user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Hell no! What in the hell is that dumbass doing?! He has got to be the most f*cked up president in the history of the United States.
Sell the damn things to Canada or the Philippines, just dont sell them to any middle eastern country..
*countries
This is yet another mindless move, based no on reason but on George W Bush's "gut".
The only reason Pakistan is currently a US ally is because Mushareff is in power. If the people ever get representation, we will pprobably face some well-deserved resentment and animosity.
But thanks to Bush, it will be from a country with a new fleet of F-16s.
Pakistan has nukes and is not democratic, two reasons why US and Britain went to war. Bush is an hypocritical jerkoff. No doubt someone will come in and say it's to fight terrorism.
by isay on Sat May 14, 05 1:49pm
[+]
Right on Cathexis. Just take a look at the U.S. pattern throughout the 20th century. No foresight is ever given to any decision made by the pentagon. They will support corrupt regimes under the guise of supporting democracy, and they will furnish these regimes with the tools they need to carry out their true agendas.
Heck why not, our weapons are already all over the world.
That's what MONEY$$$ is worth to us eh.. arming the whole world with US-made weapons?
I'm so proud I'm gonna explode now.
by Jyl on Sat May 14, 05 2:23pm
[+]
If the Europeans are going to sell them 3rd generation fighters it makes sense to enter the market since they're already going to have those types of weapons. But I don't know if Europe is willing to sell those so I can't say for sure.
No of course not. This is a Republican plot to take over the world. All conservatives march lockstep.
There are no problems in the paradise of China. It is the most beneficient government ever to present itself to humanity. Tienamen Square was just Republican propaganda, noone was ever massacred there. The Great Leap Forward was an incredible success. Everyone got fat, happy and their spiritual wealth grew by leaps and bounds. And anyone who says differently is a Republican tool.
There are no slave labor camps in China. That is the tool of the Republican liars telling you that.
There is no harvesting of organs from Chinese criminals. That is more rightist propaganda.
Why am I bringing China up?
Because Bill Clinton allowed Loral Technologies to sell the Red fuckers missile technology that makes it possible for those little bitches to hit the West Coast of the US.
I guess that is okay because who cares when it is the good and beneficient Democrat. There are so many things that Bill accomplished. He personally oversaw the booming economy. If not for him the Republicans would have drove businesses into the sea.
What hypocrisy.
Hypocritical because you think I love Bill Clinton, and fell it was okay for *him to've sold weapons/war tech. to second and third world countries?
I wish you could imagine how hard I'm waving my flag right now :p
Now back to the question of the poll..
by Jyl on Sat May 14, 05 7:10pm
[+]
I was responding to the poll. If you are responding to me let you be known that I wasn't talking to you.
If you support the sale of missile tech to China and oppose the sale of fighter jets to Pakistan then you are a hypocrite.
Of course, the world was perfect under Hitler, I mean Clinton. There were no wars. Oops there was a bunch of wars. There was no homelessness. Oops There was alot of homelessness. There was no greed. Oops there were still Republicans. There was no genocide. Oops there was at least one sort of genocide in Rwanda. And Clinton claimed that there was "ethnic cleansing" in Yugoslavia. Women had full rights around the world until the Republicans and Tony B-liar took over.
First things first: GWB is so desperate to capture Osama that he would sell intercontinental ballistic missles and time with Laura aboard Air Force One if he believed it would work. Expediency is the motive here. Damn the future!
And a little footnote to the above comment: I doubt seriously that Pakistan is getting the full package with their F-16's. Lots of upgrades wouldn't be included, I'm guessing.
Then there's inter_regnum's accurate observation that when Clinton was President many of the same things that trouble us now were much the same. And the reason for this is that the national debate and attitude had veered hard right. So, it pulled him, via "regression to the mean" (an equation that Bush doesn't comprehend or follow) toward the middle. It was a form of sell-out, and it was noted and deplored. Lots of upside to Bill, though, and we handled it.
Yes, inter, each so-called "party" serves their masters. Some slip it to us painlessly and others are artless and stupid. But we end, what? We get hammered.
Good ballot and observations. Thanks.
Griff if GWB would do that, if he is only concerned about expediency then why hasn't he done the stupid things you accuse him of doing? It doesn't even make sense what you said. GWB would sell his left ball to capture Osama? Then why did he go into Iraq? Please don't tell me because he was stupid, because then I would have to lose all respect for you. On one hand you are claiming that Bush is conniving and desperate and on the other he is stupid and manipulated. Ridiculous.
Except that for all your assertions you still support the corrupt and evil Clinton administration. Look Griff you want to have it both ways.
The way that you use the term "regression to the mean" doesn't even make sense. But of course Bush is too stupid to understand it. Well he doesn't speak liberal.
You want to pretend that you know what regression analysis is? Fine. But at least either put into a context that makes sense or explain what you mean.
When a liberal compares Bushy to Hitler, he is behaving idiotically. When a conservative compares Clinton to Hitler, the same rule applies.
And I still can't see what Clinton's behavior has to do with Bushy selling Pakistan nuclear arms technology that his father refused to.
Unless, of course, you are making the argument that both Bushy and Bubba are a couple of opportunistic, amoral, social climbing dirtbags--which is an argument I have some sympathy for.
yes Cranky I don't think bush has a corner on avaricious behaviour.
By your standards noone would be able to ever hold office.
The US can sell Pakistan F-16s or they can lose them as an ally (possibly).
I think that the sale of missile tech to the little Red Bastards is far worse then the sale of some old F-16s to Pakistan.
Our Air Force has a newer generation of planes so the Pakis won't be able to challenge us.
In the missile tech sale the US doesn't/didn't have a next generation of tech. So even in this there are degrees to the politics.
Hello again, Inter_regnum. Thought I would respond to your remarks with reference to my (somewhat tongue-in-cheek and hyperbolic)suggestion that GWB would do a lot to capture Osama, and my use of the term "regression to the mean."
Point 1: I believe that the Bush Administration is desperate enough to do just about anything to capture Osama. Might have it wrong, but it is a sincerely held believe.
Point 2: Yes, I pretend to know what "regression to the mean" is: Regression to the mean is a technical term in statistics. It means that, left to themselves, things tend to return to normal, whatever that is. It applies to random performance: if you roll an ordinary die, and it comes up 5, the odds are that the next roll will be lower. It applies to things that indicate other things: if a man is seven feet tall, his son is likely to be tall, but not nearly seven feet tall. The first application is the most important, since it is the one we mostly get wrong.
It is probably more accurate to say, "regression TOWARD the mean."
And, how on earth do you imagine that this tendency does not apply to politics? It has been observed by many, many people
that no matter what stripe of politician, they tend to move toward the mainstream once they are in office.
This tendency has not been noted in the Bush Presidency, probably because of the influence of his more radical supporters: the Evangelical Christian Right.
Enjoyed your comments. Thanks.
Well I too understand regression. And I am not sure that statistically there will be a higher chance that the next roll of the die will be lower. there are more opportunities for their to be a number below 5 yet each role is independent of the other with a fair die.
But politicians run to the middle after they win the nomination. They stoke their base in the primaries and then try to capture the biggest portion of the middle as possible.
|
|
