Monday, July 7, 2008

Questions for Liberals

I've found my ability to blog is affected by not only the kids, but by the heat. Thus, this will be short.

Now, I was getting up, listening to the radio, and I had some questions floating around in my head. I'm just wondering if anyone of the liberal persuasion will have the courage to answer them honestly (as in without agenda).

1. If it is possible, do you want to see us victorious in Iraq?

2. Is there any available form of viable domestic energy that we can tap to ease the crunch from foreign oil?

3. Other than national defense, are there any other government agencies or offices that could be cut?

4. Would it help solve the energy price crunch if the government led on the conservation issue instead of legislating everybody else?

5. What has George W Bush done right?

Simple answers are preferred. Now lets see if you can answer honestly, or if you just have the shortcuts for cut and paste memorized.


Dave Miller said...

Patrick, it has got to be short as I only get limited access here in Mexico.

1. Of course as a lib I want to see us victorious. And I believe the military has accomplished the task for which they were sent. WMD's have been dealt with. Saddam is gone. Iraq is no longer a threat to the US. Now since the military was never meant to be a nation builder [affirmed by Bush in his 2000 campaign] let's bring them home and leave the rest to the politicians. The remaining work is for the Iraqi armed forces and the politicos.

2. Let's tap all of the current land and off shore oil leases that are being held already by the oil companies. I believe something like 60% of those have yet to be developed by the Exxons of the world. Once that has been done, we can then look at ANWR, the current love child of the political right.

3. Most of our gov't agencies can be run more efficiently. A better question would be what programs should be cut or downsized. My first vote is for business and farm subsidies.

4. No doubt. If the gov't set a positive example, most people would think we were in this together.

5. I am sure he has done a few things right. His AIDS push has been wonderful. But the sheer size of his foreign policy gaffes have overshadowed almost anything he has done on the other side.

Even supporters cannot deny that our standing and respect in the world has declined immensely during this Admin.

Sorry man, i know I went a little long.


Patrick M said...

I knew you could come across with honest answers, especially since question 4 came from your idea for getting the government on economy cars (oh where did the Yugo go?).

And you didn't go too long.

Toad734 said...

1. We already won in Iraq, time to go. The objectives were:
a. Get the WMDs. Well there were none so on to the next step
b. Get Saddam and his sons. They are dead
C. Allow election and establish a government with an army. Mission Accomplished.

By being there we are just target practice in the upcoming civil war which would have happened 90 years ago if Iraq hadn't always been ruled by the barrel of a gun.

2. Sure tons, a man recently invented a car, engine, welding torch that runs on water. Ethanol, assuming it wasn't subsidized and was in widespread use would work as well as hybrid technologies

3. Merge the CIA, FBI, NSA.
Cut the division that deals with and thus all government subsidies with the exception of maybe Amtrak or something else that keeps traffic out of my way. Who evers job it is to deal with lobbyists, fire all of them. And yes, national offense should be cut as well. We could get rid of Medicare, medicade and most of the welfare and public housing sector if we had 1 national health care system.

4. No, it wouldn't solve anything, it may help a tad.

5. Lowered the capital gains taxes on stocks at a time after 9/11 when the stock market was in the toilet. He invaded Afghanistan which he should have done but didn't do with any real success and really, it was just prime property for an oil pipeline.
He also withdrew from Kyoto; the only reason I agreed with that move is not that I thought we should be able to pollute but that Kyoto only made us, France, Germany, Japan and Britain limit our emissions, not the countries like Mexico, China and India where all of our jobs are going. It isn't a fair playing field and why move pollution from one place just so it can go to another? It made about as much sense as robbing Peter to pay Paul. So even though he probably didn't think it through to that degree and had other reasons, it was the right message to send to with regards to such a lopsided treaty. Otherwise, everything he has touched has been a disaster. All you have to do is look at Iraq, Bin Laden, Afghanistan, the Economy, Oil prices, net worth, the national debt, the housing crisis, the job losses, the gain of only minimum wage jobs, 9/11, Enron, etc. Probably will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history.

Toad734 said...

Oh, add department of homeland security on that government downsizing thing. I am sure if I looked into it, I could find more.

Patrick M said...

Toad: Glad you could join the conversation with some honest answers as well. Although, for soe reason, you can't talk about Bush without getting the usual digs. In your case, I probably would have gotten a better answer if I'd have left off the 'George W' and not capitalized the rest.

Toad734 said...

WEll you asked. And in talking about what Bush has done right, its not my fault that there always has to be a "but..." when talking about what he has done right. Even the things I feel he made the right decision on he probably did for different reasons and he probably ended up muffing it up in the end.

I'll even go as far to say as he was right in pressuring Saddam into allowing inspectors back into the country and at least monitoring his lack of weapons program. The problem is that once Saddam let inspectors in and they said he had no weapons, he attacked anyway. This is the shit that I am talking about...thers is always a catch with Bush. It's his fault not mine.

Patrick M said...

....its not my fault that there always has to be a "but[t]..."

Don't you hate selective quoting?

Saddam was dicking with the inspectors the whole time, leaving us with plenty of questions and faulty intelligence. And while I don't necessarily want to get into the whole justification of the war argument (as it has been beaten to death incessantly), the case as presented to us at the time was enough to justify it then.

But you have answered the questions and given me reasons to laugh. Mainly because I get a kick out of arguing for some perverse reason.

Toad734 said...

Not in March of 03. Perhaps in September of 02 he was giving us reasons but by March the insepctors had been through the country and concluded he wasn't hiding anything.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

This is so good I'm just gonna answer it over at my house.

Patrick M said...

Toad: Oh yeah, the UN inspectors. The ones who kept getting the runaround and the circle jerk? The ones who seemed to be unable to find their nuts (did Jesse get 'em?) while pissing for over a decade? The ones who have all the credibility of a Code Pinko on foreign terrorism?

If that's what you take as credible, it's no wonder you're convinced Bush is a liar.

Saty: And I shall respond in kind (or unkind if I get the dander up).