OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[Feanor]

It's just a what-if, not a reason for deliberately avoiding capturing bin Laden.

[JRod]

It's just a what-if, not a reason for deliberately avoiding capturing bin Laden.

Total incompetence.

[matthewk]

There is a possible silver lining to what happened in Afghanistan. If the US had actually captured, tried and executed bin Laden the matyrdom-factor might have led to more terror attacks in the US and other Western countries.

That's possible, but it's also possible that just as many would-be terrorists would be scared off or unorganised by the fact that their leader bit it.

[DivotMaker]

1. Maybe you're right. Maybe Bush, the oil man, had nothing to do with the success of the oil companies, which helped put him into office. Maybe he really didn't turn a blind eye to the price gouging that was going on last year. Then again, USA Today has a story this afternoon on the companies whose stocks have done the best over the last 8 years of Bush's administration.

2. "The runaway winner: Southwestern Energy, (SWN) the natural gas exploration and production company that had a compounded annual return of 48%.
***
Chevron, (CVX) ConocoPhillips (COP) and ExxonMobil (XOM) have [also] out-performed the average S&P 500 company, as have defense companies such as Lockheed Martin. (LMT)."

1. No, I AM right. I work in this business and the runup in oil prices had little to nothing to do with supply and demand as oil and natural gas are traded as GLOBAL commodities. There was not one thing Bush (or any government), OPEC, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, nor any other producer could do to influence this. Did they enjoy record profits? Yep. Does anyone even look at the balance sheets of these companies to see what their typical DC (direct contribution) or expenses are? Most oil companies perform at about a 10% DC and their expenses are ever-increasing due to raw material and supply costs. For anyone to suggest that this is Bush's fault did not watch the 60 Minutes piece on Sunday, January 11. The reasons behind the oil and energy price hikes and fall rest squarely on the shoulders of Wall Street, Morgan Stanley (and other brokerage houses) as well as pension fund managers. Go read or watch that piece and come back here and tell me that this is Bush's fault....

2. See above....these companies produce and sell commodities that are sold in a global marketplace by investment firms and Wall Street. To suggest they did nothing to stop this would be accurate because they could do nothing TO stop it. Yes, they made record profits and now they aren't. They have business plans based upon $70-100/barrel oil and because oil is half that today are now laying off employees because they can't sustain these projects and expenses at $35/barrel oil. ConocoPhillips just announced a 4% layoff and is just the first in the wave of numerous layoffs of energy companies....

[FatPitcher]

It's just a what-if, not a reason for deliberately avoiding capturing bin Laden.

Total incompetence.

So how long does Obama get to catch him before you consider him totally incompetent? What about partially incompetent?

There are a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacks here. Some don't even know the game. Those people are usually the ones screaming the loudest.

[FatPitcher]

1. Maybe you're right. Maybe Bush, the oil man, had nothing to do with the success of the oil companies, which helped put him into office. Maybe he really didn't turn a blind eye to the price gouging that was going on last year. Then again, USA Today has a story this afternoon on the companies whose stocks have done the best over the last 8 years of Bush's administration.

2. "The runaway winner: Southwestern Energy, (SWN) the natural gas exploration and production company that had a compounded annual return of 48%.
***
Chevron, (CVX) ConocoPhillips (COP) and ExxonMobil (XOM) have [also] out-performed the average S&P 500 company, as have defense companies such as Lockheed Martin. (LMT)."

1. No, I AM right. I work in this business and the runup in oil prices had little to nothing to do with supply and demand as oil and natural gas are traded as GLOBAL commodities. There was not one thing Bush (or any government), OPEC, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, nor any other producer could do to influence this. Did they enjoy record profits? Yep. Does anyone even look at the balance sheets of these companies to see what their typical DC (direct contribution) or expenses are? Most oil companies perform at about a 10% DC and their expenses are ever-increasing due to raw material and supply costs. For anyone to suggest that this is Bush's fault did not watch the 60 Minutes piece on Sunday, January 11. The reasons behind the oil and energy price hikes and fall rest squarely on the shoulders of Wall Street, Morgan Stanley (and other brokerage houses) as well as pension fund managers. Go read or watch that piece and come back here and tell me that this is Bush's fault....

2. See above....these companies produce and sell commodities that are sold in a global marketplace by investment firms and Wall Street. To suggest they did nothing to stop this would be accurate because they could do nothing TO stop it. Yes, they made record profits and now they aren't. They have business plans based upon $70-100/barrel oil and because oil is half that today are now laying off employees because they can't sustain these projects and expenses at $35/barrel oil. ConocoPhillips just announced a 4% layoff and is just the first in the wave of numerous layoffs of energy companies....

I blame Bush for making oil prices too low and ruining my portfolio! All my oil company stocks have gone down! Also I blame him for making prices too high and making gasoline too expensive! And I blame him for not raising gasoline taxes to Euro levels to cut gasoline consumption! The Democratic Congress passed bills to fix all this stuff and Bush vetoed them!

Seriously, there's no point in even trying to reason with the "no blood for oil" types. You'd think that such peace loving-folk would switch to "no oil for blood" when countries like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela use their oil profits to finance weapons programs and inflict suffering on domestic opposition groups, Israel, etc. But their sense of morality doesn't extend any further than their party platform requires, and they can ignore their own party's complicity in the so-called incompetence and evil they see in their political opponents.

I was hoping that JackB1 and GTHobbes and the rest would become re-hinged after Obama won, but apparently there is no return from the deep end.

[DivotMaker]

It's just a what-if, not a reason for deliberately avoiding capturing bin Laden.

Total incompetence.

So how long does Obama get to catch him before you consider him totally incompetent? What about partially incompetent?

There are a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacks here. Some don't even know the game. Those people are usually the ones screaming the loudest.

Spot on FP....

[DivotMaker]

I was hoping that JackB1 and GTHobbes and the rest would become re-hinged after Obama won, but apparently there is no return from the deep end.

To quote a familiar theme from yesterday's inauguration...one can only "hope".....

[JRod]

It's just a what-if, not a reason for deliberately avoiding capturing bin Laden.

Total incompetence.

So how long does Obama get to catch him before you consider him totally incompetent? What about partially incompetent?

There are a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacks here. Some don't even know the game. Those people are usually the ones screaming the loudest.

Well he's in Pakistan so that changes the game. But Obama said he would consider targeting him in Pakistan. Bin Laden in Pakistan is a tougher situation now, made worse by Bush, because of the rising tensions between India and Pakistan. These two countries hate each other and luckily the Mumbai bombings didn't trigger the powder keg.

We wanted Saddam and look, we found him. Had the CIA not been influenced by the hawks in the White House after 9/11, they were on the path of getting Bin Laden. However, there was a power play made by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz over how much power Tenent and the CIA really had. And there was an internal struggle of those guys and the Powells/Tenents. The hawks won, also changing the Afghan strategy in real-time, not years later. This is just more than us shifting focus to Iraq, this is us shifting strategies from the CIA to the DOD in Afghanistan.

The power play led to the problems that we are seeing now in that country.


Is that the game you are talking about? Or maybe we should revisit India/Pakistani relations in context of the English occupation. Or how about how the English wrote about the trials of Afghanistan some 50 years earlier. Damn knowledge and facts.

[Teal]

It's just a what-if, not a reason for deliberately avoiding capturing bin Laden.

Total incompetence.

I get confused sometimes between your armchair evaluations of people whose shoes you've never filled but act as though you have, and a good self evaluation-which is this, just for clarification? Because they look so darn similar...

[JackB1]

I was hoping that JackB1 and GTHobbes and the rest would become re-hinged after Obama won, but apparently there is no return from the deep end.

To quote a familiar theme from yesterday's inauguration...one can only "hope".....

Go back and re-read Brando's post.

or to put it another way....
How does Obama's winning undo all the harm Bush did?

Let's try this....Let's say you really hated your boss for how he treated you unfairly for 8 years and then he quit and went to another company. You now have a great new boss who's fair and treats you well. Then you see your old boss on the street a week later...would you still hate him?

[JRod]

1. Maybe you're right. Maybe Bush, the oil man, had nothing to do with the success of the oil companies, which helped put him into office. Maybe he really didn't turn a blind eye to the price gouging that was going on last year. Then again, USA Today has a story this afternoon on the companies whose stocks have done the best over the last 8 years of Bush's administration.

2. "The runaway winner: Southwestern Energy, (SWN) the natural gas exploration and production company that had a compounded annual return of 48%.
***
Chevron, (CVX) ConocoPhillips (COP) and ExxonMobil (XOM) have [also] out-performed the average S&P 500 company, as have defense companies such as Lockheed Martin. (LMT)."

1. No, I AM right. I work in this business and the runup in oil prices had little to nothing to do with supply and demand as oil and natural gas are traded as GLOBAL commodities. There was not one thing Bush (or any government), OPEC, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, nor any other producer could do to influence this. Did they enjoy record profits? Yep. Does anyone even look at the balance sheets of these companies to see what their typical DC (direct contribution) or expenses are? Most oil companies perform at about a 10% DC and their expenses are ever-increasing due to raw material and supply costs. For anyone to suggest that this is Bush's fault did not watch the 60 Minutes piece on Sunday, January 11. The reasons behind the oil and energy price hikes and fall rest squarely on the shoulders of Wall Street, Morgan Stanley (and other brokerage houses) as well as pension fund managers. Go read or watch that piece and come back here and tell me that this is Bush's fault....

2. See above....these companies produce and sell commodities that are sold in a global marketplace by investment firms and Wall Street. To suggest they did nothing to stop this would be accurate because they could do nothing TO stop it. Yes, they made record profits and now they aren't. They have business plans based upon $70-100/barrel oil and because oil is half that today are now laying off employees because they can't sustain these projects and expenses at $35/barrel oil. ConocoPhillips just announced a 4% layoff and is just the first in the wave of numerous layoffs of energy companies....

1. Oversight. Bush had enough political capital to go to congress and stop speculators. Business isn't going to regulate itself, unless you call a crash regulation. Is it Bush's fault for the oil prices. No.

It is Bush's fault for not addressing the regulation side of that problem.

[JRod]

It's just a what-if, not a reason for deliberately avoiding capturing bin Laden.

Total incompetence.

I get confused sometimes between your armchair evaluations of people whose shoes you've never filled but act as though you have, and a good self evaluation-which is this, just for clarification? Because they look so darn similar...

Well considering there's only been 43 men to fill his shoes, you probably don't have the ability to defend him then do you? Or to make any assessments of the job he did.

[Teal]

Total incompetence.

I get confused sometimes between your armchair evaluations of people whose shoes you've never filled but act as though you have, and a good self evaluation-which is this, just for clarification? Because they look so darn similar...

Well considering there's only been 43 men to fill his shoes, you probably don't have the ability to defend him then do you? Or to make any assessments of the job he did.

I'm not trying to defend anything. But the elitist, nose-in-the-air smell around the "assessment" of 'total incompetence' actually smacks of pretty significant ignorance, rather than what you were probably trying to go for, which would seem to be 'the-smartest-guy-in-the-room' award. You'll likely spend the next four years defending the current occupant of the white house, to boot.

[JRod]

I get confused sometimes between your armchair evaluations of people whose shoes you've never filled but act as though you have, and a good self evaluation-which is this, just for clarification? Because they look so darn similar...

Well considering there's only been 43 men to fill his shoes, you probably don't have the ability to defend him then do you? Or to make any assessments of the job he did.

I'm not trying to defend anything. But the elitist, nose-in-the-air smell around the "assessment" of 'total incompetence' actually smacks of pretty significant ignorance, rather than what you were probably trying to go for, which would seem to be 'the-smartest-guy-in-the-room' award. You'll likely spend the next four years defending the current occupant of the white house, to boot.

So I can't call him incompetent, if I never served as President.


Your posts are comical. You logical is pathetic, however.

[Jackdog]

We will have thousands of returning soldiers from Iraq soon to deal with. Many with mental illness, countless injuries, missing limbs, etc. trying to fit back into society and recieve badly needed healthcare, during the upcoming years. Hopefully Obama will do everything in his power to care for these returning soldiers. But unfortunately Bush's "legacy" will be with us for a long time and will be analyzed many times over by historians, Americans and the rest of the world. Would we like to forget? Of course. Is that possible. Don't think so.

Many with mental illness?? WTF man. Where are you getting this bullshit? There are about 18 suicides per day among America's 25 million veterans.That works out to about 6,570 per year. Most are Vietnam Era Vets. A a complete overhaul of the VA has been needed since the middle of the war in Vietnam.From the lackadaisical employees who seem to have time for everything except taking care of the vets.To the top decision makers who decide that a vet who has lost a quarter of his brain and head and is given a 10% disability.
And, for the VA hospitals that have a higher death and MRSA rate than all other hospitals.
Etc., etc., etc.

Our vets deserve nothing less than the very best care that this Country can give, NOTHING less.
And, it is our duty as appreciative Americans to see that our vets get the very best of everything.
Write the President, your senator, your congressman and tell them.
I do. Do you? Have you ever???

You love to rail on about my fellow soldiers and how pitiful we are,yet what have you ever done to fix the problems? I suggested you visit a VA hospital and talk to the soldiers when you lived in Florida,did you? Have you since? If you haven't gotten into the game then do me, a former soldier a favor. Stop using us in your hate rhetoric about Bush. It's tired and it fu*king hypocritical. Because unlike yourself,Bush has actually done something about the issues. http://www.factcheck.org/funding_for_ve ... crats.html

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/m ... h_080107w/

[DivotMaker]

1. Oversight. Bush had enough political capital to go to congress and stop speculators. Business isn't going to regulate itself, unless you call a crash regulation. Is it Bush's fault for the oil prices. No.

2. It is Bush's fault for not addressing the regulation side of that problem.

1. I highly doubt that to be the case with the sub-prime mortgage mess that was already in play and impacting the economy.

2. No, it is Congress' fault IMO....

[Rodster]

1. Oversight. Bush had enough political capital to go to congress and stop speculators. Business isn't going to regulate itself, unless you call a crash regulation. Is it Bush's fault for the oil prices. No.

2. It is Bush's fault for not addressing the regulation side of that problem.

1. I highly doubt that to be the case with the sub-prime mortgage mess that was already in play and impacting the economy.

2. No, it is Congress' fault IMO....

Insert the names Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

[DivotMaker]

1. Go back and re-read Brando's post.

2. or to put it another way....
How does Obama's winning undo all the harm Bush did?

3. Let's try this....Let's say you really hated your boss for how he treated you unfairly for 8 years and then he quit and went to another company. You now have a great new boss who's fair and treats you well. Then you see your old boss on the street a week later...would you still hate him?

1. Don't need to.

2. It doesn't, but this "harm" you continue to claim Bush imposed (all by himself, no less) upon the American public escapes me. I doubt we are ever going to agree on anything Bush did or didn't do with that type of mindset...

3. Completely irrelevant comparison. Bush was not your direct boss and I fail to see how anything he did DIRECTLY impacted you personally. Nice try, but I am not buying it....

[FatPitcher]

So I can't call him incompetent, if I never served as President.


Your posts are comical. You logical is pathetic, however.

Some people have the capacity to understand the complexity and thorniness of the issues a president faces. These people, if they are intellectually honest, know that both they and their favorite politician would stumble from time to time in the same role.

You are not one of those people. Therefore, you would need to actually experience the role personally in order to comprehend. I am reminded of the episode of Metalocalypse where the lead singer became Governor of Florida.

It's always funny reading the unprincipled screed of political hacks. Their morals and ideals vascillate, and the only constant is their party alignment. If Bush had left Iraq alone, the Democrats would have become hawkish, and you, their fatihful lapdog, would be talking about what a failure the administration was for allowing Iraq to dominate the Middle East and use its oil money for weapons programs. If Gore had been President and had not killed or caught bin Laden, Democrats and you, their faithful lapdog, would have been minimizing his importance while Republicans would be trying to score political points off it.

That is why the majority of political discourse is mindless, intellectually dishonest tripe served by liars, hypocrites, opportunists, and pliable goons.

[GameSeven]

Your posts are comical. You logical is pathetical, however.

FTFY

[GameSeven]

So I can't call him incompetent, if I never served as President.


Your posts are comical. You logical is pathetic, however.

Some people have the capacity to understand the complexity and thorniness of the issues a president faces. These people, if they are intellectually honest, know that both they and their favorite politician would stumble from time to time in the same role.

You are not one of those people. Therefore, you would need to actually experience the role personally in order to comprehend. I am reminded of the episode of Metalocalypse where the lead singer became Governor of Florida.

It's always funny reading the unprincipled screed of political hacks. Their morals and ideals vascillate, and the only constant is their party alignment. If Bush had left Iraq alone, the Democrats would have become hawkish, and you, their fatihful lapdog, would be talking about what a failure the administration was for allowing Iraq to dominate the Middle East and use its oil money for weapons programs. If Gore had been President and had not killed or caught bin Laden, Democrats and you, their faithful lapdog, would have been minimizing his importance while Republicans would be trying to score political points off it.

That is why the majority of political discourse is mindless, intellectually dishonest tripe served by liars, hypocrites, opportunists, and pliable goons.

ZOMG! Post of the Year!

[JRod]

So I can't call him incompetent, if I never served as President.


Your posts are comical. You logical is pathetic, however.

Some people have the capacity to understand the complexity and thorniness of the issues a president faces. These people, if they are intellectually honest, know that both they and their favorite politician would stumble from time to time in the same role.

You are not one of those people. Therefore, you would need to actually experience the role personally in order to comprehend. I am reminded of the episode of Metalocalypse where the lead singer became Governor of Florida.

It's always funny reading the unprincipled screed of political hacks. Their morals and ideals vascillate, and the only constant is their party alignment. If Bush had left Iraq alone, the Democrats would have become hawkish, and you, their fatihful lapdog, would be talking about what a failure the administration was for allowing Iraq to dominate the Middle East and use its oil money for weapons programs. If Gore had been President and had not killed or caught bin Laden, Democrats and you, their faithful lapdog, would have been minimizing his importance while Republicans would be trying to score political points off it.

That is why the majority of political discourse is mindless, intellectually dishonest tripe served by liars, hypocrites, opportunists, and pliable goons.

Let me ask you this... have any of you guys actually worked for elected officials or in any capacity in the executive branch.

I have. Now not all people are bad. Not all are corrupt. But this is a democracy, where the best don't get elected. Are only real requirement for winning is simply you have more votes than the next guy. That's basically it aside from the statutory laws.

If you think that you can't rise to the level of of leading the free world and still be incompetent, then you are only fooling yourself.

Let's go the dictionary for what incompetent means...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incompetent

1: not legally qualified
2: inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3 a: lacking the qualities needed for effective action b: unable to function properly

I think Bush fits under 2 & 3.

[Rodster]

By that definition you could easily put Clinton and goofball Jimmy Carter in the mix.

[DivotMaker]

Let's go the dictionary for what incompetent means...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incompetent

1: not legally qualified
2: inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3 a: lacking the qualities needed for effective action b: unable to function properly

I think Bush fits under 2 & 3.

Where is that photo of the dead horse still being beaten when I need it?

Seriously though, it is easy to sit there and cast aspersions on others from quite the distance. Have YOU ever been anywhere remotely near a President in their day to day tasks? If not, then I find your comments above to be just as irrelevant as anyone elses who have not been exposed to what goes on day in and day out. And since you have tarbrushed many who DO work in the government as incompetent with your other comments above, how would any of THEM be qualified to determine if Bush was competent or incompetent? Anyone sitting where the average American sits doesn't have the first f***in clue what goes on in the Oval Office day in and day out.....