Nov. 4th 2008: A day that will live in infamy, OR a day of re-birth for America?
Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
2009/01/15 18:47:16
|
|
|||||
|
17 votes
|
|
35% | ||
|
12 votes
|
|
24% | ||
|
20 votes
|
|
41% | ||
Top Opinion
-
Lanikai 2009/01/15 19:28:31A day that will live in infamy!
+7I think this will turn into the biggest mistake in our republics short history. His policies so far are not sound and his social decisions will have far reaching consequences-looks like a lot of reaching into our pockets. I do not like the lifting of the gays in the militarty ban, I do not want more welfare for corporations or banks and I think he is taking us down a rosy soundy but very rough road to a socialist society with a serious cutting down of our individual rights. I am disappointed so far in his choices, as the candidate of change he sure is getting a lot of Clinton hacks and theirs was a very corrupt admin, maybe he will keep his promise and his will be different, so far it looks like he is playing the repayment game-all his radical causes are getting handed everything they want and the people who did not vote for him ie:most workers, chrisitans and conservatives, are getting effed over and left out. We shall see.
I don't think it was Bush who flew those planes into the WTC, was it? And I don't think Bush is the one who passed the Housing & Community Development Act of 1974, that set us on the path to economic ruin in the housing & banking industries.
And what about those idiots in Congress --from both parties? Don't they get any of the blame?
As for Congress - I'm not thrilled about them either - but ultimately top management must take the responsibility.
Bush was not the one who was chiefly responsible for lack of responsible oversight of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac --you can thank Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines and an entire generation of Congressional idiots for that one.
Finally, you say Bush ignored what the intelligence community had to say about Iraq ... that is the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, it was the bad information supplied by the intelligence community --and trumped up by the New York Times and the rest of the media-- that he seized upon to justify invading Iraq.
Clinton was no favorite of mine - but Osama was the least of his oversights. (I would put Nafta ahead - but under Bush this whole thing fanned out to include China somehow). Bush had 8 months in office before 911 - plenty of time to go over the evidence about the training flights on his desk. And after 911 Bush didn't make Osama his priority, but got sidetracked into Iraq (because Hussein got rid of the dollar as the currency to trade oil for). There is some evidence suggesting Bush wanted to go after Iraq before 911. Clinton didn't have the 911 excuse to get Osama - but Bush certainly should have.
As for the mortgage crisis - this is one of the most in depth short shows about it. It has to do...
''''''
Clinton was no favorite of mine - but Osama was the least of his oversights. (I would put Nafta ahead - but under Bush this whole thing fanned out to include China somehow). Bush had 8 months in office before 911 - plenty of time to go over the evidence about the training flights on his desk. And after 911 Bush didn't make Osama his priority, but got sidetracked into Iraq (because Hussein got rid of the dollar as the currency to trade oil for). There is some evidence suggesting Bush wanted to go after Iraq before 911. Clinton didn't have the 911 excuse to get Osama - but Bush certainly should have.
As for the mortgage crisis - this is one of the most in depth short shows about it. It has to do with world-wide greed:
http://www.thislife.org/radio...
Bush ok'd it in a way by saying people should be put in homes they cannot afford, and yes, Clinton did the same thing (again - not one of my favorite presidents) - though the fact remains it all unfolded under Bush. It's a manegement issue. We can't blame the government for the cost of oil - a bubble created by the future's market after the housing bubble collapsed. SHould we blame the government - or wall street? Why hasn't this happened before - Frank has been there forever - so why now? Did he know what he was doing? Probably not - though many don't. Still - the buck stops at the top.
Too bad our leaders don't have the benefit of hindsight or clairvoyance while they're making their decisions.
I just think that for those who want to play the blame game, there's plenty of blame to go around; but ultimately it does no good, solves nothing, and distorts reality to blame it all on one man --in fact, it is an obstacle to solving our country's problems.
After the first few presidents have come and gone what Congress does is much less important historically speaking. We talk about FDR or Eisenhower, and what they did - but history doesn't usually factor in passing blame (or praise) to Congress especially among the general public.
The info Bush was given was the same we had had for years-something may happen at sometime, rather hard to prepare for.
So it was Bush's people who ignored the memo that Clinton's people ignored --so it's Bush's fault no matter what?
C'mon!
The world is going crazy right now, politically and economically. And it seems to get worse every day. In fact, I predict it will get much worse before it gets any better.
We haven't hit bottom yet, baby! Not by a long shot!
:(
http://thinkprogress.org/2009...
As a black man in America, I will still be waiting for a black man to be elected.
www.johnhansonpresident.com
And he was of English ancestry, not African. His parents were indentured servants. Here's a picture of him: