Moderator: Community Team
ahh, the wonders of comparative government. Because we have a first past the post system (SMD plurality, call it what you will), it's pretty much guaranteed to end up with two main parties, duverger's law (i'm sure i butchered the spelling of his name...)Skittlesandmnms wrote:i agree. George Washington did NOT want these parties... I don't really know how they got started.sfhbballnut wrote:I'm not saying I don't have a party, I'm saying they all need to go, its political reform in the interest of the American people, who the parties seem to have forgotten put them in power and are fighting there battles, not the battles of the people
what are you talking about?!?!?! he dindt' do anything all that great. He didnt' veto a single bill for the longest time, meaning he's essentially a puppet of his party! He handled hurricane Katrina TERRIBLY, he handled the war in Iraq TERRIBLY, first off he shoulnd't ahve even gone in there, second of all if he DID go there he should ahve had some sort of strategy, instead THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi civilians are DIEING, you cna't jsut stand bakc and say "oops, my bad" to the families of all of those innocent civilians becasue you didn't plan for a replacement govenrment once you destroyed the existing government!sfhbballnut wrote:Bush isn't as bad a president as he's made out to be, there are few who could do as well as he has in the situation.

Please give some semblence of a logical arguement you simply say that he's a bad president because people died, like under almost EVERY president. How could Katrina been handled differently? It was not he that mishandled it but FEMA. The bill vetoing is debateable. And what politician isn't a puppet? They all get rid of they're own morals in order to fit the cookie cutter mold of the current party.cowshrptrn wrote:what are you talking about?!?!?! he dindt' do anything all that great. He didnt' veto a single bill for the longest time, meaning he's essentially a puppet of his party! He handled hurricane Katrina TERRIBLY, he handled the war in Iraq TERRIBLY, first off he shoulnd't ahve even gone in there, second of all if he DID go there he should ahve had some sort of strategy, instead THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi civilians are DIEING, you cna't jsut stand bakc and say "oops, my bad" to the families of all of those innocent civilians becasue you didn't plan for a replacement govenrment once you destroyed the existing government!sfhbballnut wrote:Bush isn't as bad a president as he's made out to be, there are few who could do as well as he has in the situation.
Another point that shows he has no idea what he's doing: his entire cabinet is practically his dad's cabinet, he stuck in justice alito, which destroys the balance of the supreme court. He's trying to undo some of the greatest accomplishments of the Warren court, fewer rights for the accused, forcing his belief on abortion onto others, the list goes on and on.

Can I give a shout out to Harriet Miers?Joe McCarthy wrote:What kills me about the statement is the SCOTUS balance argument. Since when is it the Presidents' job to keep some kind of balance on the SCOTUS? Roberts and Alito were very well qualified. That's the Presidents job, to nominate qualified judges whose judicial philosphies he agrees with. But I guess you'd want a liberal President to put in a conservative Justice for balance, right cow? Please quit pretending you expect Presidents to nominate people from the other side for the Court, its just stupid sounding.

AS WELL AS HE HAS?????!!!!!!sfhbballnut wrote:Bush isn't as bad a president as he's made out to be, there are few who could do as well as he has in the situation.
Its not becasue people died, its becasue he didnt' have a clear strategy going into the war, its fairly obvious to anyone who has a basic grasp of politics that if you get rid of the current government, you need a replacement. He dind't think the war through ahead of time. In fact, more people are probably dieing from the chaos in the streets than from Sadaam's genocide.Blitzkreig wrote:Please give some semblence of a logical arguement you simply say that he's a bad president because people died, like under almost EVERY president.
in other words: since its a futile effort, he might as well just stay out on his ranch clearing brush while theres a national crisis going on instead of trying to get something done, getting on the mayor's back and trying to get everything going smoothly.Joe McCarthy wrote:oh yeah, and it hardly even mattered what FEMA did in Katrina. The state and local governments handled things so badly it was almost like they were trying to make it worse.
This is a republic, not a kingdom. Bush would be wrong to barge in on a city or state government handling a disaster and tell them what to do. He can offer assistance, not take the hell over. By the Mayors own account, Bush met with him and the Governor shortly before the storm and Bush was trying to tell him to get the city evacuated with the busses he had on hand, and the mayor refused. Bush also tried to get the Governor to accept National Guard help, she deffered the question until later. Her office kept putting it off too, even after Guardsmen where waiting at the state border with supplies. You just have to be determined to blame bush for everything if you're gonna to blame him for the inept local government not only doing nothing in spite of prodding from bush but also ignoring advice and offers of help. These were the people the state of Lousiana and the City of new Orleans had elected to handle their local issues and Bush respected that, as he should.cowshrptrn wrote:in other words: since its a futile effort, he might as well just stay out on his ranch clearing brush while theres a national crisis going on instead of trying to get something done, getting on the mayor's back and trying to get everything going smoothly.Joe McCarthy wrote:oh yeah, and it hardly even mattered what FEMA did in Katrina. The state and local governments handled things so badly it was almost like they were trying to make it worse.

Anytime you go into a foreign country with no experience governing themselves, youre going to have problems. Bush isnt't the one killing soldiers and countless civilians, the muslim insurgents are. And Bush isn't sucking Israel's dick, they're just the only country in that region that is friendly to us. Using your logic world war two was a 4 year period of FDR blowing Churchill. And what was he supposed to do on Septemper 11th? go tho the nearest phone booth to change and then fly up to stop the planes?!?!boogiesadda wrote:AS WELL AS HE HAS?????!!!!!!sfhbballnut wrote:Bush isn't as bad a president as he's made out to be, there are few who could do as well as he has in the situation.you mean at creating a civil war in Iraq? Killing thousands of Soldiers and countless Civilians? With the US economy? With Foreign affairs? With sucking Israel's dick and licking their balls? Hurricane Katrina? September 11th when he sat there like a deer in the headlights? Which one?? I am just confused as to what he is doing so well?? Please fill me in...and no I am not a muslim so don't even try some stupid ass remark about muslims.
Yuore right. Insurgents wouldn't be killing people if we hadn't gotten rid of Saddam. Saddam would. And Israel is our best friend in the Middle East. Turkey wouldn't let us go into Iraq through their country. The reason the blame for the ME conflict is placed on the Arabic countries is that it is their fault. They are the ones who want to kill every Israeli man, woman, and child. And what do you mean if I am white? are you saying that white people dont understand legal righs? And yes, the wire tapping is to catch terrorists. What else would they be using it for? Personally, Im glad that we are doing it. It helps catch terrorists and prevent another 9/11. You need to think through your arguments a little bit more.areon wrote:Hey dire why don't you read up some books on modern warfare. A prevailant theme is how technology, medicine, and weapons are minimizing our soldier death count while drastically increasing civilian deaths wherever we go. Yes insurgents are deliberately murdering people, but they wouldn't be there if Saddam was still around. Of course there is no way to say which way is better, a totalitarian government where certain groups are targeted if they don't follow the status quo or total anarchy. And people love to say Iraq isn't in a civil war. They just got off a 3 day forced curfew and violence is still going on. To say that we will always make mistakes doesn't give you the right to not make any attempts for strategy. Rumsfeld just resigned because among other things he wouldn't listen to people who didn't have the same views as him.
As a matter of fact we have a better ally in the ME, they're called Turkey. Israel is always trying to act big to intimidate everyone targeting them. This doesn't stop the fighting, and guess what. With the recent actions in Syria they now are appearing to lose their military edge. Boogie is referring to how Bush lays all the blame on Syrian, Palestinian, and any other group before telling the Israeli to back off.
And to anyone who doesn't believe the police entrap innocent people, fucking look in the mirror. If you are white then go read a book on legal proceedings before saying it's alright for the FEDERAL government to wire tap or do surveillance(sp?) on people without a warrant when the SUPREME COURT rules it unconstitutional. They aren't only doing this to catch terrorists, that's just a premise so that they can legitimize it.