Is the country better off from 4 years ago?
- Thread starter Todd33
- Start date
1) lower
2) about the same
3) total waste of money and lives
4) much better
5) about the same.
These are asking for our views, right?
2) about the same
3) total waste of money and lives
4) much better
5) about the same.
These are asking for our views, right?
1) We're still #1
2) Hard to tell
3) What about it?
4) Economy sucks but now i have a job sorta, so a wash
5) Looks the same
=Hard to tell.
2) Hard to tell
3) What about it?
4) Economy sucks but now i have a job sorta, so a wash
5) Looks the same
=Hard to tell.
1) Don't much care
2) Marginally
3) Iraq: Time will tell. Afghanistan: Success phase 1, time will tell
4) Economy: Compared to 4 years ago, it is doing very well. My job: going great. Looking for the "next big thing"
5) The Environment: as long as population grows, we'll continue gobbling up and poisoning the environment. We could do much better.
2) Marginally
3) Iraq: Time will tell. Afghanistan: Success phase 1, time will tell
4) Economy: Compared to 4 years ago, it is doing very well. My job: going great. Looking for the "next big thing"
5) The Environment: as long as population grows, we'll continue gobbling up and poisoning the environment. We could do much better.
1. We are the 900 lb. gorilla, but more people dislike us more, including, or more important, ESPECIALLY those we consider as friends and allies.
2. In some ways, yes, because we have finally taken steps to prevent threats that were known years ago. In some ways, no, because our enemies have grown in number and in the level of their hatred, while our friends are less motivated to work with us to stop them. We are also worse off because our ventures in Iraq have left our military and emergency capabilities stretched far too thin to guarantee we are able to handle any future attack. (Relates to #3.)
3. Two seperate questions with a three part answer.
5. You can't seriously talk about evironmental protection and the Bush administration in the same breath. Bush has placed the most hostile, malevolent anti-environmental industrial lobbyists in the most sensitive positions of government charged with environmental protection. Bush is about as brain dead as any person who has ever held the office. He is more interested in "faith based" answers than in hard scientific evidence of anything that doesn't agree with his agenda.
Bottom line -- From any standpoint, the Bush administration is possibly the worst administration in the last century or longer.
2. In some ways, yes, because we have finally taken steps to prevent threats that were known years ago. In some ways, no, because our enemies have grown in number and in the level of their hatred, while our friends are less motivated to work with us to stop them. We are also worse off because our ventures in Iraq have left our military and emergency capabilities stretched far too thin to guarantee we are able to handle any future attack. (Relates to #3.)
3. Two seperate questions with a three part answer.
- We were absolutely right to go into Afghanistan after the Al Quaeda and the Taliban. They hit us hard, and 9/11 was not the first blow they struck. The concensus of the world was with us.
- We were absolutely wrong to go into Iraq. We did so based on lies, bad information, misinformation, disinformation and more lies. Bush started an elective war, and his administration was completely unprepared for the foreseeable aftermath.
- Iraq has gobbled up so much of our military capacity that we have had to cut back out correct actions in Afghanistan to the point where the Taliban is regrouping, and the drug thugs are gaining more power every day.
5. You can't seriously talk about evironmental protection and the Bush administration in the same breath. Bush has placed the most hostile, malevolent anti-environmental industrial lobbyists in the most sensitive positions of government charged with environmental protection. Bush is about as brain dead as any person who has ever held the office. He is more interested in "faith based" answers than in hard scientific evidence of anything that doesn't agree with his agenda.
Bottom line -- From any standpoint, the Bush administration is possibly the worst administration in the last century or longer.
Originally posted by: Harvey
1. We are the 900 lb. gorilla, but more people dislike us more, including, or more important, ESPECIALLY those we consider as friends and allies.
2. In some ways, yes, because we have finally taken steps to prevent threats that were known years ago. In some ways, no, because our enemies have grown in number and in the level of their hatred, while our friends are less motivated to work with us to stop them. We are also worse off because our ventures in Iraq have left our military and emergency capabilities stretched far too thin to guarantee we are able to handle any future attack. (Relates to #3.)
3. Two seperate questions with a three part answer.4. I'll defer to a conservative like CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has made it his personal mission to publicize the squandering of Amercan jobs to outsourcing. The jobs that have replaced them are in large part lower paying service sector jobs. Flipping burgers and asking if there will be fries with that are insufficient to someone who was previously a well paid, highly skilled employee. My personal work situation truly sucks.
- We were absolutely right to go into Afghanistan after the Al Quaeda and the Taliban. They hit us hard, and 9/11 was not the first blow they struck. The concensus of the world was with us.
- We were absolutely wrong to go into Iraq. We did so based on lies, bad information, misinformation, disinformation and more lies. Bush started an elective war, and his administration was completely unprepared for the foreseeable aftermath.
- Iraq has gobbled up so much of our military capacity that we have had to cut back out correct actions in Afghanistan to the point where the Taliban is regrouping, and the drug thugs are gaining more power every day.
5. You can't seriously talk about evironmental protection and the Bush administration in the same breath. Bush has placed the most hostile, malevolent anti-environmental industrial lobbyists in the most sensitive positions of government charged with environmental protection. Bush is about as brain dead as any person who has ever held the office. He is more interested in "faith based" answers than in hard scientific evidence of anything that doesn't agree with his agenda.
Bottom line -- From any standpoint, the Bush administration is possibly the worst administration in the last century or longer.
Agreed.
1. Our standing? Fallen.
2. Are we safer? Not at all. The threat is greater.
3. Iraq? Shameful fiasco driven by lies and megalomania.
. . Afghanistan? Neglected
4. The economy? Struggling. Dim outlook for the future of the working class.
5. The environment? Under siege.
2. Are we safer? Not at all. The threat is greater.
3. Iraq? Shameful fiasco driven by lies and megalomania.
. . Afghanistan? Neglected
4. The economy? Struggling. Dim outlook for the future of the working class.
5. The environment? Under siege.
Originally posted by: Harvey
1. We are the 900 lb. gorilla, but more people dislike us more, including, or more important, ESPECIALLY those we consider as friends and allies.
2. In some ways, yes, because we have finally taken steps to prevent threats that were known years ago. In some ways, no, because our enemies have grown in number and in the level of their hatred, while our friends are less motivated to work with us to stop them. We are also worse off because our ventures in Iraq have left our military and emergency capabilities stretched far too thin to guarantee we are able to handle any future attack. (Relates to #3.)
3. Two seperate questions with a three part answer.4. I'll defer to a conservative like CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has made it his personal mission to publicize the squandering of Amercan jobs to outsourcing. The jobs that have replaced them are in large part lower paying service sector jobs. Flipping burgers and asking if there will be fries with that are insufficient to someone who was previously a well paid, highly skilled employee. My personal work situation truly sucks.
- We were absolutely right to go into Afghanistan after the Al Quaeda and the Taliban. They hit us hard, and 9/11 was not the first blow they struck. The concensus of the world was with us.
- We were absolutely wrong to go into Iraq. We did so based on lies, bad information, misinformation, disinformation and more lies. Bush started an elective war, and his administration was completely unprepared for the foreseeable aftermath.
- Iraq has gobbled up so much of our military capacity that we have had to cut back out correct actions in Afghanistan to the point where the Taliban is regrouping, and the drug thugs are gaining more power every day.
5. You can't seriously talk about evironmental protection and the Bush administration in the same breath. Bush has placed the most hostile, malevolent anti-environmental industrial lobbyists in the most sensitive positions of government charged with environmental protection. Bush is about as brain dead as any person who has ever held the office. He is more interested in "faith based" answers than in hard scientific evidence of anything that doesn't agree with his agenda.
Bottom line -- From any standpoint, the Bush administration is possibly the worst administration in the last century or longer.
Bravo...very well stated, sir!
Originally posted by: Harvey
1. We are the 900 lb. gorilla, but more people dislike us more, including, or more important, ESPECIALLY those we consider as friends and allies.
2. In some ways, yes, because we have finally taken steps to prevent threats that were known years ago. In some ways, no, because our enemies have grown in number and in the level of their hatred, while our friends are less motivated to work with us to stop them. We are also worse off because our ventures in Iraq have left our military and emergency capabilities stretched far too thin to guarantee we are able to handle any future attack. (Relates to #3.)
3. Two seperate questions with a three part answer.4. I'll defer to a conservative like CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has made it his personal mission to publicize the squandering of Amercan jobs to outsourcing. The jobs that have replaced them are in large part lower paying service sector jobs. Flipping burgers and asking if there will be fries with that are insufficient to someone who was previously a well paid, highly skilled employee. My personal work situation truly sucks.
- We were absolutely right to go into Afghanistan after the Al Quaeda and the Taliban. They hit us hard, and 9/11 was not the first blow they struck. The concensus of the world was with us.
- We were absolutely wrong to go into Iraq. We did so based on lies, bad information, misinformation, disinformation and more lies. Bush started an elective war, and his administration was completely unprepared for the foreseeable aftermath.
- Iraq has gobbled up so much of our military capacity that we have had to cut back out correct actions in Afghanistan to the point where the Taliban is regrouping, and the drug thugs are gaining more power every day.
5. You can't seriously talk about evironmental protection and the Bush administration in the same breath. Bush has placed the most hostile, malevolent anti-environmental industrial lobbyists in the most sensitive positions of government charged with environmental protection. Bush is about as brain dead as any person who has ever held the office. He is more interested in "faith based" answers than in hard scientific evidence of anything that doesn't agree with his agenda.
Bottom line -- From any standpoint, the Bush administration is possibly the worst administration in the last century or longer.
Bingo
Thank you, Harvey. You left out the frothing fundie Christian fringe, however, and their growing influence on policy...
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Well saidOriginally posted by: Harvey
1. We are the 900 lb. gorilla, but more people dislike us more, including, or more important, ESPECIALLY those we consider as friends and allies.
2. In some ways, yes, because we have finally taken steps to prevent threats that were known years ago. In some ways, no, because our enemies have grown in number and in the level of their hatred, while our friends are less motivated to work with us to stop them. We are also worse off because our ventures in Iraq have left our military and emergency capabilities stretched far too thin to guarantee we are able to handle any future attack. (Relates to #3.)
3. Two seperate questions with a three part answer.4. I'll defer to a conservative like CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has made it his personal mission to publicize the squandering of Amercan jobs to outsourcing. The jobs that have replaced them are in large part lower paying service sector jobs. Flipping burgers and asking if there will be fries with that are insufficient to someone who was previously a well paid, highly skilled employee. My personal work situation truly sucks.
- We were absolutely right to go into Afghanistan after the Al Quaeda and the Taliban. They hit us hard, and 9/11 was not the first blow they struck. The concensus of the world was with us.
- We were absolutely wrong to go into Iraq. We did so based on lies, bad information, misinformation, disinformation and more lies. Bush started an elective war, and his administration was completely unprepared for the foreseeable aftermath.
- Iraq has gobbled up so much of our military capacity that we have had to cut back out correct actions in Afghanistan to the point where the Taliban is regrouping, and the drug thugs are gaining more power every day.
5. You can't seriously talk about evironmental protection and the Bush administration in the same breath. Bush has placed the most hostile, malevolent anti-environmental industrial lobbyists in the most sensitive positions of government charged with environmental protection. Bush is about as brain dead as any person who has ever held the office. He is more interested in "faith based" answers than in hard scientific evidence of anything that doesn't agree with his agenda.
Bottom line -- From any standpoint, the Bush administration is possibly the worst administration in the last century or longer.
1. We have definately taken a step back.
2. I think we are about the same. Maybe a little safer because we the people are more aware.
3. Tough to say. Both look like blunders at this point.
4. About the same
5. About the same
We have really taken it on the chin these last 4 years. Some of its the Bush administrations fault and some of it is juust plain ole "stuff happens". I think overall the problem has been a lack of solutions to probelms we face as a nation. The speeches have been good and the promises have sounded good, but the results have been poor. And the results have just brought about more speeches and more promises, but no answers. I think what has been really sad is the use of fear to try to make our nation support an agenda that has failed.
2. I think we are about the same. Maybe a little safer because we the people are more aware.
3. Tough to say. Both look like blunders at this point.
4. About the same
5. About the same
We have really taken it on the chin these last 4 years. Some of its the Bush administrations fault and some of it is juust plain ole "stuff happens". I think overall the problem has been a lack of solutions to probelms we face as a nation. The speeches have been good and the promises have sounded good, but the results have been poor. And the results have just brought about more speeches and more promises, but no answers. I think what has been really sad is the use of fear to try to make our nation support an agenda that has failed.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
While I agree with this 100%, I'm not sure that Kerry has as of yet presented a good enough case to elect him instead. And the neck-and-neck polling data for Bush vs. Kerry seems to lend support to this.
In case anyone's interested in trying to read the entrails of the ups and downs of the weekly poll numbers, here's a site which shows historical polling data trends, back to the 1930s... link
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
1. Much worse - as bad as it's ever been
2. We're probably somewhat less safe, though I don't see a major change.
3. Afghanistan would be a success story if we hadn't substantially abandoned it, but we have, so I'd call that one a wash. OIF is, IMO, the biggest military and foreign policy failure in US history.
4. Economy - better for the rich, somewhat worse for the rest of us. My job is the same, because I've been on AD the entire time - we'll see how things go when I leave in 4 months.
5. Environment is probably a wash, though things have opened up somewhat legislatively for polluters.
2. We're probably somewhat less safe, though I don't see a major change.
3. Afghanistan would be a success story if we hadn't substantially abandoned it, but we have, so I'd call that one a wash. OIF is, IMO, the biggest military and foreign policy failure in US history.
4. Economy - better for the rich, somewhat worse for the rest of us. My job is the same, because I've been on AD the entire time - we'll see how things go when I leave in 4 months.
5. Environment is probably a wash, though things have opened up somewhat legislatively for polluters.
1. It's irrelevant to me.
2. We certainly are. We are more focused, devoting more resources and fighting terrorism more fiercely than ever before. We could be doing more/other things but there is no question we are safer today than we were 4 years ago.
3. Iraq - was going to have to be dealt with eventually and Saddam and his two ass children were not going to go peacefully. It appears the WMD intel was bad which, as Tommy Franks put it, was a good thing for the soldier but bad for our, and many others, credibility.
Afghanistan - my question about A-stanis is, "Where is NATO?" and the others that commited to helping there. Yes, we diverted some resources for Iraq but what about the ROTW who made comitments there, especially those w/o resources in Iraq. And for those of you who think we should have 130,00 troops in A-stan, you're idiots.
4. The economy is certainly better than it was four years ago. As far as my job is concerned, I retired from the .mil in May and have a job that pays more than twice what I made on active duty ( eat sh!t mcowen).
The environment. I have no idea whether it's better or worse. How do you quantify it?
2. We certainly are. We are more focused, devoting more resources and fighting terrorism more fiercely than ever before. We could be doing more/other things but there is no question we are safer today than we were 4 years ago.
3. Iraq - was going to have to be dealt with eventually and Saddam and his two ass children were not going to go peacefully. It appears the WMD intel was bad which, as Tommy Franks put it, was a good thing for the soldier but bad for our, and many others, credibility.
Afghanistan - my question about A-stanis is, "Where is NATO?" and the others that commited to helping there. Yes, we diverted some resources for Iraq but what about the ROTW who made comitments there, especially those w/o resources in Iraq. And for those of you who think we should have 130,00 troops in A-stan, you're idiots.
4. The economy is certainly better than it was four years ago. As far as my job is concerned, I retired from the .mil in May and have a job that pays more than twice what I made on active duty ( eat sh!t mcowen).
The environment. I have no idea whether it's better or worse. How do you quantify it?
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Typically useless negative post by nick1985, contributing nothing.
Your post is interesting, though, in that this shouldn't even be a partisan topic, per se.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Originally posted by: nick1985
so tell me what your post just contributed?
Just making an observation.
What I will say, though, is that your post is interesting, in that there's nothing inherently partisan about this topic, yet you are choosing to view people's answers as "liberal" or "conservative".
I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but I don't recall you contributing much to conversation here, other than insults directed toward people you view as liberal. I've gotten to the point that I kinda overlook posts with a little witch head alongside them, because I know I won't get substance (unlike the posts of a lot of thoughtful conservatives here, like alchemize, or shinerburke). That's just my perception, however, and I may have missed some (even most) of your posts.
eplebnista
Lifer
- Dec 3, 2001
- 24,123
- 36
- 91
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 17K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter