One thing about G-Dub.

Bush had a schtick, a basic framework which allowed his PR machine to build an enormous, hollow edifice on top of it. His weaknesses were successfully re-cast as strengths, for a while, at least.
 
Hawk said:
And now, something a little less anecdotal:

Wikipedia: Public Opinion on the Iraq War

In May 2003, a Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons.

--

Internationally, is a completely different story, of course.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can wikipedia just as well as the rest of us, so you know damn well you cherry-picked that number. The invasion was in March, not May. Pre-invastion, the country was quite split. Here's what a more thorough wikipedia page tells me:

March 2003

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.
Click to expand...

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]

May 2003 was the "high point" of the entire stupid ordeal, what with "Mission Accomplished" and all that. "Major combat operations" were supposed to be finished.

But pre-invasion there was plenty of dissent. I come from a liberal yuppie paradise and no one I knew was onboard. That's why they had to make up all that horse hockey about yellow cakes and roving weapons labs.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I'm sure you can wikipedia just as well as the rest of us, so you know damn well you cherry-picked that number. The invasion was in March, not May. Pre-invastion, the country was quite split. Here's what a more thorough wikipedia page tells me:

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]

May 2003 was the "high point" of the entire stupid ordeal, what with "Mission Accomplished" and all that. "Major combat operations" were supposed to be finished.

But pre-invasion there was plenty of dissent. I come from a liberal yuppie paradise and no one I knew was onboard. That's why they had to make up all that horse hockey about yellow cakes and roving weapons labs.
Click to expand...

The fact that they did that should be acknowledged and considered unforgivable, regardless of political stripe.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yep.

Joe Biden, bless his heart, had a line in his stump speech—he was running for president in 2004, remember—and I heard it early on, in a couple of small rooms, and it resonated. He said that at that moment, G-Dub should have asked America to embark on a Manhattan Project, an Apollo Project, to wean ourselves from Middle East oil. I agree, wholeheartedly. What we did was just the opposite. Imagine what could have been different if we'd taken dumbass Joe Biden's advice instead of Dubya's.
Click to expand...

And exactly what are we supposed to replace Middle East oil with? What full scale ready to go technology do you have? You can't even resist posting dribble on a message board to reduce your carbon footprint. Can you understand why I don't take someone like you seriously? How is the electricity you use to power your computer and other gadgets generated? Coal? How will you generate the electricity to power all those electric cars? Coal? Hydro? Nuclear? What exactly is the lefts answer to get us off of Middle East Oil? Keystone? LOL. There are no bigger polluters than enviromantalists. The main goal of environmentalism is to national energy policy like they have healthcare.

Sturg here is yet another example of their theocracy!
 
Metaphysicist said:
I'm sure you can wikipedia just as well as the rest of us, so you know damn well you cherry-picked that number. The invasion was in March, not May. Pre-invastion, the country was quite split. Here's what a more thorough wikipedia page tells me:

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]

May 2003 was the "high point" of the entire stupid ordeal, what with "Mission Accomplished" and all that. "Major combat operations" were supposed to be finished.

But pre-invasion there was plenty of dissent. I come from a liberal yuppie paradise and no one I knew was onboard. That's why they had to make up all that horse hockey about yellow cakes and roving weapons labs.
Click to expand...

I knew you were more Avondale Estates than Decatur ..................
 
You think Avondale Estates is more liberal and yuppie than Decatur? Vol, you are wrong about so many things, but you have reached new heights with this one.
 
VOLracious said:
And exactly what are we supposed to replace Middle East oil with? What full scale ready to go technology do you have? You can't even resist posting dribble on a message board to reduce your carbon footprint. Can you understand why I don't take someone like you seriously? How is the electricity you use to power your computer and other gadgets generated? Coal? How will you generate the electricity to power all those electric cars? Coal? Hydro? Nuclear? What exactly is the lefts answer to get us off of Middle East Oil? Keystone? LOL. There are no bigger polluters than enviromantalists. The main goal of environmentalism is to national energy policy like they have healthcare.

Sturg here is yet another example of their theocracy!
Click to expand...

Sucking fossils fuels out of the ground until they're gone and fighting the occasional costly war over the ability to do so isn't much of a strategy. I'd rather see us lead rather that follow, on the supply side as well as the demand side. If you don't get the necessity of this and don't get the utility of doing it sooner rather than later, I'd suggest that you lack vision.

The government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry to the tune of tens of billions a year. Health care costs associated with fossil fuels have been estimated at over $100B a year. So, yeah, there's room to do better there.

What full scale ready to go technology do you have?

What nuclear weapon were we ready to deploy in 1939? What lunar landing vehicle was ready to go in 1959? I think you missed the point.

Can you understand why I don't take someone like you seriously?

:pound:

There are no bigger polluters than enviromantalists.

I'd argue that there are no more backward-looking, head-in-the-sand, proud numbskulls than those who would make this statement without backing it up.
 
There really do need to be realistic proposals coming from the alternative-fuel crowd. And solar panel roads ain't it. Combine all the alternative models together, throw in a good measure of conservation, and we still aren't anywhere close in economy of scale, to needs.

In the mean time, incorporating more and more modes of conservation and energy-use reduction is a good thing and will be forced upon us with higher costs across the board. I just wish you could find a decent small truck again.
 
BedellBrave said:
There really do need to be realistic proposals coming from the alternative-fuel crowd. And solar panel roads ain't it. Combine all the alternative models together, throw in a good measure of conservation, and we still aren't anywhere close in economy of scale, to needs.

In the mean time, incorporating more and more modes of conservation and energy-use reduction is a good thing and will be forced upon us with higher costs across the board. I just wish you could find a decent small truck again.
Click to expand...

Crazy how that happened. There used to be so many great little trucks out there.

There really do need to be realistic proposals coming from the alternative-fuel crowd.

Oh, man.
 
Operative word, "realistic." I still have some engineer in me and nothing yet scratches the surface, imho.

We Americans like big trucks. Dang, I just want something to haul stuff as needed and that doesn't drink gas.
 
Utilizing domestic fuel resources whilest intensely pursuing alternative energy sources seems like the obvious way to go. It's the perfect middle ground, the perfect compromise.
 
weso1 said:
Utilizing domestic fuel resources whilest intensely pursuing alternative energy sources seems like the obvious way to go. It's the perfect middle ground, the perfect compromise.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that we're strategically sitting on our stash. When the rest of the world runs dry, we will be the oil king-maker
 
We don't have enough accessible oil to supply the world. We have a bunch of potential oil, but most of it is oil we can't get to, but maybe will be able to get to in the future. In other words, we don't need to save oil that we can get to as a strategy to own the oil supply, because we just simply don't have near enough to supply the entire world. We have a ton of oil that can't help but be saved, because we just can't get to it yet. This is our only chance to have a legit stranglehold on the oil supply. To figure out how to get into domestic oil supplies that are currently inaccessible.

The goal however is and should be to get off oil completely in the long term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top