The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

raycarey

a few points from my perspective...

the dems were voted in to office 17 months ago to bring an end to the fiasco in iraq. despite the best efforts of some, they've been unable to do so because of the strong war powers of the executive branch--that and they're afraid to cut off funding. it is for this reason that congress has such low approval ratings.

and regarding spending, i can't imagine this most recent congress has spent anywhere near as much on pork as they did between 2002-2006. remember that bush didn't veto a single bill during those years. it was an open check book all the way.

__________________
"John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush more than 90% of the time...that's not a maverick, that's a sidekick." Sen. Bob Casey

Milkman

The GOP has spent money like crazy. And GOP members of both houses of Congresses have not stood up to GWB on his rampant spending. A 9 trillion dollar deficit, and this doesn't even include the medicare expansion he signed a couple of year ago that will bring the USA down to its knees.

As for the (D) Congress. They are sitting on their hand on Iraq, perhaps because during this election cycle, they could be accused of being "weak" by a troop reduction and/or pull out.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

Norton

They failed miserably in putting the "best" effort forward. With their majority they failed to convince even Republicans opposed to the war to join in getting the 2/3 majority needed to override a veto. And the reason,

Because of potential political backlash from the war cry created by the GWB administration of "not supporting the troops". No funding, no continuance of the war full stop. Nothing to do with "supporting the troops" as some would have us believe.

And when McCain (if he should win) gets in and requests a much bigger package to expand the war, why do we think the congress will act any differently?

__________________
Eat right, exercise daily, live clean, die anyway.

stroller

I wonder how many Dems really want to pull the troops out and how much of the noise is empty rhetoric.
Didn't many vote in favour of the invasion?

And even I, having strong anti-war and anti-military views, can see that it would be foolish to leave Iraq to its own fate at present. I suspect many Dems see this as well, but are reluctant to say so, out of political motives.

But that's a different topic not related to Michelle...

Norton

Pandora's box is open. Now what??? But as you say another subject.

raycarey

all 2008 US political roads lead back to iraq....and how much the american public is sick of it.

Boon Mee

They may be "sick" of it but the alternative is a far worse scenario...

raycarey

ooooohhhh. scary.

where's the pathetic fear mongering emoticon?

Boon Mee

They have a word for your attitude in Thai there, RC
Ask one of your students to explain "seeuu", eh?

Check out this BBC report - sorta hits home w/you folks...

BBC NEWS | Europe | 'World peace' hitcher is murdered

raycarey

oooooooooooohhhh......even scarier.

and btw, the last thing i need is some geriatric that doesn't even live in thailand (and probably never will) attempting to give me thai language lessons.

Boon Mee

Heh...I've probably lived in Thailand full-time longer than you there teach!
Kao jai?

...btw, asked your 'kiddies' that definition yet?

blackgang

So far, No One, RC nor sTrollie has said what difference it will make when a different person is elected to top chair, The Change in elected officials have made no difference, even tho they all promised a change and no more money for the war, but i see no difference..
So whats going to change, everyone knows that the Prez can not over power congress if they are of a mind to tell him to fuck off.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Political Correctness: A doctrine, fosteredby a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

raycarey

errrr....how do you know what i've 'said' if you have me on ignore? just how many times per day do you take me off ignore to look at that "one" post?



considering you're probably twice my age, that wouldn't be too surprising. hopefully one day you'll get enough dough squirrled away so you stop fighting the traffic every morning. does chevron have a mandatory retirement age?


back on topic...

michelle obama will be on colbert later this week.

stroller

If it makes no difference who the pres is, than what is your objection to Obama?
Something about his looks you don't like?

Bugs

I know the question was not directed at me. But I wanted to respond anyway.

Yea, his big buckn' ears.

Texpat

I have no objections to Obama.

What I object to is people continually bashing a president who, in the end, will be little better or worse than the next one. As if the sky will open in January and a chorus will sing and all will be right in the world if Democrats take the White House.

It's horseshit and you know it. I object to the petty, childish villification of a man who happened to be in the chair at the time. Lets see what the next four years bring. My guess is more of the same. Many here say, "It can't be worse." I think it can be far worse.

In my opinion, Obama won't be taken seriously. He's a neophyte.
McCain will be viewed by both sides as a continuation of Bush.
Clinton will bring hatred of the presidency to a new level such that Bush will be looked at with greatest affection.

blackgang

That is ex-fukin-zactly correct, thats what I say too, Don't make no difference who is the prez, what makes the diff is what congress does with his suggestions, but still assholes keep blaming Bush for the bad shit..He ain't helped any but it damn sure ain all his fault either.
Just remember what was said when Pelosi was set in the chair, how Now shit gonna change and she gonna just do wonders,, shit all she has done is ride the jets around for free and not a damn thing has changed other that that.-

chinthee

Look guys, as you know, I'm mostly conservative, but GWB has been the most polarizing, divisive President in recent memory. His foreign policy has been characterized by the unprecedented stated policy of simply not talking to any countries it disagrees with - hardly exemplary statesmanship. His most lasting negative legacy will be the tremendous breakdown or misrepresentation in intelligence which led to the Iraq fiasco. His destructive foreign policy legacy will take decades to reverse. I find it almost impossible to believe as George Sr. was a true statesman, and one would think he could have counseled his son.

Anyway, just in terms of foreign policy GWB has been the worst president I've ever seen, and that's not taking into account the spending issues. No, it's not true that any President is the same in office. H.W. Bush, Reagan, even Nixon would never have behaved this way.