Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
First of all I question your so called opinions on who to blame for all the deficit spending. However, I'll fore-go arguing with you over which president or which political party is to blame or praise. I'll simply answer the question you asked truthfully. Bush should not be praised for Obama's order to kill Bin Laden. Obama's decision was gutsy, decisive and correct. Thankfully, no U.S. forces were killed in the raid. However, all that military might, power, technology and capability was placed in Obama's hands, BECAUSE President Bush put it there! Obama certainly wouldn't have sent all those forces in there, he and his party has been calling to pull all of our resources out of there. But had Bush not acted just as decisively to go to war, as Obama did to kill Bin Laden, Obama would not have had the military might to pull off the operation in the first place! So give credit where credit is due. Obama did a great job in killing Bin Laden. Bush also did a great job in building up the United States military and special ops forces to give Obama the tools he needed to make this happen.
2 :
Well he would get the job done bush wanted saddam hussein and he didn't know where bin laden was or didn't wanna go after him this proves bush's loss now obama's gain as you are seeing now.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In the early 1960s, de jure segregation (segregation by law) was enforced by the South under what were called Jim Crow laws. Separate waiting rooms, rest rooms, water fountains, etc., were provided at places, like bus stations, where blacks and whites shared the same facility. After Civil rights legislation overturned the Jim Crow laws and required integration of places open to the public, especially schools, George Wallace ran in 1968 as a third-party candidate (American Independent) under the slogan "Segregation Forever," capturing the electoral votes of five southern states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968). The Nixon team, impressed by Wallace's success in the "Deep South," elaborated the Southern Strategy: rather than endorse segregation, this strategy seized the label "conservative," which argued that the country must be desegregated, but that a conservative interpretation of the Constitution required that the states desegregate themselves, with no interference from the federal government. "Conservative" sounds much more respectable than "racist." Now segregationists became conservatives, alleging that the federal government had no legal role to play in enforcing desegregation. Those who disagreed were called "liberal." Just as Southern whites hated the thought of their children attending school with black children, they also hated "liberals," whom they viewed as the [epithet withheld] who were forcing integration on them. Since then, "conservative" has come to the ideological rescue of people who cast all blame on non-white European-descended groups. These groups became scapegoats: they get better jobs riding on the wave of Affirmative Action; "illegals" displace whites from good jobs; they grow in numbers, taking over control of the country. "Conservative" whites support candidates who they are led to believe will "take back" control of their county. "Liberals" are nonplussed by "conservatives" who fail to understand that it is the powerful monied special interests that are taking over our economy and our government. These "liberals" cannot understand why "conservatives," who are losing personal income, jobs, and even pensions to the powerful, corporatist forces vote against their own interest in order to support those corporatist forces. Yet, the power of seething, unending prejudices is sufficient to seek its own satisfaction even when the result is harmful to those who harbor such prejudices. Obama is the incarnation of all hated "liberals" to tens of millions of "conservatives." To credit him with anything is too distasteful to swallow--and doing so may enhance the horror of his reelection. Here is where we can see how intelligent many prejudiced people are. Fighting against reality is tough. But they have the creativity and imagination required to demonize anyone whom they deem to be their enemy. Hence, they revel in lies about Obama's birth certificate, about his being a Muslim, about his mendacity as our president. They perpetuate any story, true or not, that will undermine the credit Obama could get from his success in killing bin Laden. Thus, when reminded that it was Clinton who had this country once more running surpluses, and that it was GWB who reversed the trend, leading us into a tailspin of debt in order to cut taxes on the wealthiest few, provide taxpayer subidies for the wealthiest few, and deregulate speculative entities like banks, insurance companies, hedge funds so that they could invest other people's savings and investments in deals that fell apart and left millions with no pension and no job, "conservatives" answer that we have no revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Where is all this wasted spending going? Many say foreign aid (about 1% of the entire budget); almost all agree on "welfare," meaning "giveaways" to blacks, Hispanics, and other people who, no matter how needy, are leeching from hard-working people (whites) so that they can live lazy lives of leisure. "Conservatives" have exaggerated ideas about how much is actually spent on welfare, while they ignore the hundreds of billions spent on corporate welfare. In short, you are asking a reasonable question for which there is a reasonable answer. The problem is that tens of millions of "conservatives" will accept the truth only if it validates their anger, frustrations, resentments, and hate.
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In the early 1960s, de jure segregation (segregation by law) was enforced by the South under what were called Jim Crow laws. Separate waiting rooms, rest rooms, water fountains, etc., were provided at places, like bus stations, where blacks and whites shared the same facility. After Civil rights legislation overturned the Jim Crow laws and required integration of places open to the public, especially schools, George Wallace ran in 1968 as a third-party candidate (American Independent) under the slogan "Segregation Forever," capturing the electoral votes of five southern states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968). The Nixon team, impressed by Wallace's success in the "Deep South," elaborated the Southern Strategy: rather than endorse segregation, this strategy seized the label "conservative," which argued that the country must be desegregated, but that a conservative interpretation of the Constitution required that the states desegregate themselves, with no interference from the federal government. "Conservative" sounds much more respectable than "racist." Now segregationists became conservatives, alleging that the federal government had no legal role to play in enforcing desegregation. Those who disagreed were called "liberal." Just as Southern whites hated the thought of their children attending school with black children, they also hated "liberals," whom they viewed as the [epithet withheld] who were forcing integration on them. Since then, "conservative" has come to the ideological rescue of people who cast all blame on non-white European-descended groups. These groups became scapegoats: they get better jobs riding on the wave of Affirmative Action; "illegals" displace whites from good jobs; they grow in numbers, taking over control of the country. "Conservative" whites support candidates who they are led to believe will "take back" control of their county. "Liberals" are nonplussed by "conservatives" who fail to understand that it is the powerful monied special interests that are taking over our economy and our government. These "liberals" cannot understand why "conservatives," who are losing personal income, jobs, and even pensions to the powerful, corporatist forces vote against their own interest in order to support those corporatist forces. Yet, the power of seething, unending prejudices is sufficient to seek its own satisfaction even when the result is harmful to those who harbor such prejudices. Obama is the incarnation of all hated "liberals" to tens of millions of "conservatives." To credit him with anything is too distasteful to swallow--and doing so may enhance the horror of his reelection. Here is where we can see how intelligent many prejudiced people are. Fighting against reality is tough. But they have the creativity and imagination required to demonize anyone whom they deem to be their enemy. Hence, they revel in lies about Obama's birth certificate, about his being a Muslim, about his mendacity as our president. They perpetuate any story, true or not, that will undermine the credit Obama could get from his success in killing bin Laden. Thus, when reminded that it was Clinton who had this country once more running surpluses, and that it was GWB who reversed the trend, leading us into a tailspin of debt in order to cut taxes on the wealthiest few, provide taxpayer subidies for the wealthiest few, and deregulate speculative entities like banks, insurance companies, hedge funds so that they could invest other people's savings and investments in deals that fell apart and left millions with no pension and no job, "conservatives" answer that we have no revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Where is all this wasted spending going? Many say foreign aid (about 1% of the entire budget); almost all agree on "welfare," meaning "giveaways" to blacks, Hispanics, and other people who, no matter how needy, are leeching from hard-working people (whites) so that they can live lazy lives of leisure. "Conservatives" have exaggerated ideas about how much is actually spent on welfare, while they ignore the hundreds of billions spent on corporate welfare. In short, you are asking a reasonable question for which there is a reasonable answer. The problem is that tens of millions of "conservatives" will accept the truth only if it validates their anger, frustrations, resentments, and hate.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
What would happen if the oil in the Middle East finishes?
What would happen if the oil in the Middle East finishes?
Most Middle Eastern countries do not have taxes because the government is already making money by selling oil. When the US starts using its oil, will it become tax-free? What about terrorism? do you think the rate will go up or down? would the world go into wars with countries like Saudi Arabia? (assuming that they are not at war now because Saudi is the main exporter of oil and without it's oil.. well, no one would be getting around) Note: I asked this question in Politics & Government > Other - Politics & Government, but I didnt get a lot of answers so I ask here again jdlaplant: No, I am not American. I'm actually Arabic and I want to know what other people think. And technically speaking, Saudi Arabia's oil may not finish soon.. or it might not even finish for a long time. But it WILL finish. My question is: what will happen then? jeepndd: Not really. I dont know if the US has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East.. But they're smart not to be using it. Because the oil in the Middle East WILL finish, and when it does, guess who will be making all the money that the Arabs are getting now? Mr. Bitter: Saudi will never go back to the Dark Age, because it has a HUGE Muslim attraction...
Current Events - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I concern about when Israelis bombers fly high, my gas price goes high.
2 :
it sure would be quiet ,,almost like 9-11 when all air traffic was grounded
3 :
Obsession with the Middle East would decrease.
4 :
The world would not be so terrified to call the Islamic world on their blatant disregard for human rights and common decency.
5 :
Well by the time it runs out we will be totally dependant on renewable Fuel, like water or corn or even solar power.
6 :
i think america would still have taxes. they might decrease but it is another way our government can make money. it would also be better if we had our own oil because then america wouldn't be so dependent.
7 :
Googleje: Dude, I have to know if you are American. Your an idiot but I still have to know. Oil will never dry up in the middle east.
8 :
we would just find another country to exploit...
9 :
We could ignore all the Madness and cruelty of the region just like we do with all those African atrocities. Saudi Arabia could go broke and return to the Dark Age style tribal warfare it was in before British geologists found oil there in 1930's. The only downside is that without oil our entire modern civilization grinds to a halt.
10 :
Even if it ever did dry up the US has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East. It's simply maddening that we don't take advantage of it.
Most Middle Eastern countries do not have taxes because the government is already making money by selling oil. When the US starts using its oil, will it become tax-free? What about terrorism? do you think the rate will go up or down? would the world go into wars with countries like Saudi Arabia? (assuming that they are not at war now because Saudi is the main exporter of oil and without it's oil.. well, no one would be getting around) Note: I asked this question in Politics & Government > Other - Politics & Government, but I didnt get a lot of answers so I ask here again jdlaplant: No, I am not American. I'm actually Arabic and I want to know what other people think. And technically speaking, Saudi Arabia's oil may not finish soon.. or it might not even finish for a long time. But it WILL finish. My question is: what will happen then? jeepndd: Not really. I dont know if the US has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East.. But they're smart not to be using it. Because the oil in the Middle East WILL finish, and when it does, guess who will be making all the money that the Arabs are getting now? Mr. Bitter: Saudi will never go back to the Dark Age, because it has a HUGE Muslim attraction...
Current Events - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I concern about when Israelis bombers fly high, my gas price goes high.
2 :
it sure would be quiet ,,almost like 9-11 when all air traffic was grounded
3 :
Obsession with the Middle East would decrease.
4 :
The world would not be so terrified to call the Islamic world on their blatant disregard for human rights and common decency.
5 :
Well by the time it runs out we will be totally dependant on renewable Fuel, like water or corn or even solar power.
6 :
i think america would still have taxes. they might decrease but it is another way our government can make money. it would also be better if we had our own oil because then america wouldn't be so dependent.
7 :
Googleje: Dude, I have to know if you are American. Your an idiot but I still have to know. Oil will never dry up in the middle east.
8 :
we would just find another country to exploit...
9 :
We could ignore all the Madness and cruelty of the region just like we do with all those African atrocities. Saudi Arabia could go broke and return to the Dark Age style tribal warfare it was in before British geologists found oil there in 1930's. The only downside is that without oil our entire modern civilization grinds to a halt.
10 :
Even if it ever did dry up the US has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East. It's simply maddening that we don't take advantage of it.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
The right would never praise a liberal for anything, including ridding the world of a mass murderer.
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
The right would never praise a liberal for anything, including ridding the world of a mass murderer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)