Bush's Final F.U.

[Aileron]

I can't go to Afghanistan until I'm out of TRADOC, and I won't be out of TRADOC for months.

 

1) That whole arguement is based upon the populace 'not knowing better'. Claiming ignorance isn't an excuse. The people really have no one to blame but themselves, because either they a: didn't bother to pick up a newspaper to find out what the world is like, or b: trusted the president and/or favored the war, but never came to understand what the consequences would be. Either way, anyone who supported the war intitially and doesn't now dropped the ball at some point.

 

And there's the problem. As a whole we are too immature to admit we dropped the ball, so we find ways to pin it on our leadership.

 

2) I didn't claim FEMA wasn't a innefficient beuracratic mess. The Federal government always is. Ofcourse one can't expect a metropolis to up and move instantly either. The point is that all parties contributed and it is unfair to just blame FEMA.

 

3) That is such a crock. Pat Buchanon doesn't spend his free time sitting outside of car dealerships, telling consumers that they better buy a SUV. Also, there are ways to drill without 'destroying coastal fisheries'. My overall point isn't a matter of statistics, it is about a black and white concept of not working together. Oil companies and environmentalists could certainly get down at a table and come up with a solution, if both sides were open. That actually occurs in industry, but the government has a tendancy to want to make black and white regulations on things.

 

4) That is the nature of a group problem. Small numbers of buddy f____ers can screw everyone else up. The existance of BFs is not a fault of leadership. BFs are a fact of life, and nobody can go back in time to prevent a buddy f____er from being born, so its best to just get used to them.

 

5) Didn't I include the words 'and vice versa' in my statement? Oh, yes I did. Okay then, I acknowledged it existed from both sides then.

 

 

Overall, people need to stop acting like they are perfect and don't cause problems. If even a world-wide problem occurs first ask yourself what *you* did to contribute to that problem. If you happen to be clear, then ask yourself what you could have done to contribute against the problem. If you are still clear, then assume it is both everybody and nobody unless you rule groups out or in.

[NBVegita]

It's not as hard as you're trying to make it sound, with a democratic congress that these resolutions can be shot down.

 

One way is that congress has 60 (legislative) days from the date of the resolution to vote it down. The only way that could be over turned is if the president veto's it. Bush will not be in office for 60 (legislative) days after the introduction of these resolutions so if congress simply waits until bush has left office until they vote against them...POOF. All courtesy of mr. Clinton.

 

Also the process would not take his entire first term o king of exaggerations. With the Democrats having virtually universal control of the branches resolutions can be passed quite easily to reverse any regulations that came into effect prior to November first, which you could count on one hand.

 

Also Ail did make the statement of "Double" which is wrong but when you take a job your total compensation is taken into effect not simply your salary. The total compensation including retirement and benefits is ridiculously high. Besides the fact that their base pay, without compensation is over double what the average American makes, most companies no longer offer pensions so no matter how you look at it, the companies are giving out way more money to these employees than they should be doing. Ail's scale might have been off, but I still stand with his point. Is salary the entire reason? No, the biggest problem is the anti-American car sentiment in the U.S.

[FMBI]

I can't go to Afghanistan until I'm out of TRADOC, and I won't be out of TRADOC for months.

 

Well, I assume you are going at some point, then - I asked because you had said in the past that you might get sent to Iraq instead, and nobody in their right mind wants to go there. Afghanistan on its worst day is better than Iraq on its best, simply because of the nature of the occupation. But that's another story. Congrats on getting your wish.

 

1) That whole arguement is based upon the populace 'not knowing better'. Claiming ignorance isn't an excuse. The people really have no one to blame but themselves, because either they a: didn't bother to pick up a newspaper to find out what the world is like, or b: trusted the president and/or favored the war, but never came to understand what the consequences would be. Either way, anyone who supported the war intitially and doesn't now dropped the ball at some point.

 

 

And there's the problem. As a whole we are too immature to admit we dropped the ball, so we find ways to pin it on our leadership.

 

You are correct in asserting that Americans are stupid as hell, mostly because of our popular culture and heavy religiosity. However, you are essentially using that to justify everything Bush has done - "He might have lied to people and ruined the country, but hey, not everybody saw it coming, so it's not his fault!" I'm honestly wondering whether you remember the period between Sept. 11, 2001 and early 2004. During that era, everyone who challenged Bush was looked upon as some kind of traitor. That was probably the closest we've ever gotten to McCarthyism since the First Cold War ended and detente started. Asking an already dumb country to suddenly stand up for itself in that situation would be like asking a paraplegic to jump out of a burning building, if I may be allowed a bit of drama.

 

2) I didn't claim FEMA wasn't a innefficient beuracratic mess. The Federal government always is. Ofcourse one can't expect a metropolis to up and move instantly either. The point is that all parties contributed and it is unfair to just blame FEMA.

 

No, the Federal government is not always an inefficient bureaucratic mess. It has become that through decades of neglect and misfunding, and a national myth of evil government. However, FEMA is worse than most of the government, because of rampant cronyism and wasted funding, much like the military-industrial complex. Bush deserves much of the blame for the failures of both organizations, by the by.

 

3) That is such a crock. Pat Buchanon doesn't spend his free time sitting outside of car dealerships, telling consumers that they better buy a SUV. Also, there are ways to drill without 'destroying coastal fisheries'. My overall point isn't a matter of statistics, it is about a black and white concept of not working together. Oil companies and environmentalists could certainly get down at a table and come up with a solution, if both sides were open. That actually occurs in industry, but the government has a tendancy to want to make black and white regulations on things.

 

I didn't say that. I made a rather simple analogy which you apparently didn't get. Also, I have no idea how you can honestly tell me that conservative politicians haven't been pushing the 2-SUVs, McMansion, to-hell-with-the-consequences American dream that has resulted in the current financial mess in general, and the oil spike in particular. There were dozens of articles written over the summer (during the "Drill, baby, drill!" period) screaming that the government had to somehow bring oil prices down so we could all get our SUVs back, because that was our sovereign right as a people.

 

And here, as with the Republican / Democratic thing in general, you are assuming a false dichotomy. Industry and environmentalists are equally matched, with neither side being better than the other. That is a lot of bullshit. Industry in this country has a long and spectacular record of doing massive damage to the environment and the people living in it whenever possible, as long as it led to increased profit. From the Gilded Age to the 1970s, we were all living in a land of lead, toxic waste, and (later on) nuclear runoff, not to mention everyday products that make China's toys look healthy by comparison. If it took decades of hard work by consumer advocacy groups and government agencies just to put up the relatively flimsy health standards that we have today, then what makes you assume that letting industry take back over the deal-making process will be good for the country?

 

4) That is the nature of a group problem. Small numbers of buddy f____ers can screw everyone else up. The existance of BFs is not a fault of leadership. BFs are a fact of life, and nobody can go back in time to prevent a buddy f____er from being born, so its best to just get used to them.

 

You can follow procedures to stop them from being born in the first place. Think how much better this country would have been if Ronald Reagan and GWB had never been born. We'd have very little national debt, a much more stable world economy, and dozens more stable democracies in Africa, South America, and Asia. Obviously we'd have other problems to replace the ones we have now, but they would be far easier to deal with.

 

 

5) Didn't I include the words 'and vice versa' in my statement? Oh, yes I did. Okay then, I acknowledged it existed from both sides then.

 

Uh, you missed my point. The Republicans have been crying about how they're the victims of the mean Democrats, when in fact they've been the source of 95% of the problems. There is no "vice versa" here, there is only "I punched you 20 times, and you punched me once - I'm calling the teacher on you!"

 

Overall, people need to stop acting like they are perfect and don't cause problems. If even a world-wide problem occurs first ask yourself what *you* did to contribute to that problem. If you happen to be clear, then ask yourself what you could have done to contribute against the problem. If you are still clear, then assume it is both everybody and nobody unless you rule groups out or in.

 

I'm honestly trying to find some serious message in here, and it just isn't working for me. "Assume it is both everybody and nobody"... We have plenty of data on who's screwing up what, we don't need to assume things. All we have to do is go out and fix things by reforming the government, the country, and the world.

 

 

It's not as hard as you're trying to make it sound, with a democratic congress that these resolutions can be shot down.

 

One way is that congress has 60 (legislative) days from the date of the resolution to vote it down. The only way that could be over turned is if the president veto's it. Bush will not be in office for 60 (legislative) days after the introduction of these resolutions so if congress simply waits until bush has left office until they vote against them...POOF. All courtesy of mr. Clinton.

 

Also the process would not take his entire first term o king of exaggerations. With the Democrats having virtually universal control of the branches resolutions can be passed quite easily to reverse any regulations that came into effect prior to November first, which you could count on one hand.

 

Still a vast oversimplification, especially when you have Reid and Pelosi in charge. Still, Bush isn't the only one to blame for putting up the most pathetic opposition Congress of all time, so whatever. And I do believe my time-frame to be more realistic than yours - remember that 99% of Obama's time is going to be spent dealing with the recession which Bush conveniently left him to deal with, and 99% of that time is going to be spent trying to get 60 votes together in the Senate so that they can break the filibusters which are inevitably going to pop up over and over. Not so fun to do when you have as many blue dogs Senators as Obama will be working with.

 

Also Ail did make the statement of "Double" which is wrong but when you take a job your total compensation is taken into effect not simply your salary. The total compensation including retirement and benefits is ridiculously high. Besides the fact that their base pay, without compensation is over double what the average American makes, most companies no longer offer pensions so no matter how you look at it, the companies are giving out way more money to these employees than they should be doing. Ail's scale might have been off, but I still stand with his point. Is salary the entire reason? No, the biggest problem is the anti-American car sentiment in the U.S.

 

Taking salary and benefits together, the American package is $5 higher. The only reason the American automakers have such high legacy costs is because they had such a huge pool of workers in the first place - and there's nothing they can do about that. They helped create the middle class of this country, and now they're paying for it by having to take on foreign automakers which deliver virtually the same wages and benefits, but have much smaller retiree pools to deal with.

 

Also, you seem to agree with my point that it's the fault of the executives for designing cars people don't want, rather than the fault of the unions for building those cars. Nice to see that.

[NBVegita]

It's not really a simplification. Yes this recession is something that will need to be dealt with, but Obama has nothing to do with congress voting down the resolutions. Also if these resolutions are so critically bad, they would thus take a top priority.

 

It is highly unlikely that any real negative resolution will pass.

 

They may make $5 more than the other companies (not including retirement) but take a look at the big 3's retirement options vs the foreign automakers. Retirement is just as important to most Americans as are good benefits and good pay. I myself put between 15-20k a year of my own money away into retirement options simply because my company no longer offers a pension. Most companies no longer offer pensions. So you must really take into consideration the concept of retirement into the compensation because if I had the average pension (Highest wage x (~3% x number of years worked with the company)) If I retired at 55 I'd be making 99% of my highest wage annually. This would be in addition to my other retirement sources. As of now I had better put a lot of money away because all I'm going to be retiring on is my retirement funds I personally manage and a very slight possibility of ss. This is compounded further by the fact that all auto workers are overpaid and this further stretches the pension.

 

I'm more comparing the big 3 to the average American not other car manufacturers. By doing that if I made $55 and hour, like their average employee, by the time I'm done putting my 20k away for retirement I'm now only making ~$45.40 an hour. Now if we take away what the auto industry puts in for each employee, $15/hr now I'm down to $40/hr with $15 of that benefits, so my take home is $25/hour(before taxes eat me alive).

 

Again this is only part of the problem.

[»Lynx]

I can't go to Afghanistan until I'm out of TRADOC, and I won't be out of TRADOC for months.

 

1) That whole arguement is based upon the populace 'not knowing better'. Claiming ignorance isn't an excuse. The people really have no one to blame but themselves, because either they a: didn't bother to pick up a newspaper to find out what the world is like, or b: trusted the president and/or favored the war, but never came to understand what the consequences would be. Either way, anyone who supported the war intitially and doesn't now dropped the ball at some point.

 

That's the biggest crock of shit I've ever read. Firstly, claiming ignorance is a fucking perfect excuse. If we were talking about mass genocide because loads of people drove at 70 outside schools and killed a bunch of kids - I'd be on your side, because every fucker who was acting like a complete retard would have known better. You know why they'd have known better? Because they'd have been educated in the matter, hence why they'd have had a driving license. Now, my second point is that 'because they didn't bother to pick up a newspaper to find out what the world is like' is probably one of the worst things to say. There's a reason why we elect somebody to make decisions, and that's because they're not meant to pick up a news paper and 'understand what the world is like'. They're meant to have professionals in each area who liaise their findings and come up with pragmatic solutions to a pretty fucking easily-avoidable problem. To make the finale, I'd say that whole 'ball dropping' point would probably be somewhere, well, anywhere really (Considering how long this fucking 'war' has been going on for) between the lies, and the downright deceit.

 

And there's the problem. As a whole we are too immature to admit we dropped the ball, so we find ways to pin it on our leadership.

 

I beg to differ, plenty of idiots who were for the war have realised that they were actually shitting in the face of humanity, and have openly admitted it.

 

Overall, people need to stop acting like they are perfect and don't cause problems. If even a world-wide problem occurs first ask yourself what *you* did to contribute to that problem. If you happen to be clear, then ask yourself what you could have done to contribute against the problem. If you are still clear, then assume it is both everybody and nobody unless you rule groups out or in.

 

OKay, let's work by your rationale. What did *I* do to contribute to the masses of problems that Bush has created... Oh yeah, fuck all. What could I do about it? Well, I could post on SSF about how much I hate Bush, and hope that somebody has a euphoric moment, breaks from their partisan liking toward a twat and creates a damn revolution. Oh yeah, that don't happen... So, I'll do fuck all, and hope that somebody who's *not as much* of a war-mongering arsehole isn't elected next time around.

 

-Lynx

 

(I've got more to say, but really can't be arsed)

[omni]

You people have way too much time.

 

There's no point in discussing it now. Just wait.

[NBVegita]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...-regulations-2/

 

Imagine that...I was right.

 

Nothing like working yourself into a fervor over something for no reason.

[FMBI]

Note "pending".

 

Obama also asked judges to suspend trials at Guantanamo, but that does nothing for the innocent people already convicted there, does it?

 

This is just a microcosm of the Bush presidency - screw something up, while stalling until it's either too late or too complicated for anyone else to change it.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[NBVegita]

This topic is simply about these "midnight resolutions" that everyone was claiming was going to be political Armageddon.

 

As for your pending, what terrible resolutions have passed that so dearly detriment this country in the past 2 months?

[FMBI]

It's hard to know exactly what he did manage to get through, which means we'll have to wait for a combination of independent analysis and Obama-administration investigations. But that's no reason to break out the champagne; in the meantime, we do know the general themes - undermining environmental regulations, screwing the poor and middle class, damaging efforts at government reform, and ensuring that the limited police-state infrastructure that's survived this far can stay together under the control of the spooks in the intelligence community.

 

Assuming that only, say, 20% of the regulations he attempted to enact will make it, that's still a very scary assault on "American values," civil rights, and common sense.

 

What makes it even worse is that, in 15 years, it seems all too likely that his newfound revisionism will be all that's remembered - after all, nobody today remembers the fact that Reagan, Champion Of Freedom, was criticized during his presidency for attacking the FoIA, censoring the press, and breaking the law whenever it was inconvenient to deal with Congress. So, let's just hope that this time, somebody actually cares enough that they are willing to spend as much time as necessary to clean up all this crap.

[NBVegita]

If something critically bad had passed, organizations like moveon.org and the entire democratic congress would be further attacking the issue.

 

Note that they are not.

 

It was just another big scare like happens at the end of every presidency. It will happen at the end of the Obama presidency too.

[Stibbymicto]

I doubt we would even rank on the technology side of the world just because we lost our fire.

 

We had it going on in the 70s... but in the 80s it began to slow and by the 90s we werent doing anything.

once a country grows content with everything it has, it stops growing. it tries everything to keep everything the same way its always been instead of changing into something perhaps better and after trying so hard to keep it all the same it crumbles.

 

look around, do you think America is growing anymore?

 

We need change, thats the whoe reason obama is as popular as he is.

We need to stop being so dependent on oil and get some alternatives.

hell we need alternatives for everything.

 

We've tried to keep everything the same for so long now that we've grow complacent.

 

its time for a change.