Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 4, 2005.
Obviously, this guy is not talking to your guys.
even newt is dismayed!
Well, it's only been 4 years. As long as they get to it eventually. I mean, look at how well we did with Katrina...
He's going to have to. Apparently the government won't. Isn't that why people elected this guy? Because they believed he'd protect us better than the other guy? Doing a heckofa job their Georgie.
I know I feel safer.
The greatest threats are the internal ones that come from the current occupant of the White House and his buddy Big Dick.
Stories like this really bug me, because they show that our government can not even operate at a basic level of competence. Congress and the white house spend their time worrying about steroids in baseball and terry schiavo rather than anything important like the country's safety and security.
I wonder what would happen if (God forbid) we had another terrorist attack. I don't think we'd stand behind Bush as much as last time, but I'm sure ~30% will still support him. Does it worry anyone else that they haven't attacked again? It's like they aren't even bothering because they know we're pretty much already destroying ourselves. Going to Hell in a handbasket, if you will. And it's not even that nice of a basket.
I think the terrorist's strategy is to go after our allies and isolate us.
If there were another attack there would be a rallying effect. Even if people were pissed at W, he's still one of "us".
Shoot, I don't think the administration would be upset at all if there was an attack in America. It would certainly take the focus off of W's many recent screw-ups, and get everyone pissed at the terrorists instead of him.
i think we passed this point earlier this year. imo, any al qaeda attack in the US would hurt bush more.
I'm not so sure about that. Fortunately, he can't get re-elected.
I agree, he's already proved that he puts fundraisers above qualified people when it comes to appointees at FEMA. Another attack would only prove that the billions spent and the loss of civil liberties in the US have done nothing to protect the country.
Katrina ensured that ship sailed totally off the horizon.
If there were an attack today, people would of course relate it to the indifferent response to Katrina and wonder what good it did them to give up all those Constitutional freedoms.
I am starting to get the impression that America has lost its focus when it comes to future direction.
Given all of the hot topics that have been major wedge issues in deciding political success, I am getting the impression that voters are slightly out of touch. Even worse, it seems that politicians are more willing to capitalize on these issues, rather than present the ones that we should be concerned with.
Because our success as a nation has been so closely tied to our success economically, the lack of focus on investing in our future successes as competitors in any area is disturbing.
I really can't think of a politician that has presented a coherent path to take the nation into the future.
None since the last Administration. Who, at least, seemed to have some idea of what is needed for success beyond the immediate. They were also able to back it up financially.
Either way, if terrorism was the issue that got the current Administration elected, shouldn't they be held accountable for our progress (or apparent lack of) when it comes down to how successfully we are able to deal with the problem in the future.
I am confused as to why the current Administrations failure to fulfill their promise is being addressed.
Not to mention their lack of foresight when it comes to where we are going.
Borrowing to keep up now, without addressing how the problem will be dealt with in the future when we could be facing the possibility that we could neither handle passed debt incurred, or the requirements of what the future world economy demands of those who are going to be the successful ones.
You are exactly right. The difference is obvious when you start looking at other countries, like those in the EU or the rapidly developing parts of Asia, that are consciously planning for the future.
I mean think about what the EU is doing - a number of visionaries thought seriously about the future of the continent and how to make it a better, safer, more prosperous place, and championed political integration. And when the cold war ended, they were ready, and started admitting their neighbors to the east. This decades of planning is paying off both politically and economically.
Then contrast that to the US. Do we have any long range plans for our own country? On health care or energy independence or education or other critical issues? Not really. Howabout any plans for our hemisphere? What are we doing to make North, Latin, and South America a more prosperous and political stable place? There ya go. And I haven't even mentioned Asia yet, which has a potential GDP five or ten times larger than ours.
So if it seems like we have no direction, you're absolutely right. But other people and governments in the world do have direction, and they are passing us by.
yes. i believe the neocons have enacted a strategy for longterm access to oil. and i'd read in the economist, years ago, that the bush family has been buying up water rights for some time.
and we're funding it all.