Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
I have to agree. I think we would be significantly healthier fiscally if the supremes did not appoint Bush king.
|
Kings rarely step down willingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie
YES!
I think the financial industry would have been regulated more effectively, we probably wouldn't have Bush's tax cuts, we probably wouldn't be in two wars right now. Who knows what other trials we would have faced in their stead, but on the whole, looking at the circumstances of the last decade, I'd say we'd be a world better off had we actually given the election to Gore as the voters wanted.
|
BTW, The whistle was blown on the financial shenanigans that caused this during Clintons watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
Isn't the reluctance to step into the future a hallmark of the right?
Good god man, do you ever speak with consistence?
|
NO. The move into Iraq was all about the future, as we will see in coming years.
It's hard to help societies to become stable in unstable regions. The big problem wasn't little backward Afghanistan, it was Saddams Iraq.
He would certainly be doing all he could in helping our enemies in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda would be making hay over the foriegn troops in the holy land (S.A.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
We don't know, of course, but we do know that Bush's negligence made al Qaeda's job a lot easier.
|
A lot easier - to get to their virgins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
That said, I think a fairly compelling argument can be made that the cost of achieving meaningful CO2 emissions reductions could be better spent directly on reducing illness/death in the developing world through inoculations, AIDS prevention, clean water, and agricultural technology support. The cost per life saved pursuing these initiatives would be orders of magnitude less than those saved by reducing global warming (if it were even possible given geopolitical considerations).
|
What do you know Finn - we agree on something!
Pete