Of course Bush was a saint, wasn't he. I seem to remember a war with Iraq that illegally bypassed Congressional and UN support. But then again, Bush is a Republican, so he is a hero instead of a crook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
Printable View
Of course Bush was a saint, wasn't he. I seem to remember a war with Iraq that illegally bypassed Congressional and UN support. But then again, Bush is a Republican, so he is a hero instead of a crook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
Absolutely not. Bush spent too much money and also grew the government. The President does have the authority to start a war. If you will remember, Bush did go to Congress to get authority to continue it. He didn't say he would go on without Congress as Obama is vowing to do for his agenda. Bush wasn't nearly as arrogant as Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus
Obama is spending money at least 4 times as fast as Bush ever did.
Lest we forget, Dubya was "irresponsible and unpatriotic" He added a whole 4 trillion dollars to our debt. Borrowing money from the Chicomms that our grandkids will have to repay!? That bastard! I'm shocked!
Senator Obama calls Bush "unpatriotic" for adding trillions to debt www.RightFace.us - YouTube
And wow! This guy just cuts right to the chase, the most transparent administration ever he's really looking out for us:
7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes (obama lies) - YouTube
What an incredible orator. This guy just puts Ronald Reagan to shame. What a stud! Tell me when he speaks you don't get a thrill up your leg!
53 seconds that should end a presidency - YouTube
Whenever any country gets divided in two opposite camps makes a certain risk of getting worse unless those camps or parties are willing to negotiate and able to understand the opposite side. We had our civil war no more than 90 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Therefore most European countries today swear in the name of multi-party system. It might have its flaws, but situation where one party only would get the sole majority, over 50% of votes would be a nightmare here.
It have to be that bad but polarization hardly makes it any better.
Biggest danger with extremists on either side (on any side, imho) is not just their incapability to think of a country as a place for all of it's citizen but rather that their ideas and speeches full of hate towards those who not think alike might spread. Then the bad soap is ready to served, as we say.
I wouldn't want to believe it is the case there. Nowadays so many people just do not care about politics.
That's exactly part of the problem. Most do not care and when that happens a vocal minority find a way to basically take over the system. It's happened over and over in history usually with tragic consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor
When this country was founded Senators were not elected they were appointed by Governors. It was set up that way because the founders feared the common people could be easily fooled and an extreme minority could basically stage a legal coup. They hoped the wealthy and better educated could make better choices.
Well. I too like a multi-party system and we do have one here. You do also get majority governments with this system, maybe we don't have enough parties. Majority governments are not a bad thing if there is a certain amount of inter party consultant to gain proper compromises before legislation is voted on and enacted. Right now from my POV, we have a majority government in power that is running rough shod over everyone and thing that is not in agreement with it. Oddly enough this party is to the right of the political spectrum and just how far right they really are is anyone's guess. I have never seen such a bullying and boorish form of governance from a majority party in my life.
Here and I believe it is so in other democratic countries, it is rare to get more than about 50% of eligible voters to actually vote. The politicians claim to be surprised that there is this disenfranchisement among voters. I guess they don't see a reflection when they look in the mirror or just can't recognize what many voters see if they do. That is a pretty convenient ability to have for a politician as they do not have to be concerned about a huge part of the public. That can and does lead to all kinds of abuses.
The above two conditions leave you absolutely no way to even draw the line at least in the short term till the next election.
Bob
Not one person so far has listed a positive Obama achievement.
Coincedence...I THINK NOT! You probably won't hear him touting his many accomplishments during the campaign either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
Honestly man, I think this has gone so far off the reservation that everyone has given up on this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
The funny thing is, I don't remember anyone being particularly over the moon about Obama on this thread...I think some of us like him better than Bush...some of us like him better than the prospect of Romney...but he's still a politician and some of us don't really like any of those, but we didn't think he was the anti-christ either.
If I was still invested in this conversation, I would have sent you to this site to get your feathers in a ruffle...but honestly that site is just partisan like the stuff you have been throwing down...just for the other side. That being said, you're pretty far out there...full on conspiracy theory stuff. I'm so glad I don't believe any of that...living would be terrifying if I thought all that stuff was true.
And just to make a point of saying it...I have no problem with you personally as (I hope) is the case vice-versa...we just don't see eye to eye on politics, to put it mildly :)
A 2008 Technology Review article stated, "Electric cars—and plug-in hybrid cars—have an enormous advantage over hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in utilizing low-carbon electricity. That is because of the inherent inefficiency of the entire hydrogen fueling process, from generating the hydrogen with that electricity to transporting this diffuse gas long distances, getting the hydrogen in the car, and then running it through a fuel cell—all for the purpose of converting the hydrogen back into electricity to drive the same exact electric motor you'll find in an electric car."
I wasn't talking about converting hydrogen back into electricity for motor. The project I was talking about at BMW are running internal combustion engines on hydrogen gas contained in a fuel-cell they seem to work fine and they are proceeding, building a hydrogen highway in Finland. I believe I had read this in popular science about five months ago. As far as producing hydrogen with electricity to convert it back into electricity would be ridiculous in my opinion, however in grade school and junior high we did experiments showing just how easy it was to produce hydrogen it is in this sense that it can be used as a burnable fuel, which produces nothing but water, and of course power. I for one would welcome a hydrogen powered car as everything I've read on this indicates that it works very well and is a high-octane fuel and I do like my car is fast and my fuel cheap. Just my humble opinion.