As I said in my previous post, because of too many Democrats voting with them, they did in effect have that much power.
Name a big Republican policy that was blocked, other than their attempt to destroy Social Security?
As I said in my previous post, because of too many Democrats voting with them, they did in effect have that much power.
Name a big Republican policy that was blocked, other than their attempt to destroy Social Security?
So you're okay with them highlighting the 'pro war' evidence and ignoring/suppressing the evidence that didn't support their war plans? I hope future administrations learned from this rush to war.
The democrats voted for a resolution for the purpose of forcing Saddam to allow the inspectors back in. Bush lied to them, and kicked the inspectors out to start a war.
Agree to disagree. I'm in favor of using all of the resources available - including embryonic stem cells - to search for cures. If they're proven 100% non-viable then so be it. Until then I'll support funding their research and support the candidates that do as well.
Am I happy about it? No, but what on earth would give you the idea an administration with an agenda would be objective? The objectiveness comes from the other branches of govt to vet the information.
Heh and we wonder why the govt is bloated. Lets keep pouring resources into something that hasnt shown results worthy of those resources.
Well if an administration doesnt have an agenda for war, how the hell is a war going to be initiated?
August 04:
Last Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer yes-or-no to the question of whether he would have supported the invasion of Iraq "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
"I have given my answer. We did the right thing and the world is better off, " the president said.
In response, Kerry said, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."
Oct 03:
''I voted against that $87 billion in Washington yesterday,'' he told an audience in Waterloo, Iowa, on Saturday. ''But let me make it clear, I'm for winning the war in Iraq.''
May 03:
"But I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm [Saddam]."
Oh, and from October 2007:
The book by veteran Democratic Party strategist Robert Shrum, titled "No Excuses," paints a portrait of an often-dysfunctional Kerry presidential campaign in which senior strategists clashed with each other.
He writes that Kerry telephoned him on the eve of the Oct. 11, 2002, vote. Shrum said Kerry was skeptical of Bush's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that he "didn't trust Bush to give the diplomatic route a real chance." Nonetheless, Kerry asked Shrum whether he would "be a viable general election candidate if he was in the small minority of senators who voted no."
Shrum wrote that he told Kerry it was "impossible to predict the political fallout if we went to war." But he wrote that Jim Jordan, Kerry's former Senate press secretary and future campaign manager, "was insisting that he had to vote with Bush."
Shrum wrote that Jordan had "hammered" Kerry with a warning: "Go ahead and vote against it if you want, but you'll never be president of the United States." Kerry voted for the war resolution and Jordan became Kerry's campaign manager three months later.
Well that is your opinion, the administration has another. But that doesnt really answer my question either. How would anything get done from an administrations POV if they didnt have an agenda?
For instance, how the hell is Obama going to pass his economic plan without pushing his agenda? Why would Obama present an objective view of his economic plan?
It doesnt make any sense. That is why the legislature and judicial branches exist. To check the power of the executive and vice versa.
That's true, but it's like saying "the conditions leading to the Iraq war were caused by the policies of the Clinton administration". Sure, the factors behind any war develop long before one particular president might be in office, but the war started and escalated under their watch, just like the Iraq war started under Bush's watch.
Funny, that's exactly what you do each time when you assert that the republicans do bad things and democrats do wonderful things. You pick out things you do and don't like, but fail to acknowledge that at various times both parties have done their share of dumb things. I might agree more often with one party's stance than another, but I also realize that no party has a monopoly on good or bad actions. Anyone who does not understand that fundamental reality is a party zealot who is simply to blinded by their dislike of the other party to see the reality.
I'm not arguing about parties, I know both parties do good and bad things. That's why I don't want either party to have complete control. Lets face it, each party only represents (or rather resembles) the views of a portion of the population. Only a zealot can sit there and determine that 50% of the country holds an opinion not worthy of being represented in the government. That's what absolute control would do, in effect completely eliminate the representation of the views of 47% of the voting public.
Sadly, your partisan views distort everything to the point where you can't even consider an objective view of history. No discussion of history is worth it when someone can't even realize that they see the word through their own biased prism.
Agreed 100%. I don't want ideology to trump reality, and that's exactly what happened in the Bush administration. Don't like what nasa scientists have to say about global warming? Silence them or edit their reports. Don't like what fda advisory panels say about something? Ignore it and sweep it under the rug. Etc etc.
Public policy should be based on reason, not ideology.
That makes a lot of sense. Something that is clearly showing little signs of being fruitful and you want to plow govt resources into it. What was it you were saying about ideology trumping reason and reality?
Lets not cast stones in our glass house eh?
Well, the administration was wrong and it was a HUGE blunder costing lives, money, public opinion, etc. There's a big difference between pushing an economic agenda and rushing into a major war though.
No, you're confused. There's no ideological reason behind it, I'm for spending the money in whatever way is more likely to produce the desired results. If the embryonic cells are the way to go -- fine. If not, fine. I'm for whatever the best way is to produce results, regardless of ideology.
But there is no difference in how they accomplish their goals. An administration is going to have an agenda. The legislature is responsible in checking that agenda.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
In terms of an agenda, a bad agenda will always fail, and early warning of that failure should not be ignored. Basically what happened to much of GWB"s economic plan. GWB&co should have been reading the tea leaves of failure and did not. Hence little problems now become huge problems.
A "good agenda", something wise and prudent, is somewhat more complex. Because even a good agenda will fail without proper implementation. If if one is so crazy as to think the Iraqi occupation was good policy, the failure of the Iraqi policy must be mainly laid to terrible implementation. Going way to small and cheap on troop numbers and with no hit the ground running with rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure made it almost inevitable that Iraq would fragment into a large number of separate insurgencies.
A "good agenda", something wise and prudent, is somewhat more complex. Because even a good agenda will fail without proper implementation. If if one is so crazy as to think the Iraqi occupation was good policy, the failure of the Iraqi policy must be mainly laid to terrible implementation. Going way to small and cheap on troop numbers and with no hit the ground running with rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure made it almost inevitable that Iraq would fragment into a large number of separate insurgencies.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter