Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[el_jefe061]

Although I wouldn't put it past McCain to ATTEMPT to bring back the draft, there's no way all of those Representatives and Senators would allow it to pass. Would never happen.

[DeuceBlades]

It wasnt anything that Olberman says, the woman plainly asked McCain the question and he said maam I agree with "Everything you said"

Geez people, stop spinning everything. Its in black and white!!!!

Although I wouldn't put it past McCain to ATTEMPT to bring back the draft, there's no way all of those Representatives and Senators would allow it to pass. Would never happen.

I believe its an executive order, so he does have the power to reinstate it.

EDIT* I read up on it, and yes it has to pass through congress like you said.

[DeuceBlades]

Like I said before, I dont see how republicans can look at the state of this country, and allow Bush to have 4 more years. His policies are killing this country. This war is killing this country by choking us into more debt. How much more debt do we need to go into before we finally go under? We are being held up by the world bank. The dollar is being protected by the world bank, to keep it as a credible currency. It wont be long, if we continue this current course, before our economy crumbles to sh*t. Its not the housing market. I work at realty one, cleaning the building. i talk with those people on a daily basis.

You know the percent of the housing market that is failing? 5 percent!!! The media is driving everything screwy, so we believe the worst. Thats so they take the focus off the war spending, and the deficit, and place the blame on the housing market, which isnt that bad off. Its spin, counter spin. Why do you think the government wants to help the people with housing problems? Because the problem isnt that big to handle. When we finally bring our boys home from Iraq, use that money to start rebuilding our economy, you watch and see how quickly things change.

I will not watch McCain build military bases in Iraq, and stay there for 100 years. It isnt our buisness to be there. The war is over, the Iraqis can govern themselves. Obama wanted a timeline, Bush didnt. Now Bush has a timeline....hmmmmm? Obama has been right on most everything he has stated, and McCain has been wrong.

[stecropper]

I will cast my vote for McCain because I believe America is in dire need of a strong and firm leader at this time and I believe he is much the stronger leader type candidate in this election.

I also understand some and perhaps many do not feel we are in need of a strong and firm leader that understands freedom is not free and the price needed to perserve it is worth it.

There will always be wolves and sheep type personalities in this world and that is why there will also always be a need for the sheep dog personalities too. It is OK to be a sheep but don't ever be so sheepest as to believe you do not need a sheep dog to protect you because you don't believe in wolves or you trust fully that wolves won't be wolves.

Being a sheep is OK but realize you are a sheep and thank those sheep dogs for letting you be one.

McCain will ensure we never forget the importance and need for sheep dogs.

Would he bring back the draft --- I would hope only when and if needed and pray never too late. Plus there are plenty Sheep Dogs out there to fullfill our needs so that the Sheep can continue to be Sheep.

And I trust, since there are more Sheep Dogs combined with Sheep that understand the need for and appreciate Sheep Dogs than there are Sheep that don't believe in the need for Sheep Dogs because they are comfortable with wolves not being wolves, that McCain will win in November.

There are many other issues that truly merit debating in this election but preserving our Freedom I would think should not be one of them. To me that is issue # 1 and the answer to it, in my opinion, is fairly clear.

[HardcoreLegend]

It wasnt anything that Olberman says, the woman plainly asked McCain the question and he said maam I agree with "Everything you said"

Geez people, stop spinning everything. Its in black and white!!!!

I believe its an executive order, so he does have the power to reinstate it.

EDIT* I read up on it, and yes it has to pass through congress like you said.

I just showed you the actual transcript and you still don't get it?

[meteamo]

~~~~~ Commentary ~~~~~

It's easy to make the audience believe something that wasn't the intention of the video's subject. A clip here and a clip there mixed with their own "fact" or opinion. Most of the TV News do it, most likely letting you believe they don't have enough time to air everything which they are right in some respects. I watch MSNBC and FoxNews and they both do it often enough. Whatever will be best to make their point. It's just up to the viewing audience to sort through all this crap everyone is spewing at all of us.

If you watch one TV program or read only one newspaper for news and you don't get news any other way, you will perhaps believe most of everything they say ... especially since there is no one saying otherwise. And if they show you bits and pieces here and there in order to make what they say fact or a truth, then it would be easy for them to get you slanted as much as they are. The only problem is that you may not know you are slanted but then again, ignorance is pure bliss. Before listening or reading to anything, you have to understand where they are coming from and what their bias is.

Just be thankful we don't live in one of the countries where the government actually controls all of the media (TV, newspapers, etc). It is nice to be able to have differing views.

~~~~~~~ End Commentary ~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming ...

[timay]

Because some people are blinded by their own opinion to actually see the truth, HCL.

Obama is just a trend, just like that Vote or Die crap that MTV tried to pull in an attempt to get not just Bush out of office, but all republicans. Obama is a great orator, yes, does that mean he is a great leader, no. Basically how I see Blades opinion is that if you are Republican, you are a racist with a white sheet in your closet, which in my mind is reverse racism. I am not Republican, I am an independant, but in this situation I am supporting the Republican candidate. Does this mean I am a racist? No, infact I have the same respect for every race as I would for my own.

[Kayxero]

And Palin is not a pass at the trend of female office takers? McCain is so trying to get the young and/or female Hillary voters with that. And from reading alot of polls, forums, and what ever else I can see online, it seems that many idiot Hillary voters want to go for Palin now. DESPITE the fact that Hillary gave Obama full support. I even heard callers on Cspan talking about how they would write in Hillary. This is ridiculous.

This whole election is way more of a popularity contest then any election I have ever seen. And for McCain to go with someone he has met only once before the nomination(yes look it up), and his supporters have no idea who she is. These people complain about Obama having no experience, when Palin has way less. And was a small town mayor two years ago, and is a governor of a state with no major cities. What is her views on foreign policy or war? I would like to know. Its great to see someone with WAY less experience than Obama and most voters not knowing her views and policies, being one step away from the presidency.

And same respect for other races? I wont even jump on that with past comments you have made in debate threads =P.

EDIT:

Also I have not seen much coverage, if at all, about the racist idiots who were plotting to take out Obama at the DNC earlier this week. It confuses me. I doubt anything would happen to him in office, because security would be tight as hell. But that shows you something about this country. If anything did happen it would make foreign view of America even worse. Because ALOT of people are pulling for him over seas.

[BigRog]

What would happen if from now untill the election McCain would to have say a heart attack or something that would render him not able to continue the election. Would the runner up at the Republican Primary take his place or would his newly elected running women become the presidential candidate and she would select a new vp?

[timay]

Oh really Kayxero? Do you know me in real life? Wait you don't, you don't know how I interact with people of other races, which in my mind there is nothing different except the color of skin, I don't just go out and automatically not interact with a person because they are a different color than myself, but unfortunately many people use race to condemn people, that is not me, no sir.

Going back to my prior statement, which was if Mccain wins, African Americans will be up in arms over it and possibly a race war like no other. Yes I still stand by my opinion on that, like I said before it is an unfortunate thing that many people judge a person by race and will vote for a president based on if they are black or white. Also I don't like the mentality that if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist biggot. Kayxero, going back to your statement about many people overseas rooting for Obama, yeah, I can see why, the US will become a doormat for other countries.

[meteamo]

And Palin is not a pass at the trend of female office takers? McCain is so trying to get the young and/or female Hillary voters with that. And from reading alot of polls, forums, and what ever else I can see online, it seems that many idiot Hillary voters want to go for Palin now. DESPITE the fact that Hillary gave Obama full support. I even heard callers on Cspan talking about how they would write in Hillary. This is ridiculous.

Yep, you're right but only partially. It's ridiculous to write in someone that didn't win the nomination but to say that Palin was only picked because she was a woman, that's totally disrespectful to her as a woman. It's like saying Obama was only selected because he is black. Either way you slice it, it's wrong. Obama won fair and square because of his ideas and vision for this country. Hillary supporters should realize that and go with the candidate they think best ... as long as they are running. That means no writing in Hillary. Similarly, according to McCain, Palin is the best choice because of what she can bring to the ticket not because she's a woman. You have to look at the other possible Rep. Veep choices. Included in the choices, one won't probably help because of his religious view and his lack of chemistry with McCain and another probably wouldn't appeal to most of the Republican base. Palin appeals toward the Republican base which McCain needs help wih since most Republicans didn't like the idea of McCain running to begin with. It's all about complementing the presidential selection and she does a good job just as with Biden does with Obama. I think both Presidential candidates did a good job at picking their Veep choices. I'm just amazed both parties kept their choices this secret.

This whole election is way more of a popularity contest then any election I have ever seen. And for McCain to go with someone he has met only once before the nomination(yes look it up), and his supporters have no idea who she is. These people complain about Obama having no experience, when Palin has way less. And was a small town mayor two years ago, and is a governor of a state with no major cities. What is her views on foreign policy or war? I would like to know. Its great to see someone with WAY less experience than Obama and most voters not knowing her views and policies, being one step away from the presidency.

Most elections are a popularity contest. That is why they keep track of the popular vote. And for McCain going with someone he has met only once as you say doesn't mean a thing. There's such a thing as sending your reps to meet her, a phone call and yes, the Internet. But, if anyone who is anyone has really been paying attention to anything, they would know who she was since she came into the political spotlight. Yes, people did complain about Obama having no experience. The President should have more experience than the President. Yes, the Veep is one step away from President but how do you explain Biden possibly having more experience than the person that should be making the decisions? The answer is that he'll surround himself with people that can make good decisions. If she becomes president and she doesn't have enough time to get up to speed, she'll surround herself with the same type of people that Obama would. And she has more executive experience than anyone on either side. And she does have more experience than just as mayor of a small town and a governor of Alaska. But, if you say having few years as Governor is no experience than how do you explain several years as a Senator? So, all this talk from both sides is idiotic. All four people in my opinion are bright inteligent people that can get caught up to speed quickly. Plus, look at it this way ... if someone doesn't know that much about Foreign Affairs and what's been going on ... you also know that they don't necesarily view the Affairs the same exact way as the current administration. And she has gone up against other Republicans to get where she's at. Only time will tell either way.

EDIT:

Also I have not seen much coverage, if at all, about the racist idiots who were plotting to take out Obama at the DNC earlier this week. It confuses me. I doubt anything would happen to him in office, because security would be tight as hell. But that shows you something about this country. If anything did happen it would make foreign view of America even worse. Because ALOT of people are pulling for him over seas.

What actually happened was that the cops found these drug dealers with a bunch of guns. One was a white supremicist. His buddy was caught by the cops and asked if the first guy would have a problem with having a black president. He said yes but of course he said yes. He's an idiot and doesn't like black people. That question should have been something like "do you think your friend will do something toward Obama." But, this had nothing to do with Obama .. he was just a drug dealer which by the way should be enough to lock him up. (lol) And all of these guys already have enough protection that I doubt anything would happen. But, unfortunately there are stupid people in this country that won't vote for someone because of their sex or race or religion. People should just stick to the issues instead.

BTW ... Most of my viewpoints are democratic I guess ... or so I've been told. I like Obama and Palin the most. It's too bad they don't share the same views and run on the same ticket. It can be the old verse the young. But then again, I was just discriminating against age. Ooops.

What would happen if from now untill the election McCain would to have say a heart attack or something that would render him not able to continue the election. Would the runner up at the Republican Primary take his place or would his newly elected running women become the presidential candidate and she would select a new vp?

This is interesting. I was talking about this at work the other day. If the election hasn't taken place, the runner up as you say would get the Nomination. That person can pick whomever they want for Veep and probably wouldn't select the current selection (ie: Palin). McCain's runner up was Romney. He would become the candidate and Palin may not complement Romney as much as she does McCain. I have no idea who Romney would select. But this also goes for Obama. Hillary would get the nod since she was the runner up and she would select whomever she wants. If McCain or Obama wins the Presidency and something happens to the winner (after being elected), the Veep would take over. To my understanding, until you actually get elected they would need to go to the runner up. Anyone correct me if this is incorrect.

[HardcoreLegend]

Daily Gallup:

Obama 49

McCain 41

Obama receives no 'bump' from his Thursday night speech. Expect his numbers to go down slightly tomorrow (if the Palin announcement really worked) as his best day polling so far will be dumped from Gallup's 3 day sample.

[el_jefe061]

Obama is a "trend"? Excuse me, but John McCain has gone against everything he stood for eight years ago. He no longer supports his own immigration bill. He is in the pocket of a party who discredited his family and started a rumor campaign against him in South Carolina in 2000.

I'll talk about a story I read about Cindy McCain. In 2000, a reporter for Newsweek or CNN, I can't remember which, was crying in the hotel room after losing South Carolina. George W. Bush had won in such a despicable way that Cindy could no longer take it anymore. It was a campaign run by Karl Rove and his understudies, including Steve Schmidt, who runs the campaign now.

The Bush campaign called McCain the "*** candidate". They spread rumors he had a black daughter. They called Cindy McCain a drug addict. That he fathered a child with a black prostitute. That he had gone insane after 5 years in a prison camp. These rumors were circulated through rumors, phone calls, and fliers.

Now look at this picture:

What kind of man has this done to him, only to sell out for his party's nomination? What kind of LEADER does that? Do you trust a man who will tread upon his own family's honor and his own standards, to get a party nomination? John McCain has no standards anymore. He will do ANYTHING to get the Presidency, and if that includes lying and making false promises to the American people, you can count on it. Is that "strong" leadership?

The fact remains, we do not know who John McCain is or what he stands for.

As I watch clips of John McCain, he goes from calling victory in the Iraq War "Easy", and then previous clips of him talking about the difficulty and how hard it will be to win.

"I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time"... "The American people were led to believe that this would be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us understood from the very beginning it would be a very difficult undertaking"

"Gay marriage should be allowed; I don't have a problem with that"... "I do not believe gay marriages should be legal".

Say what you want about Barack Obama's experience. Sarah Palin was Governor of Alaska for one and a half corrupt years. George W. Bush was in one of the least powerful Governor positions in the country for one term.

Barack Obama may not be a Washington dinosaur, embroiled in the politics and games of Capitol Hill like John McCain, but he is steadfast in his beliefs. He doesn't have different beliefs today than he did eight years ago. He has not sold his soul for power.

Barack Obama is not a trend, or a fad, or whatever you may like to call him. He is the American dream. No modern Presidential candidate has grown up from the humble roots that Obama has to come this close to the Presidency. He has earned his rightful place to where he is today. He isn't here by getting lucked into a spot at West Point because of his father, or by marrying a beer heiress. He earned scholarships to the finest universities in the country, and turned down high paying jobs to work on the south side of Chicago. He is in touch with America, not with the highest one percent.

Barack Obama believes in taking the troops out of harm's way. John McCain, who voted in 2003 against $1 Billion for National Reserve equipment, wants to keep them in a deadly stalemate. John McCain has voted against closing corporate tax loopholes that would give billions to the troops and veterans. John McCain has voted against minimum rest requirements for troops in between deployments, taking away time from their families. McCain was against the new G.I. bill, and didn't even bother to vote on it.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of American gave John McCain a "D" for his voting record. They gave Barack Obama a "B+". Disabled Veterans of America gave John McCain a 20% voting record, and gave Barack Obama an 80% voting record. Apparently, these veterans think Barack Obama is a stronger leader than John McCain.

I'll let you decide about whether or not John McCain cares about the American troops, or just likes to use them for photo ops. I can tell you one thing: A strong leader cares about his people. Someone who doesn't care about the troops likely will not care about the American people.

__________________________________________________________

Edit: What exactly does Sarah Palin, a woman who once asked "What exactly does the Vice President do all day", bring to the table? How is she more qualified than Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, or the like?

This is a woman who undercuts the entire argument of "experience". She has been governor of one of our least populous states for under two years. She was mayor of a town of 8,500 people. A woman who believes creationism should be taught in schools. A woman, who ran the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission overseeing drilling and development, who doesn't believe climate change is man made.

As for helping John McCain's election chances, she undercuts his best argument, brings attention to his age and health, and is completely unqualified to speak on all major issues excluding energy. She is now at the top of a sexist party who has barely accepted John McCain. I'm sure she'll pick up a few women voters, but she is not Hillary Clinton or Oprah Winfrey, two tremendous public figures who can pick up votes on the campaign trail.

[Kayxero]

Oh really Kayxero? Do you know me in real life? Wait you don't, you don't know how I interact with people of other races, which in my mind there is nothing different except the color of skin, I don't just go out and automatically not interact with a person because they are a different color than myself, but unfortunately many people use race to condemn people, that is not me, no sir.

Going back to my prior statement, which was if Mccain wins, African Americans will be up in arms over it and possibly a race war like no other. Yes I still stand by my opinion on that, like I said before it is an unfortunate thing that many people judge a person by race and will vote for a president based on if they are black or white. Also I don't like the mentality that if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist biggot. Kayxero, going back to your statement about many people overseas rooting for Obama, yeah, I can see why, the US will become a doormat for other countries.

Well if obama wins we know the racist bigots will be up in arms then. Since you seem to believe my people will be up in arms if he loses. What african americans have you been around :roll: I mean I think the former is more likely, seeing as I encounter so much race hate against him running online.

And someone tell me why is there so much racism on youtube. I cannot watch a damn Obama video without seeing someone jump on the N word in the comments. So silly, how anonymity of the internet turns media sites into racist playgrounds. You should see the AOL boards. And theres also a multitude of white power channels on the damn site. Im extra surprized at that.

[HardcoreLegend]

George Bush - 30% approval rating

John McCain - 95% voting in line with Bush (1 year, other years were less than 70%)

Congressional Democrats - 22% approval rating

Barrack Obama - 99% voting in line with Congressional Democrats (never dipped below 90%).

Change must mean 'more of the same, all but 1% of the time'.

[el_jefe061]

George Bush - 30% approval rating

John McCain - 95% voting in line with Bush (1 year, other years were less than 70%)

Congressional Democrats - 22% approval rating

Barrack Obama - 99% voting in line with Congressional Democrats (never dipped below 90%).

Change must mean 'more of the same, all but 1% of the time'.

Barack Obama is running for President, not Senate majority leader. Barack Obama's voting records include voting against going into Iraq, for the new G.I. bill, and the Energy Act of 07, an act used to help us wean ourselves off of foreign oil, providing provisions for biofuels and other alternatives.

John McCain? He voted to go to war in Iraq. He didn't even vote for or against the G.I. Bill, which he opposed (And passed 92-6). Nor did he bother to vote for or against the Energy Act of 07.

If John McCain isn't wrong on an issue, he's indifferent. Indifferent leaders are not strong.

I will not make excuses for the Democratic party leadership in Congress; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do not have the chops to take on the Republicans. However, the state of the country is not a product of the Democratic Majority (a slim one), it's a product of 6 Years of Republicans running Congress, and 8 years of George W. Bush. Our Democratic congress is collateral damage of 8 years of George Bush, Trent Lott, and the Tom Delays of Congress.

Barack Obama represents the change from a failed Presidential administration, an administration that has lead us astray, not the change from a Democratic congress that is not remotely responsible for the mess we're in today.

The fact that you're pointing out that Barack Obama has a voting record consistent of a party that is against everything the Bush administration has done over the past 8 years is borderline ridiculous. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have stated that Barack Obama also has a better voting record than John McCain. Would you rather have someone with a B+ rating 99% consistent with the Democratic congress, or a D 95% consistent with a failed administration?

Barack Obama is in line with the party that isn't responsible for the state of America today. 22% approval rating or not, it would take much more than two years of power in Congress to even begin to reverse the damage done from the Republicans.

[HardcoreLegend]

Indifferent? You mean like Barrack's record of voting 'present' a majority of the time? He either votes that he showed up but has no opinion or in lock-step with the disliked Congressional majority.

He's not change. He's just all the same in a more photogenic package.

[bhiggy1961]

Barack Obama is running for President, not Senate majority leader. Barack Obama's voting records include voting against going into Iraq, for the new G.I. bill, and the Energy Act of 07, an act used to help us wean ourselves off of foreign oil, providing provisions for biofuels and other alternatives.

Obama wasn't in the senate yet when the vote was cast wheter or not to go into Iraq. For the record Biden voted for the war. As for the Energy Act it was more liberal bs basically saying oil is bad for us.

John McCain? He voted to go to war in Iraq. He didn't even vote for or against the G.I. Bill, which he opposed (And passed 92-6). Nor did he bother to vote for or against the Energy Act of 07.

Yep he voted for the war, along with Biden and many other senators.

If John McCain isn't wrong on an issue, he's indifferent. Indifferent leaders are not strong.

McCain has been wrong a few times. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy bills etc.

I will not make excuses for the Democratic party leadership in Congress; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do not have the chops to take on the Republicans. However, the state of the country is not a product of the Democratic Majority (a slim one), it's a product of 6 Years of Republicans running Congress, and 8 years of George W. Bush. Our Democratic congress is collateral damage of 8 years of George Bush, Trent Lott, and the Tom Delays of Congress.

IMO the country was run well until the democrats got elected to congress 2 years ago. Unemployment hit all time low, market hit all time high, etc. Then 2 years ago things started declining.

Barack Obama represents the change from a failed Presidential administration, an administration that has lead us astray, not the change from a Democratic congress that is not remotely responsible for the mess we're in today.

Barack Hussein Obama represents old failed liberal politics of the past, Mondale, Carter, Dukakis, etc. In fact he is farther to the left than even those.

The fact that you're pointing out that Barack Obama has a voting record consistent of a party that is against everything the Bush administration has done over the past 8 years is borderline ridiculous. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have stated that Barack Obama also has a better voting record than John McCain. Would you rather have someone with a B+ rating 99% consistent with the Democratic congress, or a D 95% consistent with a failed administration?

See above it really isn't a failed administration. Until 2 years ago it was one of the better administrations in modern times. Almost comparable to the Reagan years.

Barack Obama is in line with the party that isn't responsible for the state of America today. 22% approval rating or not, it would take much more than two years of power in Congress to even begin to reverse the damage done from the Republicans.

[Sean O]

Indifferent? You mean like Barrack's record of voting 'present' a majority of the time? He either votes that he showed up but has no opinion or in lock-step with the disliked Congressional majority.

He's not change. He's just all the same in a more photogenic package.

Mccain hasn't cast a vote since March 14th. He also only campaigns 5 days a week, with limited schedules on most days, so he should have had time for at least a few, like the GI Bill (which he opposed).

[Sean O]

IMO the country was run well until the democrats got elected to congress 2 years ago. Unemployment hit all time low, market hit all time high, etc. Then 2 years ago things started declining.

Hah! Bush ignored warnings about an impending terrorist attack on US soil, and didn't even meet with anti-terrorism leaders prior to 9/11. He then launched an invasion of Afghanistan that was ignored when we decided we wanted to invade Iraq on false pretenses. Our absolutely cluelessness in Iraq led to a civil war and no WMDs, while the price tag skyrocketed. In this time, we obliterated civil and privacy rights by suspending habeus corpus and the ban on torture that George Washington himself supported, while the dollar steadily collapsed versus the Euro and Asian markets. Then, Bush's hand selected director of FEMA, whose only experience was running horse shows, let New Orleans drown with no supplies reaching in adequate time. The levys were also unprepared for a direct hurricane strike (which are strengthened by Bush's deregulation of pollution standards), even though money was requested by the Army Corps of Engineers for their renovation. Then, the same deregulation of the mortgage industry led to a subprime crisis that plunged the nation into a recession and led to hundreds of thousands of people losing their homes. This is different from the massive corruption scandals of Enron and Worldcom which cost thousands their life savings. Meanwhile, we've borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Saudis and China to referee a civil war in Iraq while the Taliban regains strength in Afghanistan.

End result: the entire world hates us, the dollar's in the toilet, people have no homes or savings, we have zero energy independence, and we're still burning money in Iraq.

[bhiggy1961]

Hah! Bush ignored warnings about an impending terrorist attack on US soil, and didn't even meet with anti-terrorism leaders prior to 9/11. He then launched an invasion of Afghanistan that was ignored when we decided we wanted to invade Iraq on false pretenses. Our absolutely cluelessness in Iraq led to a civil war and no WMDs, while the price tag skyrocketed. In this time, we obliterated civil and privacy rights by suspending habeus corpus and the ban on torture that George Washington himself supported, while the dollar steadily collapsed versus the Euro and Asian markets. Then, Bush's hand selected director of FEMA, whose only experience was running horse shows, let New Orleans drown with no supplies reaching in adequate time. The levys were also unprepared for a direct hurricane strike (which are strengthened by Bush's deregulation of pollution standards), even though money was requested by the Army Corps of Engineers for their renovation. Then, the same deregulation of the mortgage industry led to a subprime crisis that plunged the nation into a recession and led to hundreds of thousands of people losing their homes. This is different from the massive corruption scandals of Enron and Worldcom which cost thousands their life savings. Meanwhile, we've borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Saudis and China to referee a civil war in Iraq while the Taliban regains strength in Afghanistan.

End result: the entire world hates us, the dollar's in the toilet, people have no homes or savings, we have zero energy independence, and we're still burning money in Iraq.

Bush ignored warning? I believe it was Clinton who ignored warnings along with (like a typical liberal) cut defense. Perhaps if Clinton would have taken Bin Laden when he was offered,not once but twice, 911 wouldn't have happened. Everything you are whining about here is typical from a liberal. Blame the government for everything that goes wrong. If the people would have evacuated as they were told, Katrina wouldn't have been that big of a deal. I actually even heard one of the left wing loons (perhaps it was Ted Kennedy) at the convention state that health care is a right. Health care along with food or shelter should never be a right, instead it is something that is earned. People just need to step up and take responsibilty for themselves instead of expecting the government to hold their hand and make sure they are ok.

[BigRog]

Bush ignored warning? I believe it was Clinton who ignored warnings along with (like a typical liberal) cut defense. Perhaps if Clinton would have taken Bin Laden when he was offered,not once but twice, 911 wouldn't have happened. Everything you are whining about here is typical from a liberal. Blame the government for everything that goes wrong. If the people would have evacuated as they were told, Katrina wouldn't have been that big of a deal. I actually even heard one of the left wing loons (perhaps it was Ted Kennedy) at the convention state that health care is a right. Health care along with food or shelter should never be a right, instead it is something that is earned. People just need to step up and take responsibilty for themselves instead of expecting the government to hold their hand and make sure they are ok.

Even if they did evacuate their homes, they would have still been obliterated and the citizens of New Orleans would have been left with little to nothing to go back to. So it still falls on the government's lack of help to help Katrina victims.

[BigRog]

Bush ignored warning? I believe it was Clinton who ignored warnings along with (like a typical liberal) cut defense. Perhaps if Clinton would have taken Bin Laden when he was offered,not once but twice, 911 wouldn't have happened. Everything you are whining about here is typical from a liberal. Blame the government for everything that goes wrong. If the people would have evacuated as they were told, Katrina wouldn't have been that big of a deal. I actually even heard one of the left wing loons (perhaps it was Ted Kennedy) at the convention state that health care is a right. Health care along with food or shelter should never be a right, instead it is something that is earned. People just need to step up and take responsibilty for themselves instead of expecting the government to hold their hand and make sure they are ok.

9/11 is in no way Clinton's fault and if you still want to think so, Why the hell didn't anyone blame your conservative buddy George senior for the 1993 terrorist attack because he left office 6 weeks before the attack. If Clinton is to blame for 9/11 then George is to blame for 93.

And to say Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism, let me list some things for you that Clinton did.

Beginning on Aug. 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's network that carried through his final days in office.

• In addition to a secret "finding" to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.

• The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.

• Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.

• The CIA's directorate of operations recruited, trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden's forces, but they inflicted no verified damage.

• Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios.

The lines Clinton opted not to cross continued to define U.S. policy in his successor's first eight months. Clinton stopped short of using more decisive military instruments, including U.S. ground forces, and declined to expand the reach of the war to the Taliban regime that hosted bin Laden and his fighters after 1996.

Not until the catastrophe of Sept. 11 -- when terrorists used hijacked airliners to destroy the World Trade Center and damage the Pentagon -- did President Bush obliterate those boundaries…

And you say he refused Bin Laden, read this

The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.

Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture…

[RaptorQuiz]

Even if they did evacuate their homes, they would have still been obliterated and the citizens of New Orleans would have been left with little to nothing to go back to. So it still falls on the government's lack of help to help Katrina victims.

Wait.

You're saying, if my house gets destroyed by a natural disaster... and I don't have insurance that covers it...

...it's the government's responsibility to replace my stuff?

THIS IS AMAZING NEWS!

Can the government fix everything that goes wrong in my life???

Geez. I understand (as should all) that FEMA and other organization's reaction-time to Katrina was atrocious, and things coulda-woulda-shoulda been better.

HOWEVER - this idea that if bad stuff happens in your life, the government should just magically fix it...

...uh... why? Personal responsibility.

"Mandatory evacuation" = Leave, or don't expect help.

As for personal property damage - that's exactly what it is. Damage to your personal property. If you don't like it - buy insurance to cover it. If you can't afford it, or it's not available - move some place that there aren't hurricanes.

I choose to live in MO, in "Tornado Alley." If I lose property to a tornado - that's something I am prepared to deal with, as a side effect of living here.

Same goes for earthquakes and massive fires in California.

Same goes for Hurricanes in LA and other southern states.

[Sean O]

Can the government fix everything that goes wrong in my life???

The government bailed out the banks during S&L. The government bailed out Bear Stearns. The only thing the government doesn't bail out are citizens.

It's not about earning something vs. having something handed to you, it's about a government not giving breaks to corporations at the expense of the citizenry.

The government has done nothing to curtail the rise of an insane and negligent health care system that penalizes those who have insurance. The government has done nothing to promote alternative fuels for decades, and in fact recently gave tax breaks to anyone purchasing the largest fuel-consuming vehicles. The government has deregulated industry which led to the aforementioned S&L and subprime mortgage crisis, along with increased pollution and illegal actions like Enron's.

It's about creating a situation where people can succeed and be taken care of without giving all the breaks to corporations. There is no excuse for a company like Wal Mart ignoring repeated OSHA violations while still raking in billions of taxpayer dollars. No HMO collecting thousands in health care dues should find petty excuses to provide life-saving care.

And, I should mention that in this post I've discussed the issues, rather than relying on petty passive-aggressive attacks/stereotypes like "typical liberal." Debate me and not some meaningless category, because you aren't looking too bright so far.

As for personal property damage - that's exactly what it is. Damage to your personal property. If you don't like it - buy insurance to cover it. If you can't afford it, or it's not available - move some place that there aren't hurricanes.

And what if you live in MO, have insurance that covers Tornadoes, and they refuse to reimburse you because of some unavoidable technicality? You've paid for your insurance, but the company simply denies your claim. Do you want a government so enamored with deregulation that you have nowhere to turn?

If the Bush or Clinton administrations had done anything to curb the predatory practices of HMOs then Universal Health Care wouldn't be a necessity. But good people who work hard and have health care are still being denied, and that is ridiculous. I don't believe anyone should get a handout since I've worked damn hard all my life, but we should at least get a fair chance.