I suspect history will be a far harsher critic of George W Bush than any censure would be.
This is where pro-Bush folk disagree. I think they see the longer term Islamo-facist policy. I mean look... what the hell did the US do for the decade preceeding 9/11 to incite such an event? Rights and war aside... (for a moment) the rules of global engagement were NOT changed by GW Bush... GW Bush did not incite 9/11... I think he took an enough-is-enough stance.. and although the deployment of his policies are in question, I agree with the principle. The more French ppl I run into, the more I see their "enough is enough" stance and appointment of Sarkozy. Odd since the whole Freedom Fries drivel and the French opposition to the Iraq conflict (but keep in mind, French companies were and still are, knee-deep with economic coffers in Iraq before, and thusly the anti-US sponsorship thereof). Thankfully, the Parisians have seen their culture go out the window, and the re-coil of their ultra-PC liberal attitudes hit them in the face, albeit almost too late.
While SecState is of course an important position, it isn't nearly as important as President. A woman or a black person in that role warrants being considered a little more "historic."
But worth a fair share of notoriety. I mean let's look at diversity (which Democrats have seem to pin, errr exploit, to the n'th degree) of Clinton's cabinet vs Bush's.... when Dems do it, it's paramount to what they stand for, when Republicans do it... it's the best person or best affiliate (right or wrong) for the job. Sorry, it is hypocrisy by the mainstream media more often than not... thusly the whole point of Fox News. (note: Fox News is merely a counter to NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, and somewhat ABC)
I concur, and agree that neither Hillary nor McCain would have the same impact, because he is new and fresh, and they are not. Whether or not Obama can maintain that image remains to be seen, but in the worst case scenario he'd have further to fall than the other two.
Image can get old. Clinton's image dried up, but the dot.com boom help an immense amount. Course the VP he picked, Al Gore, invented the Internet, but that's a tired topic that even the DARPAnet forefathers are sick of hearing.
The Economist recent issue has a great headline on Obama "But Could He Deliver?". Right now, noone seems to care... but we're 9 months out. Fanfare and hype will settle into fact and substance.
I don't have a concrete factual stance on Obama... I'm too busy watching the hoopla of women passing out, the empty speeches of positive outlook, the racial debates, the petty bickering between the two campaign offices, and so forth. But goddamn, he'd be a great as a newsanchor for the one of the Big 3. Course McCain's daughter is pretty fuckable... but I digress.
You're actually right on this one. I still think you have a crappy batting average though.
Eh, Dianne Feinstein was a semi-recent SF Mayor... and since I'm accused of anit-Hillary because she's female... I did state I'd be ok with DiFi. Other she's a money-grubbing career politico.
Faceking, your ignorance is so tiresome at times. Perhaps if it was written into the Bible that images of God or Christ were blasphemy then US Christians (especially US Christians) would be offended enough to react that way. But it's not, and once again you are comparing apples to envelopes.
Understand your point here, but need to preface, I wasn't talking about Christians executing religious code, per se... but more so taking action against the offense. I see too often the "coolness" and "humor" in stomping on the balls of Christianity by the left (moreover, here on LPSG), yet their vehement preservation of protection 'minority' beliefs (i.e. Islam). I see some/many declaring Christian-extremism as being a threat for American personal freedoms, and some/many seeing Islamic-extremism as a threat to being merely alive. One wants one group to stay hidden, while the other wants everyone dead. Agree?
I think George W Bush is a colossal fuck-up, but I don't believe he's evil.
Echoing some comments already made, it is okay to compare Bush to an extremist, epic failure of a world leader who produced nothing but disaster.
Pure evil can be manifested in good intentions...
... and the "disaster" is...
[/quote]
Okay, that one made me laugh.
To demonstrate that I can still have a sense a humor while debating, that reference damn near made me fall out of my chair.
Then I sincerely commend you, and hope debate is civil. Someone just PM'd me offline, and I must say I just mentioned to someone that in person and too often here on LPSG you get that so-angry, right-out-of-the-gate namecalling/bitter/resentful... you name it... you can't have a civil conversation. if you knew/saw me... i just calmly slow down... present facts, opinion in a soft tone... but you get the angry "war monger", "baby-eating" rhetoric... a few can, but most throw out angry spoon-fed non-factual claims... a shame.
I always respect one's opinion, so long as it's respectful, logical, and backed.