source and full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
How did Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden vote on giving the president the power to use force?

Why did Bill Clinton order air attacks a year before Bush was elected?

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Source and full article

Clinton ordered air strikes on Iraq based upon intelligence reports. Perhaps those reports were in error as well. But what he did not do was to invade Iraq, kill tens of thousands of innocent people, destroy much of its infrastructure, put hospitals, schools and businesses in ruins, give them a great city without electricity or water or pretend to have the authority to enforce a United Nations mandate.

Conservatives always hawk about the Congressional vote but want to slink away from the fact that intelligence reports were not confirmed, that faulty information was presented to congress influencing that vote or that evidence exists that Bush planned to invade Iraq long before any of that process. Nor do they talk about how many members of Congress have publicly stated that if they had been given the truth about the situation of Iraq, they would not have voted to give Bush those powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Bush knows the american people have common sense, you go in there by force then you have to take out the head.

No more time out for Saddam, so much years been wasted worrying, sanctions, embargoes, weapons inspectors and you prefer to on and on with that until he dies so that Uday can continue on.

You make it sound like that was the reason for the invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
Clinton ordered air strikes on Iraq based upon intelligence reports. Perhaps those reports were in error as well. But what he did not do was to invade Iraq, kill tens of thousands of innocent people, destroy much of its infrastructure, put hospitals, schools and businesses in ruins, give them a great city without electricity or water or pretend to have the authority to enforce a United Nations mandate.

Yes but 9/11 changed how we deal with nations that sponser terrorism.

Conservatives always hawk about the Congressional vote but want to slink away from the fact that intelligence reports were not confirmed, that faulty information was presented to congress influencing that vote or that evidence exists that Bush planned to invade Iraq long before any of that process. Nor do they talk about how many members of Congress have publicly stated that if they had been given the truth about the situation of Iraq, they would not have voted to give Bush those powers.

How in the world did anyone know the truth before we invaded? no one knew they were faulty till after we invaded. some of the the intelligence reports were going back to the Clinton presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

not worth it sorry

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

Should it not have been known by Western intelligence that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

The entire record of UNSCOM until that date had shown a determination on the part of the Iraqi dictatorship to build dummy facilities to deceive inspectors, to refuse to allow scientists to be interviewed without coercion, to conceal chemical and biological deposits, and to search the black market for materiel that would breach the sanctions. The defection of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law, the Kamel brothers, had shown that this policy was even more systematic than had even been suspected. Moreover, Iraq did not account for—has in fact never accounted for—a number of the items that it admitted under pressure to possessing after the Kamel defection. We still do not know what happened to this weaponry. This is partly why all Western intelligence agencies, including French and German ones quite uninfluenced by Ahmad Chalabi, believed that Iraq had actual or latent programs for the production of WMD. Would it have been preferable to accept Saddam Hussein's word for it and to allow him the chance to re-equip once more once the sanctions had further decayed?

Hitchens is smarter than all of us combined, and he's a drunk!

Edited by bathory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
Where will the Bank be if there are no consumers?

You are listening too much to those poor me the rich are greedy crowd.

Bro I most certainly am NOT. I believe in capatalism with all my heart. Ive watched as my very rich boss has lost money this year, and directly seen how it effects me, and it aint good. Im not talking about the rich, Im talking about the federal reserve who with each hand holds up puppets, one democrates, and the other republicans. And neither give a crap about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
No, I just find it interesting how conservatives hide from the fact that the announced reason for the invasion was to remove WMDs and when it became obvious that it was all a smoke screen, they want to change the reason for the war to a "successful effort" to remove Saddam.

AGAIN, Bush did not deny the faulty intelligence. AGAIN, you go in there to take out the threat, SADDAM! Any WMD or whatever will not go off by itself, right?

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Bro I most certainly am NOT. I believe in capatalism with all my heart. Ive watched as my very rich boss has lost money this year, and directly seen how it effects me, and it aint good. Im not talking about the rich, Im talking about the federal reserve who with each hand holds up puppets, one democrates, and the other republicans. And neither give a crap about you.

The Federal Reserve is undoubtedly the biggest source of our financial problems, though few people recognize it. Its a shame that Ron Paul's proposed bill to audit the Fed has not garnered more media attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Clinton ordered air strikes on Iraq based upon intelligence reports. Perhaps those reports were in error as well. But what he did not do was to invade Iraq, kill tens of thousands of innocent people, destroy much of its infrastructure, put hospitals, schools and businesses in ruins, give them a great city without electricity or water or pretend to have the authority to enforce a United Nations mandate.

When did the Iraqis authorize you to speak and complain for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dade Murphy
The Federal Reserve is undoubtedly the biggest source of our financial problems, though few people recognize it. Its a shame that Ron Paul's proposed bill to audit the Fed has not garnered more media attention.

Ron Paul is a quack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Bro I most certainly am NOT. I believe in capatalism with all my heart. Ive watched as my very rich boss has lost money this year, and directly seen how it effects me, and it aint good. Im not talking about the rich, Im talking about the federal reserve who with each hand holds up puppets, one democrates, and the other republicans. And neither give a crap about you.

Then I agree if you are not against the system but the rats in the system.

Getting them out is not that easy really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr  Honeybadger
Ron Paul is a quack.

Them's fightin' words. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dade Murphy
Them's fightin' words. :)

WizardLionClose.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Ron Paul is a quack.

In what way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dade Murphy
In what way?

The first thing that comes to mind is his idea of re-instituting the gold standard to us Currency.

:D

Of course I have to admit that I find his supporters in general even more quackier than he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
The first thing that comes to mind is his idea of re-instituting the gold standard to us Currency.

:D

Of course I have to admit that I find his supporters in general even more quackier than he is.

Whats wrong with re-instituting the gold standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dade Murphy
Whats wrong with re-instituting the gold standard?

Because hard currency fails when you have an economy that moves based on non-tangible things (Services, ideas, and technology) more than actual products.

I don’t really want to try and enumerate every issue I have with his beliefs, but simply put, he ignores a hell of a lot of history and basic fundamental practices. His views are almost always better stated as what he’s against rather than what he’s for. He’s someone who is so conservative, he’d fit in better in the 1800’s. The Afghanistan/Iraq wars aside, little he espouses is admirable or something he’s shown himself willing to really fight for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Because hard currency fails when you have an economy that moves based on non-tangible things (Services, ideas, and technology) more than actual products.

I don’t really want to try and enumerate every issue I have with his beliefs, but simply put, he ignores a hell of a lot of history and basic fundamental practices. His views are almost always better stated as what he’s against rather than what he’s for. He’s someone who is so conservative, he’d fit in better in the 1800’s. The Afghanistan/Iraq wars aside, little he espouses is admirable or something he’s shown himself willing to really fight for.

Why's that? Could you please explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Migzilla
Migzilla -

I don't claim to have a lot of economic knowledge, nor do I fully understand the current financial crisis, but could you please explain to me one thing: What is so terrible about Socialism?

I'm not a socialist any more than I am a capitalist, but I would really like to understand why, in some people's minds, the word 'Socialism' is synonymous with 'Anti-American...'

Well, let me first explain, I'm not big on politics. I stopped watching the news long ago. The only glimpses of the news I get (though I do check it from time to time online) on TV is from the TVs at the gym. But anyway, the main reasons as to why I don't like socialism are the following: 1) I'm all for smaller government. I really hate it when others get to make decisions for us (such as when it comes to healthcare). The government is already big enough. 2) I've never really heard of an example where socialism has worked. Wikipedia has a page with a list of socialist countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries). While I don't claim to even have heard of all of those countries, most are not countries I hope to be like. 3) If we became socialist, who’s to say we wouldn't eventually, say 50 or so years down the road, become communist? It may seem impossible, but I'm willing to bet that 50 years ago nobody would have imagined us ever becoming socialist (though I realize we are not socialist yet).

But that's just my opinion. I believe anything is possible, and wouldn't be shocked if it actually worked. I just personally don't think it's worth the risk.

Migzilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
But anyway, the main reasons as to why I don't like socialism are the following: 1) I'm all for smaller government. I really hate it when others get to make decisions for us (such as when it comes to healthcare). The government is already big enough. . . . It may seem impossible, but I'm willing to bet that 50 years ago nobody would have imagined us ever becoming socialist (though I realize we are not socialist yet).

In general, the proposed health care reform plan is a pretty incremental change. Our health care system will remain dominated by employer-based coverage with a smaller individual health care market, just as it is now. There are only three major changes (which themselves are not particularly radical):

  1. mandates will encourage all citizens to enter the health care system (larger insurance pools spread out the risks and costs more, generating a much more optimal insurance system and allowing access to those who want to get in now but are expensive to treat),
  2. the individual insurance markets (and, gradually, employer-based plans) will be regulated to prevent discrimination against people based on medical history, pre-existing conditions, gender, etc and a panel of health care experts will be allowed to design standards for a basic minimum benefit plan
  3. a public option will be allowed to participate in the individual insurance market to increase competition and encourage more aggressive bargaining with provider networks.

As for no one imagining this 50 years ago--the first universal coverage plan for the United States was proposed in Congress in the late 1940s. Suggestions--without accompanying legislation--pre-date that by a few years; FDR had mentioned the possibility for universal health care while in office and Teddy Roosevelt had campaigned on it in 1912.

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
Because hard currency fails when you have an economy that moves based on non-tangible things (Services, ideas, and technology) more than actual products.

I don’t really want to try and enumerate every issue I have with his beliefs, but simply put, he ignores a hell of a lot of history and basic fundamental practices. His views are almost always better stated as what he’s against rather than what he’s for. He’s someone who is so conservative, he’d fit in better in the 1800’s. The Afghanistan/Iraq wars aside, little he espouses is admirable or something he’s shown himself willing to really fight for.

Not only that but supply and demand of lets say gold ,could have an effect on the economy. it also won't work if you have long term trade deficits. the big reason I'm against it is because when your in a recession, people tend to tighten up on spending, if people don't spend and the government can put money into the economy, then things tend to get worst causing hoarding the money supply can drop drastically and drag things out even longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
Not only that but supply and demand of lets say gold ,could have an effect on the economy. it also won't work if you have long term trade deficits. the big reason I'm against it is because when your in a recession, people tend to tighten up on spending, if people don't spend and the government can put money into the economy, then things tend to get worst causing hoarding the money supply can drop drastically and drag things out even longer.

Well if we returned to the gold standard, we couldnt live under the same debt consumption economy. And thats a good thing. We go back to producing, and competing on the world stage. Making the country real money instead of constantly getting deeper in debt to china. people will be encouraged to save, and thats the only way it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
Well if we returned to the gold standard, we couldnt live under the same debt consumption economy. And thats a good thing. We go back to producing, and competing on the world stage. Making the country real money instead of constantly getting deeper in debt to china. people will be encouraged to save, and thats the only way it should be.

If we went back to the gold standard I think you would see inflation. our exports would cost more to other countries making imports much cheaper. imagine of people saved in a recession and China decides to buy gold, there would be very little money in our economy. what happens if very little gold deposites are discovered. I think the supply and deman for gold would have much more control the the Fed would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drego
Well, let me first explain, I'm not big on politics. I stopped watching the news long ago. The only glimpses of the news I get (though I do check it from time to time online) on TV is from the TVs at the gym. But anyway, the main reasons as to why I don't like socialism are the following: 1) I'm all for smaller government. I really hate it when others get to make decisions for us (such as when it comes to healthcare). The government is already big enough. 2) I've never really heard of an example where socialism has worked. Wikipedia has a page with a list of socialist countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries). While I don't claim to even have heard of all of those countries, most are not countries I hope to be like. 3) If we became socialist, who’s to say we wouldn't eventually, say 50 or so years down the road, become communist? It may seem impossible, but I'm willing to bet that 50 years ago nobody would have imagined us ever becoming socialist (though I realize we are not socialist yet).

But that's just my opinion. I believe anything is possible, and wouldn't be shocked if it actually worked. I just personally don't think it's worth the risk.

Migzilla

That's an interesting point, but simply having socialized medicine does not "make a country socialist." It's just in that one area. As for the "slippery slope" logic, I also believe anything is possible. But socialized medicine leading to national communism is not a fear I consider to be very rational. Also, with the kind of system we currently have, I'd be more worried about capitalism leading to fascism than socialism leading to communism.

Edited by Drego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.