DarkSteven
Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Sorry, but you're completely wrong on every account.
The Republican Congress under Clinton passed legislation to open up ANWR - but Clinton vetoed it.
Earlier in his presidncy, President G.W. Bush called again for drilling in ANWR and for allowing the states to control their own off shore oil deposits, but Democrats in Congress refused via fillibuster, and the Democrat majority is still refusing today. .
Democrats are still against nuclear power, coal, shale, even wind and hybrids and solar because they adamantly oppose mining the lead, cobalt, and other minerals needed for batteries for wind, solar, and hybrid power - and many other kinds of energy we might try to develop.
Finally, if you're so upset about the new democracy that's blossoming in Iraq, remember that the vast majority of congressional Democrats were highly in favor of liberating the Iraqi people up until the invasion itself, at which point many of them began working feverishly to undermine our every effort, even calling for our surrender there before the job was even half finished.
If this nation is careening out of control as you seem to think it is, you're sadly and seriously mistaken when you try to lay the whole stinking mess at the feet of Republicans.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
I am nothing short of amazed when I read posts like this.
I suggest that you and countless other Republicans stop stating that Democrats have no clue how to run things and Republicans do, and ignoring the last seven years of Republican rule that has resulted in a wreck of an economy and a shamble of a war, not to mention major erosion of individual rights. If Bush's administration had an 80% approval rating, that argument would be forceful and compelling. Instead it looks like you simply refuse to accept reality, that Bush's administration was NOT a raving success. For example, you state that Republicans want to help provide the nation with energy - can you reconcile that with the fact that gas prices have more than doubled in the past seven years, after enduring dozens of other administrations with much more modest increases?
I believe that the best way for the GOP to recover is to take a serious look at Ron Paul. He represents what to my opinion are the best aspects of the GOP - smaller government, less idiotic intervention around the world, more focus on proper governance and less on namecalling of Democrats and liberals.
I am not wrong on every account. I am right about many that you do not bother to reply to, and I'm not sure I'm wrong about those that you do reply to.
You did not bother to respond to my comments about the economy. You imply that drilling in the ANWR and offshore drilling will cure our energy ills. I'm not certain - as MrRodgers has stated (and I have read the same thing elsewhere), we currently have lands under lease by the petroleum companies for the express purpose of petroleum extraction that are not being used.
I'm not so sure where you get the info that Democrats are against alternative energyy and hybrids. I recall Al Gore coming out in their favor. And shale oil extraction is not commerically feasible - why should we be for it? I do have to agree that nuclear is a very viable option that should be looked at further IF spent fuel enrichment is permitted.
I honestly haven't read anything about the new democracy blossoming in Iraq. I instead keep reading of essentially a civil war over there. The latest I had read is that we were forging partnerships with the very same insurgents that were shooting at us a few years ago. And you are correct that a lot of the Congressional Democrats did in fact authorize the invasion (Obama's managed to parlay the fact that he didn't into a strong selling point). I'm not sure whether those Dems simply swallowed the redacted intelligence or as in Hillary's case simply didn't bother to read the information presented. Whichever, the fact that they have changed their stance could either be viewed (as you evidently do) as a lack of political conviction, or (as I do) as an admission that this was a horrible mistake. When you say the job is not even half finished, this implies that there is a firm point at which we can claim that we have met our objectives in Iraq, and I have no clue what that could be. We toppled Saddam Hussein, we claimed Mission Accomplished - what are the remaining goals? To install a government there that is friendly to the US and meets certain criteria for being democratic? The admin DID list specific measurable criteria that would have to be met for the surge to be considered a success but dropped that approach because so many of them were not met.
I DO lay the blame for much of the current mess at the feet of the admin. THEY were hellbent on invading Iraq, although I do concede that more opposition should have been raised. THEY decided to do everything in their power to circumvent the Constitution, which Bush swore to uphold when signed in.THEY accroding to Richard Clarke's testimony weakened the antiterrorism measures from Clinton that let 9/11 happen. And THEY were not present for four days after Katrina hit.
The Democrats can (and should be) blamed for not putting up any effective fight against the admin. But the admin has done a heckuva lot to get us in the mess you insist isn't there.
_____________________________
"You women....
The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...
Quit fretting. We men love you."
|
RE: Two very different readings of Obama's palm - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread