Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 140
  1. #21  
    Larry Craig? He came to my state and tried to have sex with a male police officer in the Minneapolis Airport bathroom. If he's the canidate, good luck republicans!
  2. Tedcas's Avatar
    Posts
    271 Posts
    Global Posts
    281 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'm thinking Vitter/Ensign. Unless Larry Craig decides to throw his shoe under the divider. But of course, the real power would indeed be the Bachman/Palin ticket. Hear me roar indeed.
    And I thought you'd lean Creationist and go with Jindal/Huckabee. I would like to discuss, in detail, Vitter's diaper/hooker fetish. Begin....
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tedcas View Post
    And I thought you'd lean Creationist and go with Jindal/Huckabee. I would like to discuss, in detail, Vitter's diaper/hooker fetish. Begin....
    I apologize in advance. I just can't help myself.....

    Famed PAMPERS POLITICIAN Senator Vitter believes that boatloads of GIANT PAMPERS can be used to help soak up the BP MEGA DISASTER oil spill. Any similarity of this situation with that of his preferences for attire during visits from his infamous PAID PROSTITUTE are purely coincidental.
  4. #24  
    You know davidra.....you've been rather quiet about the democrat party electing a no name here in SC to go against DeMint. Strange you would have no opinion on this. I wonder if this guy had been a Republican candidate, if maybe you would have had a little more to say about it. I'll go out on a limb and say you would have had a new Topic about it had it been a Republican. What say you? Also, I gotta think if the Republican party had then gone to that black candidate and tried to talk him out of running, you would have been throwing the race card out there. Odd....not one thing said about that either. But really, this once again shows how you have 2 standards....one for democrats and one for Republicans. Shouldn't you be criticizing the democrat party for trying to talk the black candidate into dropping from the race and letting the white candidate take his place?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by dianehelen View Post
    Just a little pie chart, I like to call...

    ... and the Historians say...




    And **** Cheney IS awefully quiet, wonder if he is busy planning the Haliburton Holiday party
    Not to defend the Bush Presidency too much (how could you ), but Historians do not judge current events. This chart is anecdotal junk "history" at best. Any historian that judges current events isn't being academically honest - they are comparing administrations through the lens of today's thought, i.e. comparing two different time periods using the values and thought processes of only one of those time periods. In other words comparing historical apples to the current day's oranges.

    Historian's can't evaluate history based on events from just 2 years ago as there simply isn't any context of future impacts of policies. Sure there isn't exactly overwhelming evidence that things will be "bright" in the future but 2 years isn't enough time to say with any kind of "pretty sure" attitude never mind certainty what will happen globally as a consequence of the Bush Administration, or for that matter the Obama Administration. For that same reason Historians shouldn't be evaluating the current Administrations either.

    In this case The History Channel is really acting as "The Politics Channel".
    Last edited by solarus; 06/14/2010 at 08:41 AM.
  6. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    The low points of the past decade have been some of the worst and most humiliating to any proud American in our history. I trust that most rational historians are able to place the last decade into historical context pretty accurately, all politics aside.
    Compared to what though? You can't put proper context around a decade with no view as to the long term consequences for the decade. You can guess, even very well educated guesses as to the long term consequences, but in the end they are still guesses. Yes it will always be regarded as tumultuous but at what cost or benefit will not be decided for some time to come.

    Don't laugh b/c I'm only using this to illustrate a point - what if 40 years from now, Iraq is a model of democracy in the Middle East that helps stabilize the region.

    OK I know...here's a better example...

    The Revolutionary War here, which was not supported by any where near the majority of the population at the time, was extremely tumultuous and pitted neighbors against neighbors in regards to their support, yet it is now regarded as one of defining periods of the 18th century, not just for Americans but for the world as a whole.

    Defining the last 10 years as the low points may be accurate today, but that doesn't mean squat. Popularity cannot dictate how events and policies will impact the future of a country or the world as a whole.

    Just for coolness factor, read "The War of 1812: A FORGOTTEN CONFLICT" The correlation between the aggressive (extremely so back then) partisan politics of the day and their views of a possible war with Britain is eerily similar to what we went through in the lead-up to the Iraq War.
    Last edited by solarus; 06/14/2010 at 10:22 AM.
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    You know davidra.....you've been rather quiet about the democrat party electing a no name here in SC to go against DeMint. Strange you would have no opinion on this. I wonder if this guy had been a Republican candidate, if maybe you would have had a little more to say about it. I'll go out on a limb and say you would have had a new Topic about it had it been a Republican. What say you? Also, I gotta think if the Republican party had then gone to that black candidate and tried to talk him out of running, you would have been throwing the race card out there. Odd....not one thing said about that either. But really, this once again shows how you have 2 standards....one for democrats and one for Republicans. Shouldn't you be criticizing the democrat party for trying to talk the black candidate into dropping from the race and letting the white candidate take his place?
    For one thing I haven't heard much about it. For another, it's in South Carolina. All bets are off, regardless of party. Personally, since I have no idea about his politics or qualifications, except that he has a felony charge, the only thing I can say is that I figure he's in the right state.
  8. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    You make the gross assumption that these historians' assessment on the past decade is based upon "popularity"? That was certainly the basis for the point you were trying to make.

    Treating this historical assessment as if were some unscientific internet poll of the public is just inaccurate.
    No I didn't assume that Historians were using popularity at all. The example I used had a popularity component in it but I didn't say Historians used popularity as a measure of what they had to say about the events of 1776. I simply used that example to show that a unpopular time for many in this country turned out to have tremendous benefits. The example itself seemed to fit the topic of the Bush Administration (a unhappy time for most). It would be interesting to see what "historians" or more to accurately political scientists that were not part of the actual revolution at the time did say about the Revolutionary War though.

    The bottom line is that events of the present (and yes in historical terms 10 years ago is still "the present") cannot be evaluated from a historical perspective without a view of the effects the events being discussed had further down the road. That's simply what History is - the examination of past events and ultimately how they have effected the development of the world afterward.

    I'm not saying you can't look at the events today and make some rational points about the future and about the mess that was the Bush Administration, I'm simply saying that to do so, one is acting more as a political scientist or a studier of international relations than a historian. That's not a bad thing, just an important distinction that needs to be made.

    So when I see a chart saying historians ranks a current president as being among the worst, its hard to take that study with a lot of good faith. They may be right, G.W.B. will in all likelihood rank waaaaay up there, but I do have to question the motives of "historians" who should know better than to judge a present day event within the context of the present. Even worse was the source of the study - especially given some of the crap that passes for "history" on The History Channel.
    Last edited by solarus; 06/14/2010 at 11:04 AM.
  9. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    For one thing I haven't heard much about it. For another, it's in South Carolina. All bets are off, regardless of party. Personally, since I have no idea about his politics or qualifications, except that he has a felony charge, the only thing I can say is that I figure he's in the right state.
    Nah davidra that state would be Louisiana where to paraphrase Edwin Edwards's, the only way to lose an election is to be caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy
  10. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    What you propose is implausible as an appropriate time in which to assess history cannot be defined. Allow history to define itself as it is rather than how one wishes it to be. History is already speaking for itself and will continue to.

    Political scientists, aka talking heads, are much better at describing the machinery rather than assessing a meta-view of history.

    Still waiting to hear from Halliburton's white knight about this legacy he left behind.
    You are right in that it can't be defined by a specific number of years, but it is widely regarded that once long term effects of a period begin to exhibit themselves it reasonable to assume history, as you put so well, is "speaking for itself".

    I would argue that so far we have only seen short term effects of the Bush Administration. Its hard to pin down how the long term environmental problems we face are related to Bush only since the U.S. didn't sign on to Kyoto in the Clinton Administration. Short term the Iraq War has been a disaster, but its impossible to say with certainty what the long term effects will be for the region.

    As to the spill, from all accounts the MMS was a terribly run and industry biased bureaucracy even before President Bush was elected. I'm not sure how Cheney is at fault on this. To say so is about as ridiculous as saying President Obama is at fault for not fixing the MMS when he came into office. Both are absurd positions. I'll agree that **** Cheney, in a 99.999% liklihood didn't fix any problems at MMS but its arguable whether or not he made them worse. Appearances aren't facts.

    I would like to know though where all the uproar about no bid contracts under the Obama Administration is? KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1) - BusinessWeek
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #31  
    If this HAD happened under Bush, man the hatefest would be in full swing - hollywood geniuses would be all over the airways in protest, and davidra would be leading the charge here in these threads.

    Obama is untouchable, blameless, etc. After all, he *is* the Messiah...

    His ultimate response to this crisis is certain to be 180 degrees out from what actually should be his response. I'm guessing that certainly over-regulation is in the cards, and maybe even the taking of total control of oil companies. All in the name of soci... protecting the environment.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    For one thing I haven't heard much about it. For another, it's in South Carolina. All bets are off, regardless of party. Personally, since I have no idea about his politics or qualifications, except that he has a felony charge, the only thing I can say is that I figure he's in the right state.
    Nice dodge....but you must have been soooo disappointed it was a democrat issue and not Republican issue. If it had been a SC Republican, why your goggle finger would have been going like crazy to gather as much info as possible to make a new post regarding a "new low" in the Republican party....or something like that. But....I know your double standards prevented you from investigating further since it was a democrat. I will add....the democrats are freaking out around here about this. My guess...they are just racists.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #33  
    Speaking of closed door relationships, what ever happened to Obama's transparency? A new era of openess and accountability? That lasted all of about 10 seconds.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Wow.... To answer your question, no, there is no president school. Prior experience generally includes successfully guiding several large or multinational corporations, serving multiple legislative terms, governing a state, military experience, etc. etc. I'm still not sure if you were kidding or if you actually think incoming presidents are devoid of any beneficial and therefore qualifying prior experiences....?
    Yeah, Bush had experience, turning my home state into an environmental disaster. He put the oil companies in charge of writing environmental regulations. He started a version of "No Child Left Behind" here and our educational system is a laughing stock. And don't forget he ruined every company he ever "owned" (with daddy's help) or ran. And we don't need to mention his military experience keeping the Gulf coast safe for democracy (when he showed up). This is the kind of experiencee we want?


    I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb... and I also know that I'm not blonde. Dolly Parton
  15. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Misdirection. This is not about Cheney's relationship to MMS. This is about Cheney's closed-door relationship to Big Oil and the cost-cutting measures for the industry allowed only under his tenure.
    I'm not sure how its not about the MMS, at least in part, or how its misdirection since the MMS is directly responsible for regulating the oil & gas industry. The closed door relationships, which I'm not going to defend 'cus its wrong, doesn't mean that Bush-Cheney are responsible for cost cutting at BP or any other oil company. BP are on record saying that they were cutting costs as earnings dropped in 2008/09 and if they cut costs irresponsibly in areas such as safety (which may be suspected but surely is determined yet) then they deserve all the bad press and a strong but reasonable punishment, but so do the MMS for not regulating the industry properly.

    The US Army is the entity which awarded the no-bid contract, not congress. Congress and the Justice Dept are investigating the issue which is more than transpired before 2007.
    As was the case during the Bush Administration. Yet the uproar then is silent now.
    Last edited by solarus; 06/14/2010 at 12:25 PM.
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    If this HAD happened under Bush, man the hatefest would be in full swing - hollywood geniuses would be all over the airways in protest, and davidra would be leading the charge here in these threads.

    Obama is untouchable, blameless, etc. After all, he *is* the Messiah...

    His ultimate response to this crisis is certain to be 180 degrees out from what actually should be his response. I'm guessing that certainly over-regulation is in the cards, and maybe even the taking of total control of oil companies. All in the name of soci... protecting the environment.
    Umm...yeah, if it had happened under Bush, the situation and the history of collusion with big oil would have been the same. So what?

    Just out of curiosity, what would YOUR "ultimate response" be to this crisis? Nothing?
  17. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    MMS was bypassed by Cheney's direct closed-door deals with the industry. MMS was left on the sidelines. Nice job, right?
    MMS was not bypassed in the sense that their role in regulation changed, only in that they didn't participate and weren't invited to participate in the secret meetings. Their inspections still went forward, they still continued leasing, in essence, they continued to operate as "normal". They weren't involved in the meetings, but the content of those meetings is secret so we only have suspicion and conjecture - therein lies the problem? Not having transparency is inherently bad, even if nothing untoward actually happened, b/c nobody knows.

    What was in the secret deals - you don't know, neither do I. However, if the MMS continued to operate as "normal", during the administration and after the administration then the "secret deals" you think happened, obviously didn't have any impact on the MMS inability to regulate properly. As far as the MMS is concerned, at worst, and don't get me wrong its despicable, I can imagine Cheney and the Oil industry saying "no no no leave the MMS alone, we like it the way it is"


    If all you see is silence, you're not looking in the right places.
    There may be investigations but the media, the "political organizers", the academic community, even the politicians sure aren't screaming bloody murder and demanding people's heads on a plate like they were 3 years ago.
    Last edited by solarus; 06/14/2010 at 12:45 PM.
  18. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    The secret deals between Cheney and Big Oil can reasonably be understood due to the results. Safety regs were compromised or illiminated for the first time in the industry's history. MMS had no involvement in those changes.
    The only thing that can reasonably be understood as a result of the Gulf disaster is that 1) BP may have rushed the withdrawal of the test well, 2) the owner/operator of the rig may not have operated it within acceptable guidelines, 3) the BOP valve may have been defective, 4) Halliburton may have used defective concrete, and 5) the MMS did not fulfill their responsibilities. If all of these happened, non of them are because regulations were removed because...

    regulations weren't eliminated, that much is simple to prove. The proof is that safety regulations are still in place, you can read them yourself. These regulations are still on the books and the MMS is still charged with enforcing the regulations. However since the MMS is filled former oil folks, enforcement, as it has been for years before, is lax at best.

    Besides it much much much more likely that the secret meetings dealt with larger strategic issues of energy policy, and that the decisions made in the meetings no doubt worked to the benefit of the oil & gas industries. CEO's tend to think bigger than "let us use sub-standard valves in our rigs please b/c its cheaper". In the scheme of things saving 50% on a valve or piping isn't going to have much of an impact on overall costs, getting cheaper and increased access to new oil & gas reserves is.
    Last edited by solarus; 06/14/2010 at 01:17 PM.
  19.    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Nice dodge....but you must have been soooo disappointed it was a democrat issue and not Republican issue. If it had been a SC Republican, why your goggle finger would have been going like crazy to gather as much info as possible to make a new post regarding a "new low" in the Republican party....or something like that. But....I know your double standards prevented you from investigating further since it was a democrat. I will add....the democrats are freaking out around here about this. My guess...they are just racists.
    What? You mean there might be racists in South Carolina? And they might be in either party? You jest. That's OK, I'll take this guy over DeMint sight unseen, felony or not. His waterloo remark exemplifies the negativity and lack of concern about the country because of a focus of defeating whatever Obama developed. It's worked to some extent, and the country has been the worst for it.
  20. #40  
    don't forget, republicans and their agents, have in the past played these kinds of games. Hell, their own chairman pretended to be a democrat to get votes....

    its very possible that there is fraud going on here. Lets see how Mr.Greene defends spending $10,400 on a filing fee while at the same time claiming to be indigent. Its shocking that more conservatives don't see a problem with that. Its not about race, its about truth.
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions