Page 4 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#39599 - 06/27/10 05:12 PM Meep, meep! [Re: cadfael]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Hey, people kill other people all the time, and the U.S. is no exception. But then what else would you do with all your tax money?

This has been going on since the first ape-man brained another with a bone, and whichever Wile E. Coyote is in the White House will never give up.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#39608 - 06/27/10 10:41 PM Re: Meep, meep! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Cost of war.com. I like the look of that site.

Dr. and other members: what is the purpose of C.I.A?

On the one hand, they were and are supposed to be an intelligence service providing the President with intelligence and accurate estimates, but, on the other, they have been regarded as a covert action arm of the government?

I personally see them as both.

There have been So many stories which have come out regarding their conduct in so many countries, all the way from Guatemala in the 1950's to Iraq recently.

Some state that C.I.A has lost a great deal of authority and prestige after the Iraq WMD issue, but I am not so sure.

Does C.I.A continue to play a significant role in world affairs?

Top
#39610 - 06/27/10 11:18 PM The CIA [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
What is the purpose of C.I.A?

This.

Both the US and foreign governments like to kick the CIA [and the other Intelligence Community agencies] around for public relations & propaganda purposes, and by their nature & secrecy they usually just have to stay silent and take it.

There is a great deal of resistance in the IC to anything unethical or unprofessional, but there is also constant political pressure to do sneaky stuff, so it is a constant tug-of-war situation. The Agencies are made up of people, moreover, and people are imperfect even when their intentions are virtuous.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#39689 - 06/29/10 03:53 PM Political Machine [Re: Knievel74]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

Ok. Here are some facts:

With your spin on them... let's play fair.

Now I'll add my spin.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

This is true. However, many of Bin Laden's command were captured and neutralized and, even more importantly, were rendered incapable of perpetrating another attack on American soil. The end result was achieved.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

2) The Patriot Act - Bush signed it into law on Oct. 26th 2001. Which gives law enforcement agencies - and other agencies - the right to search telephone, email, medical and financial records (among others) to find "suspected" terrorists. It violates our civil liberties.

Agreed, I don't like big government and anything that gives big government more power is a detriment.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.

Al Queda & the Taliban were the target. Since the Taliban had overtaken Kabul, it was the logical starting point in taking them out. Remember that the US was assisted in this effort by the Afghan people (Afghan Northern Alliance) and by the UK who also thought it was the best logical step forward.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

4) The invasion of Iraq - Bush stated that Iraq had WMD's but had no proof. Both Hans Blix and Mohammed Elbaradei requested to continue their investigation of Iraq's suspected WMD's because they were unsuccessful in finding any but were pulled out of the country four days before the invasion. And TO THIS DAY, there has never been ANY PROOF that Iraq had or has WMD's.


Bush and the entirety of the US government decided to go back into Iraq. Hillary Clinton, for example, supported the war. John Kerry despite his temperament and backpedaling later on, supported the war in Iraq as well.

It's important to remember that the US agreed to ceasefire in Iraq in 1991 contingent upon Iraq agreeing to NOT engage in certain activities. Stockpiling of any and all weapons was specifically prohibited by UN resolution 687:

 Originally Posted By: UN Resolution 687

24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of:

(a) Arms and related material of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment; ... all available here


UN resolutions represent enforceable agreements. Bush and nearly the whole of Congress (see above videos) agreed that Iraq presented a significant threat to US interests and VOTED to go to war based on evidence including, but not limited to the suspicion of WMD's.

In retrospect, I can't say that going into war was a good or bad idea because I didn't see the evidence that Bush, Clinton, Kerry et al. saw to convince them that Iraq was a threat. The idea that Bush did it alone IS hyperbole because this country doesn't operate that way.



 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

5) Bush's decision to NOT invade Saudi Arabia - 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11th were from Saudi Arabia. The Bush family have some very close personal and business relationships with the leaders of Saudi Arabia. This is well known.

The Bush family was/is in the oil business. Of course they have personal relationships with others in their business. Al Queda was headquartered, in large part, in Kabul. Why would invading Saudi Arabia be germane to stopping Al Queda?


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

6) Bush's support of the C.I.A.'s "Waterboarding".

If it stops another attack on US soil I'm for it too. The opposition supports sawing people's heads off on national TV.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

7) The "Bush Doctrine" - I'll just state one: Preventive War. Which means that the U.S can invade a country whose leader MIGHT be a threat to the U.S.. Even if there isn't any substatial proof or if the threat is not immediate.

"Preventative War" is a catch phrase applied to the idea that, under the Bush Doctrine, the US would have the right to protect itself against countries that harbor terrorists and/or support terrorism. It was and is vague and was born of a time when the US at large was in fear of being attacked. It's not a green light to attack other countries but to question them about their intentions in an official capacity. Not much different than other countries do.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

8) FEMA - Bush hired the leaders of FEMA. We all know how they handled the New Orleans disaster.

FEMA was not designed to be a first responder. FEMA was designed to render aid AFTER the first responders had assessed the situation. The first responders after Katrina SHOULD have been first, the city of New Orleans and second the state of Louisiana, and THIRD the federal government. FEMA cannot be blamed for the inadequacies of the first two responders. Compare hurricane Ike to hurricane Katrina. We here in Texas did much better without FEMA assistance for a week because as a state Texas is prepared for a disaster and ready to deploy when needed. Your anger is misplaced.

By the by, this BP disaster is surely going to surpass what happened in New Orleans by the time it's finished. Let's see how the new guard handles it.

My personal view is that ALL big government is inept and shouldn't be relied on for anything whether it's under a Bush or under an Obama doesn't matter a bit.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

9) Here is a quote from Bush in his 2003 State Of The Union Address: “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity"...Really? This is why Bush had such a shitty foreign policy. Because democracy is "God's gift".

So? US leaders and leaders from all over the world say dumb stuff all the time.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

10) The invasion of Afghanistan didn't destroy the Taliban. It made them stronger, more fierce and hate the U.S. even more. I'll give one example: Faisal Shahzad. He's the terrorist who planted a car bomb in the middle of Times Square, NYC on May 1st to kill americans. He was trained by the Pakistani Taliban.

True, bad management and lack of focus.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

Bush has spent untold amounts of U.S. money in his "War on terror" that's left thousands of americans and foreign people dead. And the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are alive and well.


And it all continues under the current administration. The reason for this is that it's part of a much larger picture.


 Originally Posted By: Knievel74

Now, is that hyperbole?

Some of it, some of it not.

The reason I challenged your comments at all was for the simple reason that I'm personally tired of people saying "Bush did it" for every wrong that exists in this country.

I think the whole of the government is chock full of self serving bastards who don't care about We The People in any greater capacity than to elicit a vote from us so they can continue their own careers. To my mind, they are all lined up to take from the working person. Taxation of the 'rich' is a hilarious concept. The rich have tax attorneys and the poor have nothing so the middle class always pays.

Anyway, you didn't prove that Bush single-handedly ruined the country but I didn't expect that you could prove it to anyone but perhaps yourself. As Dr. Aquino points out, this stuff is largely politics as usual.


Edited by Fnord (06/29/10 04:07 PM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39709 - 06/30/10 07:12 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: Knievel74]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
Ok. Here are some facts:

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.


First and foremost, Clinton failed to capture bin Laden as well, long before Bush.

Secondly, if you go back and check, the "invasion" of Afghanistan occurred well before Bush was in office, even though the "official invasion" was claimed by Bush. It was called "Clinton's silent war" a year prior to 9/11 and pertained to the Taliban and oil pileline routes that had been bombed by bin Laden. When you look closely at many information sources, it's clear that our forces were being put in place long before 9/11 and plans were laid for attack as far back as '91(at least from what I can find that seems credible anyway).

This is just one of dozens of articles that can be found all over the net about the US in Afghanistan well before 9/11 and before Bush was in office.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

Bush has done enough all on his own, let's at least keep the records straight, as best as possible with the barage of indormation that is slowly surfacing (some we may not know for YEARS, if at all).


I was asked to prove why Bush was a bad president. I proved my point. Bringing Cinton into this makes absolutely no sense.

We all know that Clinton tried to get bin Laden.

We all know that the U.S. was involved with Afghanistan way before Clinton's administration.

Bush was the first president to officially go after bin Laden with full U.S. force. He failed.


NO, Clinton OFFICIALLY went after bin Laden FIRST. He demanded that bin Laden be turned over to the US for his bombings of the oil pipelines. AND he failed as well. And Bush didn't use "full" US force in Afghanastan. If he had, it would have looked like Iraq. You want to blame Bush for something that was started well before him, when in fact he simply was trying to follow through. Events and information after 9/11 proved for a “better” reason to continue in Afghanistan.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
Bush was the first president to officially invade Afghanistan with full U.S. power to destroy the Taliban. He failed[quote=Knievel74]

NO, again. He just picked up where Clinton left off and staked a claim in an on-going military action that had started LONG before him. He just made the “OFFICIAL” announcement.

[quote=Knievel74]My point was, to this day, there is no proof that Afghanistan was ever involved with 9/11. Bush used that as an excuse to officially invade that country. And because of that, thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Along with U.S. and allied soldiers.


Hmm, how easily you have dismissed that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and bin Laden all found safe haven in Afghanistan. ALL 3 were and are considered responsible for 9/11 and several other attempted attacks.

 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
And because of Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll have to pour TONS of U.S. money into keeping our troops there. Permanently. We can never fully pull out of those countries. Just like all the other countries we've invaded throughout our histroy. To this day, we still have bases in Japan and Germany, just to name two.

Bush invaded two countries with no strategy. No timeline. We just went in headfirst.

And again, my response is about Bush and Bush only. My point of view on why Bush was a bad president was challenged and I've proven it.


Your neglect in the history of who and why is the down fall of your point. I don't like Bush any more than you do, but I also won't place blame where it does not belong. There were/are reasons he took up the task of trying to complete the military action in Afghanistan but the blame does not fall squarely on his shoulders. Nor does the failure in completing those actions.

I agree that we don't belong there, but then again, I feel there are a lot of places we don't belong. The US needs their boogeymen to keep the public where they want them and that's why we are where we are, all over this globe. It’s also why the populace doesn’t see the “rest of the story” even when it’s being spoon fed to them. It’s easier to see the first thing that’s big and bold (“That big ‘ole bad man, we have to go after him!") and forget about the little things (“In the rest of the news, a new tax to pay for blah, blah, blah….).
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#39710 - 06/30/10 07:54 PM Re: Just Another Hood Ornament [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
NeoZombie Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 60
Loc: Minnesota, USA
Anyone who quotes Jack van Imbecile does not have all of their marbles rolling. The wording is atrocious. Thank Satan he has been banned.

I personally think it was genius get that man in office. His network is like nothing seen before. American policy is already written. It does not matter what person is in that seat of power, what matter is that the seat has been created so well.

Really like what M.A.A. had to say because it was spot on. No one want any dirty bomb going off anywhere. Let a alone full on nuclear war. The more I think about it the more I come to know NWO is part of Xeper becoming.

Many may not agree with that but I could care less.
_________________________
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/
*Xepera*

Top
#39730 - 07/01/10 09:01 AM Re: Political Machine [Re: Nyte]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Nyte

The US needs their boogeymen to keep the public where they want them and that's why we are where we are, all over this globe. It’s also why the populace doesn’t see the “rest of the story” even when it’s being spoon fed to them. It’s easier to see the first thing that’s big and bold (“That big ‘ole bad man, we have to go after him!") and forget about the little things (“In the rest of the news, a new tax to pay for blah, blah, blah….).


And ironically, the dragonslayer (Bush) has come to be known as the dragon (That big ‘ole bad man) to those who can't see this very point.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39746 - 07/01/10 04:09 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: Fnord]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Just a general reply:

All politicians suck.

The Bush Administration made a lot of mistakes. (Notice how I added "administration" anyone who thinks it was all W's doing is ignorant)

The Obama Administration has made mistakes and will undoubtedly continue to make more.

The only respect I have for the Bush Administration comes from their overwhelming display of testicular fortitude. They did not give a damn if the people of this country agreed with the decisions they made; they did whatever they wanted to regardless.

If Obama really wants to make all these changes he says he does then he should take a page from Bush Administration's play book. He needs to stop being such a pussy and trying to find common ground among all the people of this country and the economic, political and religious divisions that separate them because it is not going to happen. Period.

Another observation, which to me is very funny and very telling, is that all the things that were said about Bush have been reversed and directed at Obama and are coming from the opposite camp. Bush was a Nazi who was going to bring about the end of the world (so they said). Obama is a Socialist who is going to bring about the end of the world (so they say).

Admittedly the Bush Administration undertook actions that could be construed as being fascist (some of those same actions have been undertaken by Obama i.e the renewing of The PATRIOT Act). Conversely the Obama Administration has undertaken actions that can be construed as being Socialist. The point is that the President doesn't really have as much power as people seem to like to think they do. Bush never would have been able to make himself all time quarterback for Team America and Obama will never be able to make us refer to each other 'Comrade' and replace the stars and stripes with a hammer and sickle.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#39750 - 07/01/10 05:38 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
AND there has NEVER been a "good ol' days" in American politics. EVERY President has received his fair share (and more) of demonization while serving in the White House. Even George Washington's tenure was not "squeaky clean." and he had the afterglow of the Revolution on his side.

I've been around for Truman, Isenhower, Kenedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (GHW), Clinton, Bush (GW), and now Obama, and I can tell you that each one of them has been smeared, attached to scandals, set upon by adversaries and blamed for everything from world economies to mold on cheese. These Presidents, unfortunately, were also the victims of televised media coverage that became all pervasive and easily accessible in one's own home. The rapid availability or questionable information or scurrilous charges swept the nation, whereas previous presidents had a "breathing space" to mount a defense under strictly print journalism.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#39766 - 07/01/10 11:40 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: Fnord]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: Nyte

The US needs their boogeymen to keep the public where they want them and that's why we are where we are, all over this globe. It’s also why the populace doesn’t see the “rest of the story” even when it’s being spoon fed to them. It’s easier to see the first thing that’s big and bold (“That big ‘ole bad man, we have to go after him!") and forget about the little things (“In the rest of the news, a new tax to pay for blah, blah, blah….).


And ironically, the dragonslayer (Bush) has come to be known as the dragon (That big ‘ole bad man) to those who can't see this very point.


It's easy to pass blame and not see the "whole" picture, or ignore parts that aren't wanted. There are a whole line of events that has led to where this country is today and Bush helped it along, but didn't do it alone. It's almost comical when you look at what Bush did do and what was happening before he ever took office. The steps were all ready in place, he just had to climb them (when the right events occurred) and he, as well as his administration, did. The orator that we currently have in office talks well but his actions won't make him much different than any other president. His words spill freely and he's pissing on a huge forest fire that's heading in all kinds of directions. It'll be interesting to see how well his words keep him in position, and how much piss he has left come the end of his first 4 years.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#40872 - 07/26/10 07:37 PM Re: Political Machine [Re: Nyte]
Knievel74 Offline
member


Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 149
Loc: NY
Not to beat a dead horse:

In regards to the replies to my post about Bush: I don't mean to take so long to respond but I hate talking about politics and needed to step away to keep from getting hot, lol This is why I avoid talking about politics and religion \:\)

Anyway, I stand corrected in my post that Bush was the first president to "officially" go after bin Laden. Yes, it was Clinton.

When I say "Bush" I mean not only him but his administration. A president as we all know, is really just a figurehead.

But I do stand behind this statement: Bush and his admin. were the worst or almost the worst this country has ever seen in a very long time. I'm actually not a Bush hater, it's just the opinion I've formed after living through and reading about everythng he's done in the last four years of his presidency. I will say, however, that he wasn't a bad president during his FIRST four years.

I'm not an Obama supporter either, as I've stated in my original post. But it's a fact that when Clinton left office the U.S. had a surplus of money (and yes, I know he was involved in the whole Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac thing). When Bush and his admin. left we were nearly bankrupt. If this is a fallacy, please correct it.

As far as FEMA. It took them an entire week to respond. As a matter of fact, a Canadian rescue team were one of the first organizations to resond to the disaster before FEMA reacted.

Because of our involvement in the middle east since the Bush admin., NYC has had two failed terrorist attacks in the past year. It's been announced in the AP that the Taliban is even stronger than the U.S. thought since 9/11.

To close my argument, I'm not saying Bush is the devil. I'm just saying that he was one of a long line of knuckleads that were the "leaders" of this country.
_________________________
"Man was meant to live, not just to exist". - Evel Knievel

Top
#40880 - 07/27/10 12:35 AM Hail to the Chief! [Re: Knievel74]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
I'm not saying Bush is the devil. I'm just saying that he was one of a long line of knuckleads that were the "leaders" of this country.

If you were able to follow the various Prezes around from day to day, I think you'd find that they were sincerely trying to do their best at the job. Not to mention that hindsight is always 20/20.

Look at it this way: There is no consensus as to where the planet is/should be going, or the USA either. As Jimmy Durante observed, "Everybody wants ta get inta da act." Or, to quote Truman upon Eisenhower's election:

 Originally Posted By: President Harry S. Truman
He'll sit here, and he'll say, "Do this! Do that!" And nothing will happen. Poor Ike - It won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating.

That said, I do have my current-incarnation likes and dislikes:

Truman: Like. Savvy, simple, direct, and principled. Unafraid to make tough decisions and take his historical lumps for them.

Ike: Like. Consensus builder, humanitarian.

JFK: Like. Visionary, patron saint of the Green Berets, connoisseur pussyhound.

LBJ: Like. Domestic champion who unfortunately got suckerpunched by the Vietnam War. Spoke his mind like Truman. Al Capone in the White House, how cool is that?

Nixon: Dislike. Tried hard to be & do the Presidency, but basically in over his head.

Ford: Like. Ike-clone.

Carter: Like. A gentle soul & humanitarian. Unfortunately, like Dick, also in over his head in the Washington demolition derby. Also got taken for a ride by nasty leaders of nasty other countries.

Ronnie: Dislike. Acted as President (literally); at least he did a good job of that. So maybe now we should elect Martin Sheen?

Bush Sr. Like. Brilliant man, knew when to do something and when to not. Was so meticulous about his job that he forgot to be a politician too.

Clinton: Dislike. Stooge for NAFTA and pussyhound without Jack's taste.

Bush Jr.: Dislike. Stooge for Cheney. Senseless, disastrous wars. In WAY over his head.

Obama: Dislike. Desperately trying to please everyone all the time. A nice guy, but I think hagridden by a personal demon of needing to be a success as the first Black Prez. [Caveat that he inherited the job at probably the worst possible moment/mess since Abe Lincoln got it dumped in his lap.]

Missed opportunities: Bobby, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Wes Clark, and Arnold.

Who should be the next Prez: Me, as I will fix everything. Bring all the military immediately home from Iraq & Afghan & other FUBAR places. Redirect all that money to domestic problems. Medicare for all US citizens, with some of that extra cash going to strengthen the facilities & professionals to handle them. No more hiring of anyone illegally in this country, and no birth-citizenship for children of illegals. Kill NAFTA and its clones so that people aren't starved out of their own countries. Work with those countries to make them financially viable for their expatriates to return to. Wait to see who comes out on top in Iraq & Afghan & etc. and make mutually-profitable oil deals with the victors. Everyone's religion worldwide is his/her own business, as also sex life. Pass the Equal Rights for Women Amendment. Pass around free copies of Morgan's book all over the planet [yes, Wanda, you would get a royalty]. Israel back to its 67 borders, and all of the mideast (including it) a nuke-free zone. Get serious with global warming. No more whale killing anywhere, on pain of the USN kicking your ass. No more animal misery generally; the whole world vegetarian. No more potholes or potbellies. Take all the confiscated nukes and place/use them to get the Earth back on its perfect axis, eliminating all the lousy weather patterns and bad seasons. Arm the cops with laughing-gas guns instead of bullets; the Joker has the right idea here. That should take care of my first 4 years; anything I've missed I'll tidy up during the next 4.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40881 - 07/27/10 01:01 AM Re: Hail to the Chief! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



To The El-Presidente,

What about the bloody cost of beer? Will this be reduced?

P.S. I don't have much faith in politics right now. I voted for the guy down the road who runs the local charcoal chicken and chips shop. He wan't on the ballot paper, but that was unimportant - sometimes you just can't compromise.

Top
#41377 - 08/03/10 02:50 PM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 863
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, I noticed a pattern. From JFK on, you liked all the short-term presidents (JFK, LBJ, Ford, Carter and Bush Sr.) but disliked those who got reelected (Nixon; Reagan; Clinton; Bush Jr.; and Obama, who will get reelected unless some nut job takes him out first).

Coinkydink, or do you think there’s something to it? If the long-termers have been so consistently ill-equipped to lead as you suggest, why do we keep reelecting them?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#41383 - 08/03/10 03:33 PM Re: Aquino's Presidential Preferences [Re: William Wright]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
and Obama, who will get reelected unless some nut job takes him out first).


Gentleman's Bet:
Just like in Trading Places, I'll bet you a dollar you're wrong.

Obama's approval rating is in the toilet and his own rats are jumping ship. The congressional approval rating under Obama is currently at its lowest point since they started doing these ratings (I know it's not scientific but it's a decent barometer on public opinion). The ex mayor of Houston, who is a raging liberal and currently running for Texas governor, won't even be seen in public with Obama when he tours Texas because he doesn't want a public appearance to sully his chances at the seat.

It's actually restoring my opinion of politicians (to a degree) to see his own kind (Liberal Dems) calling bullshit on him.

If you win this bet it'll be because a vastly different Obama hit the campaign trail than the Obama of the past.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
Page 4 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.