Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
There's a difference between causing the world to "descend into a dark ages", and shining a light on the horrible things and people that no one wants to talk about. I'm sure Canada would be just fine and dandy twiddling their thumbs in suburban Toronto while Hussein fills another mass grave and Bin Laden drops a few more airliners into our skyscrapers. To blame Bush for this is somewhere between ignorant and ridiculous.
|
- Why is it that you immediately launch into an insult of the fact that I am not american? Is this some form of xenophobic reaction on your part? Do you feel that by me stating my opinion of bush that I am somehow criticizing the United States (which i am not.) Rather then debate the issues, you launch into an ad-homonym discussion.
I am criticizing the man because i "feel" like we are in a dark ages.
As far as "suburban toronto" goes, well, i live pretty much in the inner city there bub. Unless you are from New York, or Chicago, you don't live in as urban a place as i do. This is truly a city that never sleeps.
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
Clinton was a scum-bag. There is really no way around that. The only success economically that he benefitted from was the result of Reaganomics, not of his own policy. As for him winning popularity contests, that means very little since he had virtually no impact during his eight years other than soiling his title, stealing furniture, and filling up the front pages of tabloids.
|
This is a very tired old line put forth by a few republicans who don't understand economics in the least. Please explain to me exactly which "Reaganomics" policies that Clinton owed himself to? For that matter, why is it George Herbert Walker Bush (who suceeded Reagan) didn't benefit from these great policies? I mean bush sr. was hot on the heels of ronnie reagan. Logically, if there was any carry over of Reaganomics, it would have been felt under Bush's watch and not Clintons.
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
Again, Bush isn't making it a dark place, he's just lifting up the rock to bring attention to the foul things lurking beneath it. Don't blame Bush for waking you up from your silly utopian dream.
|
Explain my "silly utopian dream" please.
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
His handling of the worst terrorist attack on our soil in the history of the country, was commendable. He was honest to the American public about the difficulties of the war in Iraq. And most importantly, he didn't back down to the broken UN and helped make very clear who our real allies were. In the end you don't just elect the President -- you elect his advisors and staff. Bush is a strong figure alone and Powell, Rumsfeld, and Cheney sweeten the deal.
|
Hmm, that's very debatable.
1. Where is Bin Ladden.
2. 911 happened while Bush was president
3. If you read time magazine last summer there was a very in depth article on how Rumsfeld vetoed millions of dollars earmarked to fight Bin Ladden prior to 911, and how the Bush administration dismantled the entire anti-terrorist network put in place to fight al-quada prior to 911 almost out of spite.
Of the three gentlemen you name, I respect Powell because i see him as an honourable man.
4. Bush had no intention of going through the UN, it was all a smoke screen to buy time to deploy.