Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Mary
    3. Posts
    M
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 12
    • Posts 160
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by Mary

    • RE: Hillary Clinton

      @Zooey72:

      @Mary:

      God forbid we return to the days of budget surplusses, peace, and a robust economy :roll:

      Is anyone really happy with the direction the country’s headed in?

      ahh, and the days b4 N Korea became a nuclear threat, letting bin laden go on 2 different occasions, ending the term in a recession, building up the whole .com bubble so that it would burst, giving our tech to the chinese, handicapping our trade for decades to come with Nafta, getting us involved in 2 conflicts we had no bussiness being in, the list goes on. Bush has his problems, but Clinton was a jacka$$.

      2 conflicts we had no business getting involved in? What Somalia? Bosnia? Incomparable to the hundreds of billions spent on Iraq, the lives lost on both sides. But I digress- when the Clinton-blaming starts, the white-flag goes up. I accept your surrender on the condition that you really start examining Bush’s policies.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Hillary Clinton

      Poverty level rising (37 million now in poverty, according to Census Bearuea), household income flat (again, Census Beaurea), manufacturing disappearing, another 800,000 medically uninsured, and have you checked your 401k recently? Mine has had negative growth for the least four years. The DOW or S&P still have yet to reach pre-9/11 levels. And you can knock off about a point of GDP growth when the housing bubble bursts. It all looks great on paper until you realize that “job growth” too often = one $60,000 a year job gone while two $20,000 a year jobs are created. This says it all:

      "Although the economy expanded solidly in 2004, the inflation-adjusted income of the median household was unchanged and remains $1,700, or 3.8%, below its most recent peak in 1999, according to yesterday’s release by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

      The main factor explaining this significant, ongoing decline in household income appears to be the faltering job market, especially regarding real annual earnings, which fell significantly for both men (-2.3%) and women (-1.0%). The decline for men was the largest one-year drop since 1990; for women, it was the biggest fall since 1995.

      EPI’s analysis of the Census data shows that increased hours of work actually raised mid-level household annual incomes by 0.5% in 2004, but that real hourly wage decline subtracted that much and more (-1.3%) from income growth.
      http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20050831

      When you start digging deeper, it doesn’t look quite so rosy.

      But all this is icing on the cake. In the face of Medicare/S.S. bankruptcies we are running up massive budget deficits with no end in sight. Republicans have cut taxes, spent hundreds of billions on Iraq and Afghanistan, passed a huge highway bill loaded with pork($200 billion), and now we have to rebuild much of the Gulf Coast (perhaps another $200 billion). What the hell happened to the Republican party? They used to be fiscally conservative.

      Edit: Here’s a source for my manufacturing claim:

      “The factory sector continues to be an exception to the generally positive trend in payroll growth. Manufacturing employment fell again in August, shedding 14,000 jobs, surpassing July’s loss of 6,000. Thus far this year, factory employment is down 78,000. This represents a clear reversal of what turned out to be a short-term positive trend last year in this sector, when manufacturing employment was up 69,000 January through August 2004”

      http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20050902

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Hillary Clinton

      I think IL is trolling.

      Don’t feed the trolls!

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: To all you Pro-Israeli supporters here

      Yes, Israel kicked all their asses without any help at all :roll:

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Hillary Clinton

      God forbid we return to the days of budget surplusses, peace, and a robust economy :roll:

      Is anyone really happy with the direction the country’s headed in?

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Hillary Clinton

      Get Bill back in the White House, ASAP!

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Govt. Response to Katrina

      @DarthMaximus:

      I have no problem with presidents exceeding their authority… WHEN IT’S FOR A GREATER GOOD.

      @DarthMaximus:

      Yikes!

      I have a REAL big problem with that.

      Yes, because Bush is a moron. I’m scared too. Brrr!

      @DarthMaximus:

      Who determines “the greater good”?

      Sometimes, it’s just obvious. Like ending slavery or preserving the union. The only times a president should exceed his authority (ala Lincoln), is when the country is on the verge of disintigration. The “threat” from Iraq doesn’t qualify.

      @DarthMaximus:

      That only justifies Bush’s actions more. In the best interest of the US we are going to go around locking people with with no trial then execute them. Hey, it’s for the greater good.

      You, me and most other citizens would be against this - which you even stated, yet you’re willing to allow a Pres to do this power for a so called “greater good”.

      I didn’t know that many words could fit in my mouth. How many times have I referenced Lincoln? Did Lincoln execute people without trial? Is your agrument devoid of any reason? Readers can decide.

      @DarthMaximus:

      “The Greater Good”, that is an awfully powerful statement and extremely subjective. [\quote]

      Yes, only to be relied upon when someone with an IQ +100 is in office. Were you in favor of Truman dropping the bomb on Japan? Of course you were. Hmm, wonder if “greater good” applies there ;)

      @DarthMaximus:

      I like may logic too. :D
      But that is what you were saying we should do in NO. Forget that about 70-80% of the people left NO. Lets only focus on the people taht couldn’t get out or that ignored the mandatory evacuation order and critsize Bush for not helping 10, 20, 30% or whatever it was.

      What is the magical % for the Pres to usurp the Gov Authority, to save 5%, 10%, 20%…?

      Let’s see… when Americans are dying for lack of food/water/medicine, perhaps the govt. should get involved? Call me crazy.

      @DarthMaximus:

      I didn’t think there was anything worth refuting. But now that you mention it, I think I will, or better yet I’ll let you refute yourself:

      And the Congress that approved him.

      If he was clearly a really a poor choice how did he get approved?
      And for #2
      Why did the Gov not deploy the NG they? Why did she waiver so much?
      Incompetence.
      [Warning: Joke coming]
      Obviously she needs a strong man to tell her what to do. :D

      Bush is Republican. Congress is Republican. Duh. And does that somehow excuse Bush for picking a moron to run FEMA? But go ahead, blame Congress too. Bunch of Republican bastards anyway.

      Oh, and the Gov had the National Guard in the SuperDome before the refugees began arriving. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7870

      Maybe if thousands of them (and their equipment) hadn’t been in Iraq the situation would have been controllable

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Govt. Response to Katrina

      @Linkon:

      @Mary:

      Bush could have come out looking like a hero (send in the cavalry, to hell with red-tape!). Instead he fell into “My Pet Goat” mode.

      Not to the Dems.

      DM hit it on the nose w/the Dems opposing Bush unless he takes action in accord to their radical leftist ideologies.

      Going in full bore w/ fed and military aide against Gov Blanco’s wishes will allow the Dems to paint GWB as an imperialist. They would say that he will just use his Commander in Chief position to steamroll any state or municipal govmt.

      The Dems are going to complain that Bush took the initiative and saved countless lives? LOL, they could kiss Congress and the White House goodbye. And what the hell does all this mean anyway? Bush isn’t running again. What does he care what Democrats say? Sometimes, I wonder about you Linkon.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Govt. Response to Katrina

      I have no problem with presidents exceeding their authority… WHEN IT’S FOR A GREATER GOOD. Lincoln went above and beyond to preserve the union (good). Bush lied repeatedly to invade Iraq (bad), and has suspended Habeus Corpus for “enemy combatants” for the last four years (very bad). Maybe you like the idea of people being held for years without being charged with a crime. The rest of us feel we’re in some kind of Orwellian nightmare- a neverending war we can’t win, and a constant erosian of our civil rights (Gitmo and Patriot Act). Instead of periodic rocket attacks, we have periodic “threat level” elevations.

      Oh, and I like your logic: if we can help a group of people, we should invade a country? What exactly is this magic percentage? If 10% want us there? 20%? 30%? I like my position: we probably shouldn’t invade other countries unless they’ve attacked us. You see, what happens is, sometimes intelligence gets screwed up (falsified), insurgencies get underestimated, and we end up in a giant shit-hole with hundreds of billions spent, our reputation shot, 1900+ soldiers dead, thousands more wounded, and nothing to show for it. Christ, you would think infant mortality would have improved since we invaded but even that’s gotten worse!

      But really, there are two reasons to despise Bush for what happened: He picked Brown to run FEMA, and he stripped the Guard of their ability to effectively mobilize. I notice you didn’t talk much about either of those points because they are irrefutable- Brown was a fuck-up, and the Guard was called up even before Katrina hit.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: This pledge of allegiance thing…

      If only you knew the half of it, Janus. We should be focusing more on bullying, esp. after Columbine, but the school I’m at seems to turn a blind eye.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Govt. Response to Katrina

      Yeah, she’s gonna be a one-termer. HOwever, the Guard was mobilized before the hurricane hit. Had thousands of guardsmen been here instead of over in Iraq, maybe federal troops wouldn’t have been needed. I posted a reply to Baker quoting a Guard Lt. General stating the loss of troops to Iraq probably made the aid effort take a day longer. And why the hell was “Bronwnie” running FEMA anywhere? Was there no one more qualified than a former overseer of a horse-breeding facility? Bang up job, Bush! And the Congress that approved him.

      Oh, and this is Bush we’re talking about. This guy needs to ask permission before deploying troops? Did he ask the people of Iraq if they wanted to be invaded or did he just sort of assume they did? Why couldn’t Bush just assume the dying people in Orleans wanted help? Who’s gonna impeach him? Republican controlled Congress? LOL. Bush could have come out looking like a hero (send in the cavalry, to hell with red-tape!). Instead he fell into “My Pet Goat” mode.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: This pledge of allegiance thing…

      Commie regimes? WTH? McCarthy must be spinning in his grave. Quick! To SouthEast Asia!

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: This pledge of allegiance thing…

      @Rune:

      It’s not so easy to “just don’t say it”. I’ve seen Jehova Witness kids ridiculed for not saying the pledge. Anytime you go against the majority, you set yourself up for ridicule, esp. among children. There is no reason to compell kids to say “Under God”. You’re pledging allegienace to America, not Jehova’s America.

      Again, no one is forced to say the pledge. If you’re upset about kids like the Jahova Witnesses getting ridiculed, guess what, kids pick on other kids. That’s life. Life is not fair. The pledge has nothing to do with this. I respect those kids who say the pledge because they believe in it. YOu know, we do live in America. Saying the pledge should be seen as taking pride in your nation.

      Rune Blade
      “The Master of Debate”

      Kids pick on other kids? That’s life? Truly, you are a master debater. Do you not realize I’ve been a teacher for seven years? I’ve SEEN kids picked on for not saying the pledge. Do you know what the kids invariably say? “If I say it, I’ll get in trouble (or go to hell- I’ve gotten that repsonse several times), but if I don’t, the kids make fun of me.”

      Go teach for five years, then I’ll repect what you have to say about life and kids bullying each other. Till then, STFU. There is no downside to removing “under God”. There is an upside. Remove it.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Can Bush Recover?

      @Zooey72:

      Bush is screwed. He was screwed because of the time he was elected. Not to say he hasn’t made mistakes. He has made A BUNCH! But no president could get re-elected with the random crap he inherited. 911, corporate scandal, massive huricanes (not just katrina, 4 hit Florida last year), gas prices going through the roof, the list goes on.

      He could not do much about a lot of this, but as they say “the buck stops here”.

      I think 9/11 resurrected Bush’s presidency. But it’s all been downhill from there.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: This pledge of allegiance thing…

      @Rune:

      I have no problem with children in schools being socialised to say the Pledge of Allegiance - I object vehemently to “under God” being included in the pledge

      Why? This nation was founded by people who believed in God. Under God was instituted by Eisenhower to differentiate what our country stands for when we had the cold war with the aethiest Soviet Union. I think Under God works just fine. If this offends your sensitivities. Just don’t say it. Easy enough. Too bad some dummy always wants to get his 15 min. of fame by going to the courts. God help us all if we become a nation run by the courts. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

      Rune Blade
      “The Master of Debate”

      It’s not so easy to “just don’t say it”. I’ve seen Jehova Witness kids ridiculed for not saying the pledge. Anytime you go against the majority, you set yourself up for ridicule, esp. among children. There is no reason to compell kids to say “Under God”. You’re pledging allegienace to America, not Jehova’s America.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Can Bush Recover?

      @cystic:

      @Mary:

      Edit: Maybe CC can help on this point. If a hospital appoints someone with the wrong medical training to run a medically sensitive area, (e.g., a GP running an Oncology department), can that hospital be held criminally liable is a screw-up happens?

      a VERY qualified “yes”.

      However the chances of this happening are quite remote. Furthermore criminal liability is something that is too difficult to prove. A friend of mine is very involved with Cancer Care Manitoba, and he also runs the local pain clinic and he is “just a GP”, and yet he would be a good person to run an oncology program (IMHO).

      Well, I guess we won’t see Bush in cuffs ;)

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Can Bush Recover?

      @221B:

      I was unaware that there was insufficient resources - can you provide a link regarding this

      Sure: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/02/demands_of_wars_since_911_strain_national_guards_efforts/

      "WASHINGTON – The National Guard’s scramble to bring aid and order to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is hamstrung by the fact that units across the country have, on average, half their usual amount of equipment – helicopters, Humvees, trucks, and weapons – on hand because much of it has been siphoned off to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to military officials and security specialists.

      The equipment the Guard needs to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is in shorter supply because the gear is in use in combat zones, is battle-damaged, or has been loaned to cover gaps in other units, the officials said. The National Guard Bureau estimates that its nationwide equipment availability rate is 35 percent, about half the normal level, according to Pentagon statistics."

      And http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/09/katrina.natguard.ap/

      “Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that “arguably” a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard’s 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.”

      Remember, the Lousiniana National Guard was already at the Superdome on the 28th, and 3700 were called up on the 29th. (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7870) How many people died in that “lost” day? We’ll probably never know, other than the fact they died needless deaths. Unless you think the Lt. Gen is lying for some reason (or incompetant, I guess).

      @221B:

      As far as Bush being to blame - you are right. But there is plenty of blame to go around for everyone. Moreover, there are certainly people who deserve the blame more than Bush as they are more responsible for the catastrophe than he - Bush is just where the Buck Stops as a former President once said. But is there any evidence yet of criminal negligence? I haven’t seen any.

      There’s blame at all levels on this one. But criminal negligence? I might make a case that Bush’s appointing of inexperieced officials to top levels at FEMA was criminally negligent, but Congress approved it, so nothing will come of it.

      Edit: Maybe CC can help on this point. If a hospital appoints someone with the wrong medical training to run a medically sensitive area, (e.g., a GP running an Oncology department), can that hospital be held criminally liable is a screw-up happens?

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Are they serious??

      @Jennifer:

      Now, let’s assume they actually do it, in a matter of days we can have feet on the street in these nations clearing up debris and helping survivors.

      Lol, you mean like in Orleans?

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Can Bush Recover?

      @Jennifer:

      Iraq has sent their Constitution to the people for ratification,

      Which was rejected by Sunni Arabs. The Sunnis alone can derail the consitution if they turn out and vote.

      @Jennifer:

      no Iraq natives have been caught in terrorist actions in months (lots of foreigners, but no natives, at least not according to Stars and Stripes the only non-biased news source with actual feet on the street over there that I know of)

      I would be leery of depending on the government or military for “news” after the last couple years. That said, 300 people were blown up/assasinated in the last four days (24 found shot to death today). What does it matter if it’s domestic insurgents or foreign fighters or a combination of both? It makes us look bad. We can’t even provide security in the capital of the country.

      @Jennifer:

      and locally we can tie all the deaths and destruction for New Orleans back to the mayor and governor of Lousianna/New Orleans respectively.

      You may think so, but the rest of America does not. Bush’s approval dropped ten points for a reason: He is viewed as a “can do” president, not bound by beauracratic red-tape. Katrina has changed all that. Also, people are learning that Bush staffed FEMA with inexperienced political appointees (“Bang up job, Brownie! By the way, you’re fired.”), and had the orgnization focus on terrorism to the point where it couldn’t respond effectively to a natural disaster. What did you think when you heard Bush say “We couldn’t have anticipated this” in regard to the levees? Studies have been done for years predicting just this sort of disaster. Oh, if you don’t know who “Brownie” is, you probably shouldn’t reply to all this.

      @Jennifer:

      For instance, the money raised to rebuild the levvies was used to dredge the canals making the local politicians richer.

      For instance the 50,000 tons of food and water the Salvation Army wanted to bring in for relief was ordered out by the State Police under orders of the Governor.

      For instance the Red Cross was ordered not to set up field stations before the hurricane by the Mayor’s office.

      This is all true, which does nothing to absolve FEMA of responsibility. While you read govt propaganda, the rest of the world reads NewsWeek, Time, CNN, and even FoxNews, all of which have reported serious breakdowns in FEMA response: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/17/katrina.response/index.html

      "(CNN) – As Hurricane Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast three weeks ago, veteran workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency braced for an epic disaster.

      But their bosses, political appointees with almost no emergency management experience, didn’t seem to share the sense of urgency, a FEMA veteran said."

      There is also the fact that Iraq stripped us of resources we could have used for Katrina.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • RE: Are they serious??

      Do you see how perfect this is? Now Bush doesn’t even have to TRY and find WMD’s- he can simply say, “We got em in the blast. Next?”

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      Mary
    • 1 / 1