As I posted in another thread, let's be fair. This is a 1956 law. And the State Department has waived the fees for evacuees.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/lebanon.evacuation/index.html
One does not have to blame everything on Bush.
Americans now you wished you voted for Gore :D
- Thread starter mahram
- Start date
As I posted in another thread, let's be fair. This is a 1956 law. And the State Department has waived the fees for evacuees.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/lebanon.evacuation/index.html
One does not have to blame everything on Bush.
That condition would have existed no matter which party would have won in my opinion. And let me see if I can get this right, you're asking me to tell you which sh*tty candidate was/is better? Which party's candidate is more likeable than the other? I would gladly tell you that none of them are that deep mentally.
For both Gore and Bush it is all about handlers. And Al has very little leadership quality. Otherwise he would not have needed to be told to be the Earth Gore this week and the sexy Gore next week. The complaint is he's never himself and that you really do need to sit down and get to know him. That's not true of a leader. A true leader does not need you to know him. The confidence within a leader drives the people to their own frenzy of desired support. Al, my friend, is not a leader. Sorry!
And Kerry. No discussion necessary. The swift boat crap was a real example for me. The fact that he needed to "COUNTER" republican leaning with a military record verses showing his leadership "since" his tenure in politics was key for me. When you have to look back 20 to 30 years to show me when you were a significant leader, then you aren't a leader. The true answer should have started with, "Leadership? Just last week I..., then about a month ago I...., and then I galvanized warring fractions just last year to get this done.... That's a leadership resume.
Oh sure, they all have their passions and "few minutes of effort". And one or two of them may have the charisma to impress YOU. But none of them are really, truly, solid presidential material. None of them have any real leadership qualities. Especially Gore and Kerry.
There's nothing endearing or significant in either of their histories that speaks to leadership. No matter how you'd like to color it. The key to that is when folks, you included, must somewhere in the discussion harp on the other side's bad qualities. A true leader would not discuss the other guy at all. He'd be able to stand on his own accord.
I don't want to hear about any feigned combat experience in the last thirty years as your qualifications to lead the country today. I rather know did you balance your own checkbook ever or did the wife always handle that? It would be more important to me to hear that the candidate handled his own office budgeting and that they always were in the black due to his decisions.
Impress me further by telling me how you took your district, city, state, governorship and used innovation to meet a challenge when the budget wasn't what you wanted. Show me a program that YOU championed and accomplished that stayed under budget BECAUSE of your oversight. You'd do better looking to some of your younger charges in that party. Oh wait, none of the party challengers in either party today meet those kinds of conditions and challenges. Silly me!
Notice I didn't pick a side. It's because I am looking for effective person and not a party. And my friend I am more the morn. The argument has effectively become, but these are all that we have to choose from right now. For the democratic party it truly is a contest of who's more electable. Don't fear, the republican party is not far behind in that race.
And then you also need to understand that the climate has become one in which the opposition is not interested in furthering the COUNTRY'S cause if it seems to help the other party. To hell with the country, we got to take things back is the current democratic battle cry. They are more concerned with the party stature. And that is the stance of BOTH sides. For both parties it's all about image, IMHO.
I disagree. Alot of the conditions like iraq and the aftermath of katrina were caused by bad policies. I'm not saying the president caused katrina, I am saying he made a situation that was bad, far worse then it should have been. For kerry I have to feel sorry for him because it was the same crew who made john mccain's war career seem like a badge of dishonour.
Quote from canyonman00:
That condition would have existed no matter which party would have won in my opinion. And let me see if I can get this right, you're asking me to tell you which sh*tty candidate was/is better? Which party's candidate is more likeable than the other? I would gladly tell you that none of them are that deep mentally.
For both Gore and Bush it is all about handlers. And Al has very little leadership quality. Otherwise he would not have needed to be told to be the Earth Gore this week and the sexy Gore next week. The complaint is he's never himself and that you really do need to sit down and get to know him. That's not true of a leader. A true leader does not need you to know him. The confidence within a leader drives the people to their own frenzy of desired support. Al, my friend, is not a leader. Sorry!
And Kerry. No discussion necessary. The swift boat crap was a real example for me. The fact that he needed to "COUNTER" republican leaning with a military record verses showing his leadership "since" his tenure in politics was key for me. When you have to look back 20 to 30 years to show me when you were a significant leader, then you aren't a leader. The true answer should have started with, "Leadership? Just last week I..., then about a month ago I...., and then I galvanized warring fractions just last year to get this done.... That's a leadership resume.
Oh sure, they all have their passions and "few minutes of effort". And one or two of them may have the charisma to impress YOU. But none of them are really, truly, solid presidential material. None of them have any real leadership qualities. Especially Gore and Kerry.
There's nothing endearing or significant in either of their histories that speaks to leadership. No matter how you'd like to color it. The key to that is when folks, you included, must somewhere in the discussion harp on the other side's bad qualities. A true leader would not discuss the other guy at all. He'd be able to stand on his own accord.
I don't want to hear about any feigned combat experience in the last thirty years as your qualifications to lead the country today. I rather know did you balance your own checkbook ever or did the wife always handle that? It would be more important to me to hear that the candidate handled his own office budgeting and that they always were in the black due to his decisions.
Impress me further by telling me how you took your district, city, state, governorship and used innovation to meet a challenge when the budget wasn't what you wanted. Show me a program that YOU championed and accomplished that stayed under budget BECAUSE of your oversight. You'd do better looking to some of your younger charges in that party. Oh wait, none of the party challengers in either party today meet those kinds of conditions and challenges. Silly me!
Notice I didn't pick a side. It's because I am looking for effective person and not a party. And my friend I am more the morn. The argument has effectively become, but these are all that we have to choose from right now. For the democratic party it truly is a contest of who's more electable. Don't fear, the republican party is not far behind in that race.
And then you also need to understand that the climate has become one in which the opposition is not interested in furthering the COUNTRY'S cause if it seems to help the other party. To hell with the country, we got to take things back is the current democratic battle cry. They are more concerned with the party stature. And that is the stance of BOTH sides. For both parties it's all about image, IMHO.
Then we might have to agree to disagree. There were no other situations like this in our history to have us prepared for the outcome. The first time for anything like this is always (should always) be the worst.
Here's an example. We have several friends who always seem to volunteer for the Red Cross missions. They were called up for that event. They were not directed or controlled by the government in any way. The Red Cross stationed them in a location to await the aftermath. When things cleared, they could not get to the scene because the roads were impassable. They were told by Red Cross to go back to the staging area and wait for the area to have a safe and secure access route. That actually took them two days.
No matter whose administration was involved, it would have taken two days. When they finally got there it took an extra seven hours for them to get set up in a staging area for supplies and places for them to work from. In other words there went another day. Again, no involvement from the government would have speeded that up either.
Then it took a day of letting everyone on the ground know where they were. Again, no help from Washington would have made that happen any faster. Why? Just the logistics of the event makes some time lags happen. Time lags that have nothing to do with whose party was in charge.
At best we are talking a day of lag time that may or may not have been removed/added. And as I said, ten more minutes for the victims of a tragedy from their standpoint is too long. This was a life interruption event. Not a political challenge. I think it might even be covered under the description of an "Act of God!"
We also have to allow for the fact that these were folks who were not prepared for any hiccup in their life plans as they unfolded daily. Many of these folks had not ever asked themselves the question, "How do I fare for myself, my family, should tragedy strike?"
Here's an example. We have several friends who always seem to volunteer for the Red Cross missions. They were called up for that event. They were not directed or controlled by the government in any way. The Red Cross stationed them in a location to await the aftermath. When things cleared, they could not get to the scene because the roads were impassable. They were told by Red Cross to go back to the staging area and wait for the area to have a safe and secure access route. That actually took them two days.
No matter whose administration was involved, it would have taken two days. When they finally got there it took an extra seven hours for them to get set up in a staging area for supplies and places for them to work from. In other words there went another day. Again, no involvement from the government would have speeded that up either.
Then it took a day of letting everyone on the ground know where they were. Again, no help from Washington would have made that happen any faster. Why? Just the logistics of the event makes some time lags happen. Time lags that have nothing to do with whose party was in charge.
At best we are talking a day of lag time that may or may not have been removed/added. And as I said, ten more minutes for the victims of a tragedy from their standpoint is too long. This was a life interruption event. Not a political challenge. I think it might even be covered under the description of an "Act of God!"
We also have to allow for the fact that these were folks who were not prepared for any hiccup in their life plans as they unfolded daily. Many of these folks had not ever asked themselves the question, "How do I fare for myself, my family, should tragedy strike?"
Quote from canyonman00:
That condition would have existed no matter which party would have won in my opinion. And let me see if I can get this right, you're asking me to tell you which sh*tty candidate was/is better? Which party's candidate is more likeable than the other? I would gladly tell you that none of them are that deep mentally.
For both Gore and Bush it is all about handlers. And Al has very little leadership quality. Otherwise he would not have needed to be told to be the Earth Gore this week and the sexy Gore next week. The complaint is he's never himself and that you really do need to sit down and get to know him. That's not true of a leader. A true leader does not need you to know him. The confidence within a leader drives the people to their own frenzy of desired support. Al, my friend, is not a leader. Sorry!
And Kerry. No discussion necessary. The swift boat crap was a real example for me. The fact that he needed to "COUNTER" republican leaning with a military record verses showing his leadership "since" his tenure in politics was key for me. When you have to look back 20 to 30 years to show me when you were a significant leader, then you aren't a leader. The true answer should have started with, "Leadership? Just last week I..., then about a month ago I...., and then I galvanized warring fractions just last year to get this done.... That's a leadership resume.
Oh sure, they all have their passions and "few minutes of effort". And one or two of them may have the charisma to impress YOU. But none of them are really, truly, solid presidential material. None of them have any real leadership qualities. Especially Gore and Kerry.
There's nothing endearing or significant in either of their histories that speaks to leadership. No matter how you'd like to color it. The key to that is when folks, you included, must somewhere in the discussion harp on the other side's bad qualities. A true leader would not discuss the other guy at all. He'd be able to stand on his own accord.
I don't want to hear about any feigned combat experience in the last thirty years as your qualifications to lead the country today. I rather know did you balance your own checkbook ever or did the wife always handle that? It would be more important to me to hear that the candidate handled his own office budgeting and that they always were in the black due to his decisions.
Impress me further by telling me how you took your district, city, state, governorship and used innovation to meet a challenge when the budget wasn't what you wanted. Show me a program that YOU championed and accomplished that stayed under budget BECAUSE of your oversight. You'd do better looking to some of your younger charges in that party. Oh wait, none of the party challengers in either party today meet those kinds of conditions and challenges. Silly me!
Notice I didn't pick a side. It's because I am looking for effective person and not a party. And my friend I am more the morn. The argument has effectively become, but these are all that we have to choose from right now. For the democratic party it truly is a contest of who's more electable. Don't fear, the republican party is not far behind in that race.
And then you also need to understand that the climate has become one in which the opposition is not interested in furthering the COUNTRY'S cause if it seems to help the other party. To hell with the country, we got to take things back is the current democratic battle cry. They are more concerned with the party stature. And that is the stance of BOTH sides. For both parties it's all about image, IMHO.
Right on the money! Excellent post! Will a true leader appear over the course of the next year? The current line up on both sides leads me to believe......well there's always 2012.
So you know which beliefs I hold that are true or false?
Oh yes, of course you do....
That's is because you read minds.
Why is it that when some people meet a dog, the dog growls, and when the same dog meets another person, the dog doesn't growl?
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe your enocunter with Gore or others has to do with you and the vibe you give off?
No, of course not, because you are a mind reader...
Man, yo yo yo is a _________.
Oh yes, of course you do....
That's is because you read minds.
Why is it that when some people meet a dog, the dog growls, and when the same dog meets another person, the dog doesn't growl?
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe your enocunter with Gore or others has to do with you and the vibe you give off?
No, of course not, because you are a mind reader...
Man, yo yo yo is a _________.
Uhhh, Gore is not a dog.
Doh!
So much for understanding the concept of an analogy.
Doh!
Your objectivity in this case, given your negative predisposition toward Gore's politics, is magnificently dubious.
Doh!
So much for understanding the concept of an analogy.
Doh!
Your objectivity in this case, given your negative predisposition toward Gore's politics, is magnificently dubious.