|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
12-13-2006, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And with regard to politicians in this country, I think is totally ridiculous to bash one party. I think that most of the Democrtas in office are very similar to most of the Republicans in office. I don't think it makes a big difference whether Joe Biden is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee as compared to Orrin Hatch or whoever. They're both smart guys and their views are a lot more similar than different. As I said in another post, the new House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes(D) wants to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq. It doesn't make a difference whether this guy is a Democrat or Republican. There is very little difference between the two parties. Most of these guys from both sides of the aisles are fairly capable individuals who are just trying to make a good decision. I have no idea if it would be a good idea to send 30,000 more troops or not. But if we do it and it doesn't work out, I wouldn't bash this guy. He's just trying to do what is best. Whether the decision turns out to be right or wrong, I wouldn't blame Reyes because I know he is a bright guy that is using his best judgement. That's all I can ask for. I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled. They thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. They were a very bright team that used their best judgement. In hindsight, it looks like they made a bad decision. I'm not going to bash them for it though. If we had done nothing and then Saddam ended up with nuclear weapons in 10 years from now and he used them, we'd be asking why we didn't take him out when we could have back in 2001. 
|
|
#2
12-13-2006, 10:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
12-14-2006, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is well respected on both sides of the aisle. He was just confrimed by a vote of 95-2. You would have to say the same thing for both Cheney and Rumsfeld at the beginning of the Administration. Both of these guys had great reputations of being extremely sharp and capable guys. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush senior back in the 1980s. He was consdiered to have done an excellent job. I believe Rumsfeld was the Sec of Defense under Ford. I don't remember what the vote was in confirming Rumsfeld but I would guess that it was quite one-sided. So to answer your question of according to who, I would say according to their peers on both sides of the aisle. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 12-14-2006 at 12:08 AM.
|
|
#4
12-14-2006, 02:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled. Baker IS an extremely capable man. Unfortunately, Baker was not apart of this all star foreign policy team that you were referring too. He entered the picture after the damage had already been done and despite being urged, Bush never put him in in place of Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld had a reputation for being extremely smart and capable? Are you joking? He had a reputation for being with the Carlyle group for 20 years. LOL. Rumsfeld pissed off many from the minute he walked through the door of this administration. Cheney? You mean the twice convicted Drunk driver? Or the guy that had FIVE draft deferments? He had an agenda and that he was capable only of war and NOT of diplomacy of any kind. Again, capable in the eyes of whom? Colin Powell? He was a tremendous failure and completely unqualified for the job. His asset was his popularity within our country and that doesnt help too much in dealings abroad. What is the common denominator? All these men had defense backgrounds. And this is what you call one of the finest foreign policy teams ever assembled? The agenda was war and that was all these guys were good for. and as it turns out, they werent very good at that.
|
|
#5
12-14-2006, 02:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
By the way, what was the confirmation vote on Rumsfeld when Bush named him as sec of Defense? I don't think there was much opposition to him. I don't know if you are aware how successful Rumsfeld has been in the private sector. He was brought in as CEO at a few different companies that were not doing well. He totally turned these companies around. He couldn't be any more successful. I believe he's worth well over $100 million. If you don't think he's an extremely bright guy, you are kidding yourself. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 12-14-2006 at 03:44 AM.
|
|
#6
12-19-2006, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When he took over as CEO at Searle, they were $28 million in the red. When he left 4 year later, they were $128 million in the black. Searle is a pharmaceutical company known for products such as Dramamine, Metamucil, and an early birth control pill. He left Searle and became Chairman and CEO of General Instruments, where he did an amazing job. General Instruments is a leader in broadband transmissions, distributions, and access control technologies. After leaving General Instruments, he became Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, which is a huge pharmaceutical company. Rumsfeld was incredibly successful everywhere he went. He was regarded as a guy who could go into a company and turn things around in a relatively quick time. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 12-19-2006 at 10:46 PM.
|
|
#7
12-20-2006, 02:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Remember Searle also put out Nutrasweet. I wonder how much impact THAT had on the bottom line. And i wonder how he got that by the FDA. HMMMMMM. How about his dealings with North Korea later. Or Sadaam earlier? HMMMM. Does anyone else realize that BOTH times he was the Sec of Defense that neither of the presidents he served were elected by popular vote? HMMMMM.
|
|
#8
12-19-2006, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
UCLA has consistently ranked in the top 25 universities in the country. You say that I don't understand politics. What is it about politics that you think I don't understand? Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 12-19-2006 at 11:27 PM.
|
|
#9
12-19-2006, 11:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
12-20-2006, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
By the way, it was obvious that you knew nothing about Rumsfeld. You came on here and inferred that he made his money in some type of sinister manner, when in fact he made practically all of his money at General Instuments and Gilead Sciences. Maybe you or Dalakhani can tell me what is wrong with being the CEO at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences.
|
|
#11
12-20-2006, 08:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
12-20-2006, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Even the liberal mainstream media touted them as one of the best foreign policy teams ever assembled. What more could you look for in people's resumes? If these people didn't have strong resumes, then I'd like to know who does. We're not debating ideology. We're talking about people's qualifications. How could someone have been more qualified than Rumsfeld? The guy's resume is incredible. And Cheney was a huge success as Sec Defense in the first Gulf War. Powell was a huge success as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the first Gulf War. Who would have been more qualified for the jobs than these people? Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 12-20-2006 at 09:02 PM.
|
|
#13
12-20-2006, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
12-20-2006, 08:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#15
12-20-2006, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 12-20-2006 at 08:38 PM.
|
|
#16
12-20-2006, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Here is a website that is very crtitical of Gates and even they say that the vote was very meaningful. Here is their quote: "Not since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq’s WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who is almost universally praised for his intelligence, experience and down-to-earth style." The rest of the article is not so glowing, but they admit that the praise for Gates was bi-partisan. Here is the entire article: http://consortiumnews.com/2006/113006.html Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 12-20-2006 at 10:04 PM.
|
|
#17
12-20-2006, 10:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
"Not since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq’s WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who is almost universally praised for his intelligence, experience and down-to-earth style."
|
|
#18
12-20-2006, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As I have said before, for the most part politics is a big game. There is not that big a difference between the two parties. Most of the people in the Senate are multi-millionaires that have much more in common with each other than they have with you or me. Their votes are pretty much for sale to the highest bidder. The truth of the matter is that many of these senators in both parties are total hypocrites. Let's take Nancy Peolsi for example. She claims to be a real liberal that supports unions. But in real life, she owns a $25 million vineyard that is a non-union shop. She also owns a large stake in a ritzy hotel that has 250 employees, but once again it is strictly a non-union shop. This type of thing is typical with politicians in both parties.
|
|
#20
12-20-2006, 11:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
I absolutely agree with you about some very poorly adjusted people displacing their anger onto other people. Mildred D Taylor put it well in "Roll of Thunder, Here My Cry" when one of her characters said something to the effect that people who have nothing still want to feel like they're better than someone else.
Hybrid Mode
