Cathy, Thank you for the commentary, I'm a former Marine(1984-87) and we don't hear enough support for our troops. These guys are true heroes to be fighting for the freedom of others.
Let's not allow this forum to degenerate into sqaubbling, this election seems to be more important than usual.
Snowbow,
What makes you think Palin is undereducated and inexperienced? She served 4 yrs on the Wasilla city council, 6 yrs as Mayor, chaired the Ak Oil & Gas Conservation Commission for 2 yrs, and currently 2 yrs as Alaska Governor. That's 10 yrs of executive experience. She also defeated an incumbent Governor in the primaries and went on to defeat a former 2-term Democrat Governor in the general election. That shows she's not incompetent as a politician. As for her eduction, she has a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism.
Obama has no true executive experience, although that doesn't mean he can't do the job - he's highly educated and intelligent.
McCain is 72, Ford and Reagan lived into their 90's, Carter and Bush Sr are in their mid 80's, both still active and alert. I don't like McCain's age, but it doesn't mean he's senile or incompetent, or at death's door.
My opinion of Obama is that he doesn't show Presidential qualities. For most of Bush's Presidency the Democrats have displayed partisanship, trying to divide the country presumably to re-take power. Obama's statements on taxation(more for the wealthy and corporations) serve to further divide us by creating class warfare and resentment toward successful Americans. That is not leadership. McCain supports lower taxes for everyone.
During the 2nd debate Obama said that after 9-11 Bush was wrong to tell Americans to continue to live their lives normally and spend money. The economy would have suffered much worse than it did had we not. Bush showed leadership, Obama demonstrates naivete with his comment.
The original comment for this page was made Aug 31 under Steve Hofman's column, 3rd paragraph down from the top. It was a reply to Bush's critics. The Steamboat Pilot chose the headline.
I think I've been honest in distinguishing between my facts and opinions. The headline "Iraq War Worth Costs" is from The Steamboat Pilot, my original comment was a reply to someone's comment that Bush is the worst president in our history.
I did not say "Bush is a good , honest man". Look at the end of the 3rd paragraph previous to this and you will see that my statement - verbatim - was "My point is not that Bush is a good , honest man, he's a politician after all."
Opinion polls don't prove incompetence, only opinion. Congress has lower numbers.
Once again the facts are being manipulated. It's clear to me that your link is a biased anti-Bush website, with questionable credibility.
Saddam HAD chemical and (I think) biological WMD's, Bush never said he had nuclear weapons, only that he was trying to rebuild them. He had made numerous public statements supporting the destruction of Israel, and my understanding is that he financially supported Palestinian terrorism.
The link you refer to claims "232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq " from Bush, another 244 from Powell, plus other officials. That's almost half the "lies" when Saddam HAD the weapons, which means they aren't false statements. I personally think Bush exaggerated the figures in order to go to war, but I think the war was the right thing to do, regardless of Bush's true reasons.
Compare this war with Vietnam under Johnson: approximately 36000 dead and MANY more wounded in four years just to stop the spread of communism, and we lost. I don't mean to sound callous but 4100 dead in 5 years compared to past wars is not a catastrophe, more people are murdered in the US every year. We did a good thing in Iraq, regardless of Bush's true motives.
My point is not that Bush is a good , honest man, he's a politician after all. It's that we've had other presidents who were more abusive with their power (Adams, Wilson, Roosevelt) , completely incompetent(Johnson, Carter), liars(Clinton),etc.
Bush did NOT say Iraq was responsible for 9/11, regardless of his other statements or beliefs. He said Iraq was linked to terrorism, which evidence supports.
I didn't say Bush used the assassination argument for war, I said it helps justify it for me.
I agree that Bush is wrong about teaching creationism, also his budget-cutting for science programs.
Although I'm not an economist, I do believe in trickle-down economics. There may be a better policy but I don't think trickle-down is a failure or that it has been proven wrong. I don't know of any Bush policy that has caused the current economic slowing, it's a natural cycle, exacerbated by a speculative housing bubble and oil price spike.
Yes our Constitution provides for Habeas Corpus for American citizens, implying it has been suspended because we imprison POW's is simply dishonest and manipulative.
I don't have any facts on Bush's term as Governor of Texas.
Your statement on oil is opinion, not fact. We are still finding new sources of oil around the world, the current known supply is not an absolute final figure. Our current consumption may be above our current maximum production capacity but if we had been expanding that capacity for the last 30 years where would we be now? Also, we buy over half of our oil today from other producers, we don't need to meet our needs on our own unless we choose to. We should drill more and research and develop alternatives, combined.
I trade the markets and I understand how prices are set. The basics are supply/demand. My opinion of the recent oil spike is that it has been manipulated by speculators, seemingly confirmed by the continuing crash in oil prices(real supply/demand issues would have supported the price near it's highs). If we drill more, supply will grow, eventually meeting demand, decreasing buying pressure and increasing the selling side, thereby decreasing buying speculation. These bubbles occur constantly, they seem to move from one market to another, I assume based on the vulnerability of the specific market to volatility.
We have a choice this year, vote based on the facts, not a manufactured hatred of Bush.
I don't like defending Bush because he's a politician, just like all the others, and there's a good chance I'm wrong. But no one here has made a counterpoint to my opinions, only argument and insinuation. You're doing the same.
If Bush DID go to war because of his father, isn't that what the US Constitution charges him with, protection of the American people? Everyone tries to belittle him with this argument but Saddam tried to assassinate a former US President, the American people should have been calling for his head on a plate. Didn't Richard Armitage, a former Clinton appointee, actually out Valerie Plame? As far as I know he didn't work for Bush, therefore he can't be fired. Why wasn't he charged with a crime and why did the prosecutor continue chasing Libby?
If Bush caused the current housing market crash, state how. My opinion is in my earlier comments.
Everything in this statement appears to be simple opinion with no basis on fact. Republicans are horrible, mean, hateful ogres while Democrats are kind, sweet, caring heroes who want to save us from the evil Bush/McCain. It's silly and childish.
Rational adults know there are kind, caring people on both sides and we've all seen dishonest smear campaigns and misleading stereotypes from both. Our politicians say what it takes to gain power.
If you take a serious look at statements in the media, I think you'll see that President Bush has shown leadership while the Democrats have spread divisiveness and hatred(divide and conquer) for the last 5 years(beginning of the Iraq war?).
Cathy Patrick: Eternally grateful
Cathy,
Thank you for the commentary, I'm a former Marine(1984-87) and we don't hear enough support for our troops. These guys are true heroes to be fighting for the freedom of others.
July 3, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Simon Kassemi: Worth fighting for
Simon,
I'd like to compliment you for the opening qoute, it's appropriate for the topic.
November 2, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Simon Kassemi: Worth fighting for
Everyone,
Let's not allow this forum to degenerate into sqaubbling, this election seems to be more important than usual.
Snowbow,
What makes you think Palin is undereducated and inexperienced? She served 4 yrs on the Wasilla city council, 6 yrs as Mayor, chaired the Ak Oil & Gas Conservation Commission for 2 yrs, and currently 2 yrs as Alaska Governor. That's 10 yrs of executive experience. She also defeated an incumbent Governor in the primaries and went on to defeat a former 2-term Democrat Governor in the general election. That shows she's not incompetent as a politician. As for her eduction, she has a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism.
Obama has no true executive experience, although that doesn't mean he can't do the job - he's highly educated and intelligent.
McCain is 72, Ford and Reagan lived into their 90's, Carter and Bush Sr are in their mid 80's, both still active and alert. I don't like McCain's age, but it doesn't mean he's senile or incompetent, or at death's door.
My opinion of Obama is that he doesn't show Presidential qualities. For most of Bush's Presidency the Democrats have displayed partisanship, trying to divide the country presumably to re-take power. Obama's statements on taxation(more for the wealthy and corporations) serve to further divide us by creating class warfare and resentment toward successful Americans. That is not leadership. McCain supports lower taxes for everyone.
During the 2nd debate Obama said that after 9-11 Bush was wrong to tell Americans to continue to live their lives normally and spend money. The economy would have suffered much worse than it did had we not. Bush showed leadership, Obama demonstrates naivete with his comment.
November 2, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Best of the Web for Sept. 7
Everyone,
The original comment for this page was made Aug 31 under Steve Hofman's column, 3rd paragraph down from the top. It was a reply to Bush's critics. The Steamboat Pilot chose the headline.
September 17, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Best of the Web for Sept. 7
JustSomeJoe,
I think I've been honest in distinguishing between my facts and opinions. The headline "Iraq War Worth Costs" is from The Steamboat Pilot, my original comment was a reply to someone's comment that Bush is the worst president in our history.
I did not say "Bush is a good , honest man". Look at the end of the 3rd paragraph previous to this and you will see that my statement - verbatim - was "My point is not that Bush is a good , honest man, he's a politician after all."
Opinion polls don't prove incompetence, only opinion. Congress has lower numbers.
September 17, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Best of the Web for Sept. 7
Jason,
I saved your link even though I think the website is because I AM interested in the truth, I intend to at least check it out more thoroughly.
September 16, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Best of the Web for Sept. 7
Jason,
Once again the facts are being manipulated. It's clear to me that your link is a biased anti-Bush website, with questionable credibility.
Saddam HAD chemical and (I think) biological WMD's, Bush never said he had nuclear weapons, only that he was trying to rebuild them. He had made numerous public statements supporting the destruction of Israel, and my understanding is that he financially supported Palestinian terrorism.
The link you refer to claims "232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq " from Bush, another 244 from Powell, plus other officials. That's almost half the "lies" when Saddam HAD the weapons, which means they aren't false statements. I personally think Bush exaggerated the figures in order to go to war, but I think the war was the right thing to do, regardless of Bush's true reasons.
Compare this war with Vietnam under Johnson: approximately 36000 dead and MANY more wounded in four years just to stop the spread of communism, and we lost. I don't mean to sound callous but 4100 dead in 5 years compared to past wars is not a catastrophe, more people are murdered in the US every year. We did a good thing in Iraq, regardless of Bush's true motives.
My point is not that Bush is a good , honest man, he's a politician after all. It's that we've had other presidents who were more abusive with their power (Adams, Wilson, Roosevelt) , completely incompetent(Johnson, Carter), liars(Clinton),etc.
September 16, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Best of the Web for Sept. 7
Jason,
You're manipulating the facts.
Bush did NOT say Iraq was responsible for 9/11, regardless of his other statements or beliefs. He said Iraq was linked to terrorism, which evidence supports.
I didn't say Bush used the assassination argument for war, I said it helps justify it for me.
I agree that Bush is wrong about teaching creationism, also his budget-cutting for science programs.
Although I'm not an economist, I do believe in trickle-down economics. There may be a better policy but I don't think trickle-down is a failure or that it has been proven wrong. I don't know of any Bush policy that has caused the current economic slowing, it's a natural cycle, exacerbated by a speculative housing bubble and oil price spike.
Yes our Constitution provides for Habeas Corpus for American citizens, implying it has been suspended because we imprison POW's is simply dishonest and manipulative.
I don't have any facts on Bush's term as Governor of Texas.
Your statement on oil is opinion, not fact. We are still finding new sources of oil around the world, the current known supply is not an absolute final figure. Our current consumption may be above our current maximum production capacity but if we had been expanding that capacity for the last 30 years where would we be now? Also, we buy over half of our oil today from other producers, we don't need to meet our needs on our own unless we choose to. We should drill more and research and develop alternatives, combined.
I trade the markets and I understand how prices are set. The basics are supply/demand. My opinion of the recent oil spike is that it has been manipulated by speculators, seemingly confirmed by the continuing crash in oil prices(real supply/demand issues would have supported the price near it's highs). If we drill more, supply will grow, eventually meeting demand, decreasing buying pressure and increasing the selling side, thereby decreasing buying speculation. These bubbles occur constantly, they seem to move from one market to another, I assume based on the vulnerability of the specific market to volatility.
We have a choice this year, vote based on the facts, not a manufactured hatred of Bush.
September 16, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Best of the Web for Sept. 7
Peace,
I don't like defending Bush because he's a politician, just like all the others, and there's a good chance I'm wrong. But no one here has made a counterpoint to my opinions, only argument and insinuation. You're doing the same.
If Bush DID go to war because of his father, isn't that what the US Constitution charges him with, protection of the American people? Everyone tries to belittle him with this argument but Saddam tried to assassinate a former US President, the American people should have been calling for his head on a plate. Didn't Richard Armitage, a former Clinton appointee, actually out Valerie Plame? As far as I know he didn't work for Bush, therefore he can't be fired. Why wasn't he charged with a crime and why did the prosecutor continue chasing Libby?
If Bush caused the current housing market crash, state how. My opinion is in my earlier comments.
September 15, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paul Potyen: Here's a riddle
Everything in this statement appears to be simple opinion with no basis on fact. Republicans are horrible, mean, hateful ogres while Democrats are kind, sweet, caring heroes who want to save us from the evil Bush/McCain. It's silly and childish.
Rational adults know there are kind, caring people on both sides and we've all seen dishonest smear campaigns and misleading stereotypes from both. Our politicians say what it takes to gain power.
If you take a serious look at statements in the media, I think you'll see that President Bush has shown leadership while the Democrats have spread divisiveness and hatred(divide and conquer) for the last 5 years(beginning of the Iraq war?).
September 14, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )