Wolfpaw
Banned
Bush has already done some good service in the Middle East
OOC:
Bush has already done some good service in the Middle East
If you want to start a flamewar, do it in Chat. I notice that you have a habit of hit-and-run posts in the main forums, instead of engaging in real debate.
The I suppose you are feeling relieved that President McCain decided against sending Former President George W. Bush as a special envoy in his stead. Bush has already done some good service in the Middle East, but McCain thought the sending him to a global warming revival meeting would just be too much.
Without the stimulus, the banking system would have collapsed, leading to far more unemployed, not fewer.All in all I think President McCain has done a good job. True, most of his Presidency seems to consist of vetoing stupid stuff being passed by Pelosi and Reid, like that budget busting stimulus. I realize that Senator Obama and his supporters are running around claiming "We can do better that 7.8 percent unemployment." (The 10 percent quoted by a poster includes "underemployed" and discouraged workers.) But the trends seem to have turned around from the high of 8.2 percent in September.
ASBThe "invasion" of Iran, which consisted of air and missiles strikes of Iranian nuclear facilities, as well as the special ops raid that recovered proof of the Iranian nuclear program, appears to be a complete success.
ASB. BTW, the neocons said the same thing would happen in Iraq.The Iranian opposition seems to have been emboldened and reports are that there are large parts of the countryside that are now out of control of the Mullahs. There is street fighting in Tehran that may lead to the overthrow of the Mullahs.
What's he doing about the 25% unemployment?Now if only President McCain could get the tax cuts extended. True, the deficit has gone down thanks to his vetoing of liberal spending bills, but the expiration of tax cuts threatens the economic recovery.
His first post was quite in keeping with this thread. I note he was flamed first. Or do you only call people flamers when they dont agree with you? Rather hypocritical, that.
No, his first post was a McCain/neocon-wank. While I will say he did not necessarily instigate the flaming, he should know (as we all should) that wanks (unless clearly labeled as such) belong only in the Chat Forum or in marked TLs.
This is a political DBWI. In this case, it is a McCain-win, which is entirely legitimate. He, however, attempted to turn it into a McCain/neocon-wank, along with injecting highly controversial and caustic theories, especially with regards to climate change.
So any way you look at it, he's guilty of either trying to start a flame war, or gross ignorance of Board etiquette, neither of which typically meet with a happy end on this site.
You know Mark Whittington has been on my ignore list before I even entered this thread to read his stupidty, and I don't know why.![]()
His first post was quite in keeping with this thread. I note he was flamed first. Or do you only call people flamers when they dont agree with you? Rather hypocritical, that.
Actually Sarah Palin provided the McCain Campaign with the only hint of excitement it enjoyed, actually driving his poll numbers higher than Obama's for a brief period. Mind, with the economic downturn going full throttle in September, I'm not sure that anyone, even Palin, could have saved McCain. My POD puts off the economic down turn for a couple of months until after the election,OOC: Actually, most of my reactions would have been how I would have reacted. I would probably have become pretty reactionary towards the right, and would have been very angry about the election.
Also, if we are going to do this seriously, we are going to have to get a new VP for McCain. I honestly believe Sarah Palin was a major reason McCain lost. She was to polarizing. I don't know who to replace her with, but I would recommend someone who isn't so radically conservative. Someone more like McCain.