ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jun 24, 2011 1:24:25 GMT -5
Dezil, you are being clueless again. Look, 9/11 would have happened if Gore was in. Now, I suppose it's possible that he might have been a wuss and done nothing but that would have just invested more attacks. Maybe the Sears Towers and Seatle Needle would have been next- how much would that have cost us in lost revenues? Perhaps even more than a trillion?
If you want to whine about Bush going to war to go after the thugs who attacked us, well besides urging him to not do his duty as a President, you must also remember that Democrats voted the entire time to fund the war efforts and they have been eager to use our military around the world (look at what Clinton did, too bad he never went after the people who actually attacked us). To think that Gore would have somehow kept us out of a war and that such an effort would not incite more attacks that would harm us nationally, including economically... well you're just not making any sense.
Edit: assuming you mean Iraq, I think that is a place we had to go. There were clear links between terrorists and Saddam (they had multiple meetings between Al Queda and one of his minister in Europe and it wasn't for tea), Iraqi generals who swear to the existence of chemical weapons and their transport to Syria, as well as the TONS of nuclear yellowcake that Saddam had (gee, what was THAT for).
Had Bush done nothing and any of this had gotten into terrorist hands, the left would be screaming at Bush for neglecting his duties. Then again, the left has always had a history of taking the opposite side of a Bush when it comes to Iraq. In Desert Storm:
1 they first were against Bush kicking Saddam out of Kuwait 2. screamed at him for not "finishing the job" by not taking out Saddam. Instead, Bush only following the UN mandate to defend Kuwait and restore things as were 3. screams at Bush II when he did what the left wanted his old man to do: ignore the UN and remove Saddam.
Seriously people, make up your mind here!
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 24, 2011 1:28:42 GMT -5
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jun 24, 2011 1:39:18 GMT -5
Clear of or bought his way out of?
Of course, the king still has to be Clinton who not only assault the staunch Democrat Katherine Wiley in the oval office ON THE DAY OF HER HUSBAND'S "SUICIDE" but he also had a rape charge in his background. Since NOW say that women don't lie about that sort of thing...
Democrats are pretty sick with this stuff. I remember Mark Foley (I think), a GOPer who sent sex texts to an page and was booted out by the GOP when it was clear he wasn't getting help. BY CONTRAST, the Democrat Gerry Studds SLEPT with a 17 year old page and the Democrats rallied around him to get him re-elected! Sick stuff.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 24, 2011 6:52:43 GMT -5
"Edit: assuming you mean Iraq, I think that is a place we had to go. There were clear links between terrorists and Saddam (they had multiple meetings between Al Queda and one of his minister in Europe and it wasn't for tea), Iraqi generals who swear to the existence of chemical weapons and their transport to Syria, as well as the TONS of nuclear yellowcake that Saddam had (gee, what was THAT for)."
Could someone please set ameiko straight - he apparently stopped thinking after 9/11 - I have to go off to work.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 19:43:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2011 11:30:13 GMT -5
To hear him talk he's an expert. Yet he pays $30,000 in electric bills per year. "
Classic Pub non sequitur...
Sorry Warsaw I figured that you were smart enough to put together that comment. Here, let me explain it.
Al Gore pretends to be the big environmentalist. He is all for saving the the environment & preaches living green. He also pushes the use of "green" power. That's stuff like wind mills & solar panels. To hear him talk, they are the future & will save our planet if we can convert to them.
He's all about "saving" our planet in his political life. The only problem is that in his personal life he doesn't bother. Does he have a wind mill? No but then most people don't, but HE could afford one & HE has a big enough piece of property to build one. No real marks against him there but then no plus either because that's something he could afford to do but doesn't bother to. Then there's solar panels. He doesn't have even 1 on his property. Even a lot of middle class people have those but Gore doesn't. So what does he do to cut down his power foot print. The answer is nothing. He pays $30,000 per year on electric bills (much more than the average person) & that's because he uses much more power than the average person. (see that's where that $30,000 per year comes in, kind of a tie in).
I think I described his actions as: He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. That's kind of like saying one thing & doing the opposite. I thought I would explain that one to you too.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 24, 2011 11:48:36 GMT -5
I was wondering how long it would be before some freak decided we need to regulate babies.. Well, I am not a Gore fan, but that isn't what he said. What he said was allowing WOMEN to choose how many babies they have. This means making birth control available to women. If this concept defies your logic, I can't help you.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 24, 2011 12:34:39 GMT -5
So your saying my math couldn't happen...?
Good , glad to hear it, because I was getting a bit worried, I was here in 1950 and remember that figure of 150 million, still here now, over 300 million..so I am sure you understand, and yet your bringing up native Americans are under the 2.2 [what ever that means] yet the "more than half due to Hispanic growth, primarily through immigration." for what ever reason they are here..so your saying 400 million...still a big increase and if your wrong...say just another 30/40 million...my scenario , more food, water, schooling yadda, yadda..still, IMHO, not a feeling good scenario. IMHO of course.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 24, 2011 12:45:40 GMT -5
Dezil, you are being clueless again. Look, 9/11 would have happened if Gore was in. Now, I suppose it's possible that he might have been a wuss and done nothing but that would have just invested more attacks. Maybe the Sears Towers and Seatle Needle would have been next- how much would that have cost us in lost revenues? Perhaps even more than a trillion? If you want to whine about Bush going to war to go after the thugs who attacked us, well besides urging him to not do his duty as a President, you must also remember that Democrats voted the entire time to fund the war efforts and they have been eager to use our military around the world (look at what Clinton did, too bad he never went after the people who actually attacked us). To think that Gore would have somehow kept us out of a war and that such an effort would not incite more attacks that would harm us nationally, including economically... well you're just not making any sense. Edit: assuming you mean Iraq, I think that is a place we had to go. There were clear links between terrorists and Saddam (they had multiple meetings between Al Queda and one of his minister in Europe and it wasn't for tea), Iraqi generals who swear to the existence of chemical weapons and their transport to Syria, as well as the TONS of nuclear yellowcake that Saddam had (gee, what was THAT for). Had Bush done nothing and any of this had gotten into terrorist hands, the left would be screaming at Bush for neglecting his duties. Then again, the left has always had a history of taking the opposite side of a Bush when it comes to Iraq. In Desert Storm: 1 they first were against Bush kicking Saddam out of Kuwait 2. screamed at him for not "finishing the job" by not taking out Saddam. Instead, Bush only following the UN mandate to defend Kuwait and restore things as were 3. screams at Bush II when he did what the left wanted his old man to do: ignore the UN and remove Saddam. Seriously people, make up your mind here! Always right and correct , no , clue less , that I am not.. Over a trillion, let me say it again ,, a TRIllIon, , once more a Trillion, just one more way, $1,000,000,000,000..gone..6000 Dead, [young americans], thousands maimed and wounded..to be looked after, rightly so, for the rest of their lives, as well as how many needing treatment for Post tramatic.. a major screw up, and if you won't admit it, because of your political beliefs, then I feel sorry for you... all the reportas that have come out by all sides, Cheney, then Bush..wanted to remove the man , no matter what..no matter the evidence..in their mind, it , 9/11, the opportunity to do so, especially when he , Hussein, was being obstinate, on our over flys and rhetoric..thumbing his nose at us..disregrding all our threats ..thought they could do it on the cheap...then go back to aganistan..didn't even come close to working out that way..yet your saying he gets no blame for his screw up...
|
|
|
Post by santorumolet on Jun 24, 2011 20:23:06 GMT -5
America is not overpopulated except for perhaps some of the coastal cities. We still have plenty of room in the interior if we chose.
You don't really expect people to live in the interior now do you?
|
|
|
Post by santorumolet on Jun 24, 2011 20:24:15 GMT -5
Instead, we are trying to destroy our borders to import people who:
1. by their nature are criminals because they violate our laws by invading
Are you claiming that the US military is by nature criminal?
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 24, 2011 20:39:27 GMT -5
#64- thanks for the gossip....can we talk policy? "Dezil, you are being clueless again. Look, 9/11 would have happened if Gore was in." The incompetence and carelessness of the Bushies was incredible. Read Clark's book or many other references- absolute morons- does make one think they wanted an excuse to go after Iraq... Can't believe people still vote for Pubs. Now you have to be batshytte crazy to get the GOP nomination... ;D
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 24, 2011 21:13:37 GMT -5
And has the quality of life for most people in the US been better or worse than 1950? You'll also have more people becoming teachers, farming the food, etc, etc. We've made amazing strides to feed people on a small amount of land. Despite the increasing population, we've been able to feed that population on less and less land since the 1950's.
I'd also go so far to say that a number of the fatties here in the US could do well to share some of their food with those extra people.
Dallas / Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Denver, OK city, Vegas as well as some other towns / cities in states like Colorado & Utah.
Yeah, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to expand to those areas since proximity to water isn't nearly as important as it was when cities like Boston, NYC & Philly started out.
States out there that create business friendly environments will do well.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 24, 2011 21:20:55 GMT -5
You're assuming there will never be a return on that money. I think you're mistaken to assume this.
Wonder what the inflation adjusted amount was that we loaned to Germany, Japan & the UK after WWII to rebuild their nations?
The war was over very quickly. Rebuilding and organizing a society will take years. We still have bases in each of these countries today.
|
|
|
Post by eastcoastliberal on Jun 24, 2011 21:35:42 GMT -5
It is not so much the food. It is the whole resource consumption. Every single time the media reports that India and China are becoming rich countries and will soon have a standard of living similar to the USA, everyone in the USA starts to wonder how the plant could bear that kind of resource needs. Overpopulation is a global problem.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 24, 2011 21:56:10 GMT -5
How does Al Gore Practice What he Preaches?Living the green dream in Tennessee Recently Gore has been criticized for using massive amounts of electricity in his Tennessee home. What detractors failed to mention however was that all of Gore's electricity comes from clean energy sources, such as wind and solar power, at Gore's expense. In fact, Gore chose to pay fifty percent more for electricity from clean sources. In addition, he has also renovated his home using green practices, and the US Green Building Council has given the Gore home its second highest rating for sustainable design. When it comes to living green it seems like Al Gore is doing everything in his power to walk the talk. Oftentimes politicians say one thing and do another, but in Al Gore it seems we have a truly passionate environmentalist. Hopefully in the future we will have similar leaders, who will bring us into a brighter, cleaner, and more sustainable future. www.supergreenme.com/go-green-environment-eco:Al-Gore--A-Powerful-Force-for-Change
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 24, 2011 21:58:04 GMT -5
Al Gore: Environmental criticism Four main environmental criticisms are regularly leveled at Gore: (1) he has an alleged conflict of interest from his role as both an investor in green-technology companies and as an advocate of taxpayer-funded green-technology subsidies,[40][41] (2) he allegedly makes erroneous scientific claims,[42][43] (3) he consumes excessive amounts of energy,[44] and (4) he allegedly refuses to debate others on the subject of global warming.[45] In reference to Gore's alleged conflict of interest, some critics have labeled Gore a "carbon billionaire." [46] In response to these criticisms Gore stated that it is “certainly not true” that he is a “carbon billionaire” and that he is "proud to put my money where my mouth is for the past 30 years. And though that is not the majority of my business activities, I absolutely believe in investing in accordance with my beliefs and my values."[47] Gore was challenged on this topic by Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn who asked him: "The legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?”[47] Gore responded by stating: "I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it." Gore also added that all earnings from his investments have gone to the Alliance for Climate Protection and that "If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me."[47] Finally, Gore told Blackburn: "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country [...] I am proud of it. I am proud of it."[48] Criticisms of Gore's allegedly erroneous scientific statements tend to focus on a British High Court's ruling that Gore's Inconvenient Truth documentary was deemed by the court to have nine significant errors.[42] Gore has also been the subject of criticism for his personal use of energy, including his use of private jets[citation needed] and ownership of multiple very large homes.[49] The Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) has twice criticized Gore for electricity consumption in his Tennessee home. In February 2007, TCPR stated that their analysis of records from the Nashville Electric Service indicated that the Gore household uses "20 times as much electricity as the average household nationwide."[50][51] In reporting on TCPR's claims, MSNBC noted that the Nashville Electric Service report "omits several other key facts. The former vice president's home has 20 rooms, including home offices for himself and his wife, as well as a guest house and special security measures. Furthermore, the Gores buy energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and solar. Tonight, Countdown confirmed with the local utility officials that their program, called the Green Power Switch, actually costs more for the Gores—four dollars for every 150 kilowatt hours. Meaning, by our calculations, our math here, that the Gores actually chose to increase their electric bill by $5,893, more than 50 percent, in order to minimize carbon pollution."[52] Philosopher A. C. Grayling also defended Al Gore, arguing that Gore's personal lifestyle does nothing to impugn his message and that Gore's critics have committed the ad hominem fallacy.[53] A few months later, the Associated Press reported on December 13, 2007 that Gore "has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly [...] 'Short of tearing it down and starting anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher,' said Kim Shinn of the non-profit U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design."[54] Gore was criticized by the TCPR again in June 2008, after the group obtained his public utility bills from the Nashville Electric Service and compared "electricity consumption between the 12 months before June 2007, when it says he installed his new technology, and the year since then."[55][56] According to their analysis, the Gores consumed 10% more energy in the year since their home received its eco-friendly modifications. TCPR also argued that, while the "average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year," the Gore residence "uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations."[56] Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider countered the claim by stating that the Gores' "utility bills have gone down 40 percent since the green retrofit." and that "the three-year renovation on the home wasn't complete until November, so it's a bit early to attempt a before-and-after comparison."[57] She also noted that TCPR did not include Gore's gas bill in their analysis (which they had done the previous year) and that the gas "bill has gone down 90 percent [...] And when the Gores do power up, they pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas."[58] Media Matters for America also discussed the fact that "100 percent of the electricity in his home comes from green power" and quoted the Tennessee Valley Authority as stating that " lthough no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution."[59] Furthermore, organizations such as PETA have criticized Gore for not advocating vegetarianism.[60] Gore responded by stating, "I'm not a vegetarian, but I have cut back sharply on the meat that I eat [...] It's absolutely correct that the growing meat intensity of diets around the world is one of the issues connected to this global crisis - not only because of the CO2 involved, but also because of the water consumed in the process." [61] Some have argued that Gore refuses to debate the topic of global warming. Bjorn Lomborg asked him to debate the topic at a conference in California. Gore replied that he would not, stating that "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake." [62]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_Gore
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 24, 2011 22:35:05 GMT -5
He's still fundamentally wrong about anthropogenic global warming, and overpopulation.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 24, 2011 22:37:21 GMT -5
He's still fundamentally wrong about anthropogenic global warming, and overpopulation. But that doesn't stop you righties from spreading lies and misinformation about him - does it?
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 24, 2011 22:48:18 GMT -5
Is Al Gore a perfect man? No, probably not.
Is Al Gore a good man? Yes, I think so.
Does he care about the planet? Hell yes! That is obvious!
Is he right about global warming? I certainly think so.
Does he care more about global warming and the planet than personal profit? Yes, I certainly think so.
Does he have a right to profit from green energy? Hell yes! Why shouldn't he? Every other capitalist in the world will be trying to.
Is he a hypocrite for using jets? How is he supposed to travel? Kites? Blimps? Catapults? Solar powered gliders?
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jun 25, 2011 10:00:18 GMT -5
Dezil, you are being clueless again. Look, 9/11 would have happened if Gore was in. Now, I suppose it's possible that he might have been a wuss and done nothing but that would have just invested more attacks. Maybe the Sears Towers and Seatle Needle would have been next- how much would that have cost us in lost revenues? Perhaps even more than a trillion? If you want to whine about Bush going to war to go after the thugs who attacked us, well besides urging him to not do his duty as a President, you must also remember that Democrats voted the entire time to fund the war efforts and they have been eager to use our military around the world (look at what Clinton did, too bad he never went after the people who actually attacked us). To think that Gore would have somehow kept us out of a war and that such an effort would not incite more attacks that would harm us nationally, including economically... well you're just not making any sense. Edit: assuming you mean Iraq, I think that is a place we had to go. There were clear links between terrorists and Saddam (they had multiple meetings between Al Queda and one of his minister in Europe and it wasn't for tea), Iraqi generals who swear to the existence of chemical weapons and their transport to Syria, as well as the TONS of nuclear yellowcake that Saddam had (gee, what was THAT for). Had Bush done nothing and any of this had gotten into terrorist hands, the left would be screaming at Bush for neglecting his duties. Then again, the left has always had a history of taking the opposite side of a Bush when it comes to Iraq. In Desert Storm: 1 they first were against Bush kicking Saddam out of Kuwait 2. screamed at him for not "finishing the job" by not taking out Saddam. Instead, Bush only following the UN mandate to defend Kuwait and restore things as were 3. screams at Bush II when he did what the left wanted his old man to do: ignore the UN and remove Saddam. Seriously people, make up your mind here! Always right and correct , no , clue less , that I am not.. Over a trillion, let me say it again ,, a TRIllIon, , once more a Trillion, just one more way, $1,000,000,000,000..gone..6000 Dead, [young americans], thousands maimed and wounded..to be looked after, rightly so, for the rest of their lives, as well as how many needing treatment for Post tramatic.. a major screw up, and if you won't admit it, because of your political beliefs, then I feel sorry for you... all the reportas that have come out by all sides, Cheney, then Bush..wanted to remove the man , no matter what..no matter the evidence..in their mind, it , 9/11, the opportunity to do so, especially when he , Hussein, was being obstinate, on our over flys and rhetoric..thumbing his nose at us..disregrding all our threats ..thought they could do it on the cheap...then go back to aganistan..didn't even come close to working out that way..yet your saying he gets no blame for his screw up... You are the one who ignoring the evidence that Saddam has WMD's- again why do you think he had TONS of nuclear yellowcake- and links to terrorists. The US drove him out of business to keep that garbage from getting into the wrong hands and you attack him. If you want to whine that Bush lied, well guess what: then so did the British PM, the UN Secretary General, Isreali and EGyptian intelligence, and both Clintons! They ALL were on the same page that Saddam had WMD's and links to terrorists! Bush and the US did the job that the rest of the world and its corrupted UN was too chicken to do. Yeah, we spent a ton of money there but better that trillion, if it is that high which I doubt, and some of our soldiers lives than the much larger hit both in terms of economy and lives if we had WMD's blowing up in our cities!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jun 25, 2011 10:12:04 GMT -5
Does he care about the planet? Hell yes! That is obvious!
HELL NO! Otherwise he would not pol;ute it as he does!
Is he right about global warming? I certainly think so.
Despite the propaganda that tells you otherwise, there is no clear consensus over what effect if any that man has had on the overall environment and weather. Remember, there are the same hucksters who went from "global cooling" to "global warming" to "climate change" as they are proven wrong each time. We also have evidence that some of their data was altered or faked to reach a desired conclusion. And, of course, there is the hockey stick.
Does he care more about global warming and the planet than personal profit? Yes, I certainly think so.
Once again, you are wrong. Gore is involved in several businesses that would make a killing if we had cap and trade and some of that would enter his pockets.
Does he have a right to profit from green energy? Hell yes! Why shouldn't he? Every other capitalist in the world will be trying to.
He does not have the right and indeed would possibly be breaking the law to lobby for a cause that would directly benefit him. At the very least, he had the duty to reveal his conflicts of interests.
Is he a hypocrite for using jets? How is he supposed to travel? Kites? Blimps? Catapults? Solar powered gliders?
If he castigates us for our energy use when his is 20 times higher, he IS a hpyocrite. If he whines about us polluting the air and creating greenhouse gases (whatever they really are) while he goes about in a private jet, then he IS a hypocrite. Let him fly on a regular jet with everyone else.
It's funny- the left HATES religion yet they support a new religion in the form of Al Gore and his green movement.
1. Just as you can't question the gospel, you can't question their science- "the time for debate has passed"
2. and they are going to make you tithe - cap and tax
3. and they will sell indulgences, i.e. the right to sin, to the wealthy so they can live in luxury while the rest of us have to just sit in our dark and sweltering homes.
|
|
|
Post by marshabar1 on Jun 25, 2011 10:43:06 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 25, 2011 11:08:22 GMT -5
The UN wasn't too chicken- the UN, the French, and the Germans were all neck deep in the oil for food fraud. They didn't want to disrupt Saddam because they were all making too much money illegally exporting / importing Iraqi oil.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 25, 2011 12:02:54 GMT -5
#64- thanks for the gossip....can we talk policy? "Dezil, you are being clueless again. Look, 9/11 would have happened if Gore was in." The incompetence and carelessness of the Bushies was incredible. Read Clark's book or many other references- absolute morons- does make one think they wanted an excuse to go after Iraq... Can't believe people still vote for Pubs. Now you have to be batshytte crazy to get the GOP nomination... ;D I hope you didn't think I was suggesting that 9/11 would not have happened..nothing further from my mind..and if I gave you that impression, I apologize. I belive 9/11 would have happened, as horrific a act that it was, from the standpoint of what they wanted to happen..it was a act of war and as in all things in war, once the fiirst shot is fired so much of the planning goes out the window, on this one..it seems nothing went out the window except for the unbeleivble actions of the passengers in Penn..then we would have possible lost the White House, Congress or another hit on the Pentagon or some other important part of our heritage. Do I belive the reactions of a non Bush in the white house might have been different, the actions taken, if Gore was president for example? Yes, absolutly..the man was no neophyte, had been next to the seat of power for eight years..and was a integral part of that Administration, he was not a Harry Truman..not having a clue as to what was happening in the Oval office , not being involved in anything of importance by the sitting President.. In other words , would we have gone into Iraq, with the information we had at the time..I doubt it.. Afganistan? I believe that would have been a no brainer..all the evidence pointed directly at the perperators, the ones who planned it, al Quida and they were known to be in Afganistan..No President would have been able to stay in office with out going after those people, and I don't mean throwing missles at them from affar..after 9/11 actions directly would have had to be taken as they were.. Iraq? That would just have been another back and forth place were we had some one we were not happy to have there but removing him and his regime,, I doubt it..unless it was proved they were involved in 9/11..and while he was involved in a lot..that was one he was not involved in and nothing pointed to him in a big way as having any sympathy toward those who were responsible. If anything he was coming down hard, and for him that was the use of the gallows, on those people, they were a threat to his regime. Naturally all the above, IMHO.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 25, 2011 14:07:02 GMT -5
Well, considering that in the 1950's, the US had the highest standard of living in the world and, today, we're ranked 11th, I don't know. What do you think?
As for those who think overpopulation has been discredited, I can only get a belly laugh out of that. Do you honestly believe that we can continue increasing our population exponentially with no consequences to both the environment AND our way of life?
People make the claim that America isn't overpopulated. Should we wait until it IS overpopulated before admitting that it is something we should guard against? I can't quite fathom why so many people have a "defuse the bomb after it's gone off" mentality.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 26, 2011 15:26:11 GMT -5
According to whom? The best and brightest from other countries, as of now, continue to flock to the US for the American dream.
Where I see the American dream fail is in the 2nd, 3rd, etc generation of Americans that have adopted the entitlement mentality that is common among some Americans; mostly children from middle class or upper middle class families. They falsely believe that their life will be easy since it was under the umbrella of mom & dad.
Also, is it better to be the 11th ranked today than it was to be the 1st ranked in the 1950's? I think so.
Can you please show that the population will continue to grow exponentially? Math and statistics don't seem to support that argument.
Then you're clearly anti-immigration now, right? That would be the most effective way to control against increases in population since over half of the expected increase in the US population in the next 40 years will be due to immigration and natural born American population changes are barely high enough to increase population [i.e. slightly over 2.2 children per couple].
I'm not saying that is my opinion [i.e. anti immigration - anti-illegal, yes but our current problem is due to government, not Mexicans IMO].
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jun 26, 2011 20:06:05 GMT -5
The UN wasn't too chicken- the UN, the French, and the Germans were all neck deep in the oil for food fraud. They didn't want to disrupt Saddam because they were all making too much money illegally exporting / importing Iraqi oil. Good point. At one point, a man jumped into the van the inspectors were in and claimed that he could lead them to where to where WMD's. Now, I doubt he was a suicide bomber or he would have just blown them up right there. He could have been a nutjob but if there is even a chance that this guy is on the level, you have to check it out. What did the inspectors do? Hand the guy over the Iraqis. THEY DID NOT WANT TO FIND THE WMD'S because, as Paul notes, they were making too much money!
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 27, 2011 9:24:16 GMT -5
What he said was allowing WOMEN to choose how many babies they have. This means making birth control available to women. If this concept defies your logic, I can't help you. Don't women already get to choose how many babies they have? Don't women already have birth control options available to them? Gore stating the obvious like it's a "new" idea pretty much defies logic.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 27, 2011 9:48:46 GMT -5
What he said was allowing WOMEN to choose how many babies they have. This means making birth control available to women. If this concept defies your logic, I can't help you. Don't women already get to choose how many babies they have? Don't women already have birth control options available to them? Gore stating the obvious like it's a "new" idea pretty much defies logic. Exactly. Other than choosing to abort a baby, can you name ONE important matter in life liberals support freedom of choice? We can't even pick out our own toilets and light bulbs, let alone education for our kids, or healthcare. These m*fers want to control everything. We see them. We see liberals. We know who they are now. The mask is off, and they didn't move fast enough-- as they knew they would have to. The panic they thought was their moment of opportunity birthed the TEA Party, not the uprising of the prolitariat. It's over, libs. We see the whole thing now and the trap has backfired. It is YOU that's going to be run out on a rail.
|
|