OMG. The Bush administration: totally p0wnd.
Ah, the two-headed War Party at work.Couldn't one argue that Clinton's regime actually killed more people (due to the bombing and embargoes) than Bushco?
Brian, doesn't it evoke a sympathetic cry of anguish to learn that Clinton misled the Bushists? How could he do that to them?! Oh, the humanity! One might easily come to suspect that he's not just an opportunistic liar: he's actually a better liar than the Bushists, with the same sociopathic disregard.Anyway, for God's sake don't tell the l'il liberal punkinpusses. It'll break their hearts.
Anyone at the top is by definition a sociopath. Thus, we need more and much smaller tops, so the nastier folks have less access to half trillion dollar armies and 5,000 or whatever nuclear weapons. The Christian republic of Mississippi will be nasty, but it won't be killing 600,000 Iraqis. (I know I am being simplistic and overlooking the true nastiness of a dissolution of the United States. I'm middle aged, fat and lazy-I wouldn't do well during such a period. Still..."the Solution is Dissolution" makes a far better simplistic talking point than "Hillary will change everything."
"Couldn't one argue that Clinton's regime actually killed more people (due to the bombing and embargoes) than Bushco?"If one could tot up the amount of infrastructure destroyed during the Clinton years and the amount still not reconstructed because of the sanctions, and then the deaths attributable to such (although how much to blame lack of infrastructure reconstruction on sanctions and how much on invasion and occupation seems a near impossible task) then I think such an argument is perhaps plausible. However, as I'm in the midst of arguing over at my blog (will finish over the weekend) I think the best approximate we have for the invasion and occupation era suggests around 1,100,000 excess deaths at the feet of the Bush administration, so say there some omniscient deity who gave a shit about humankind and who could provide a definitive answer to such a question, I'd lay my money on the Bushies, but only with a very, very small point spread. But really, it's a bit like arguing Jeffrey Dahmer versus John Wayne Gacy.
And anyone cares because...?
Axe, we care because these fines points are an obstacle to our only hope, achieving the holy trinity of politics:Cthulhu, Cthonsensus and Cthompromise
Thus, we need more and much smaller topsum, yea.whose platform is that?
The great thing about the Republic of Mississippi is I won't live in it. I'm thinking Montana or Wyoming will be better places for my well-armed compound in the event of the Gooey Kablooei.
Well, according to Pat Buchanan, I, living in California, will be living in El Republica de Mexico thanks to the vast brown horde contaminating the pure Christian culture of the Southwest. Don't quite understand why Mexicans fleeing privation and corruption in Mexico would want to extend a disfunctional state to the southwestern States, but then Pat's never been too logical.
brian, since when are voters rational? We can talk all we want about how policy X hurts group Y, but they support it anyway (the people most in favor of legalizing drugs are those least likely to get arrested). If you actually wanted to rebut Buchanan you should cite some poll numbers, or the effects on politics in areas they move to. Instead Buchanan just gets called racist for endorsing policies that nobody complains about when India or Japan or even Mexico implement them, nor does anyone cry "racism" at the violent ethnic cleansing of African-Americans occurring in America. In the 19th century the urban "political machines" were notoriously corrupt, and they drew their support from immigrants. Eventually those immigrants assimilated to the middle-class, but that same pattern is not taking place now. Illegitimacy, crime and welfare dependency all go up from first generation to second and from second to third (emergency room usage also increases). Education isn't doing the trick either, because while years of schooling increases from the first generation to the second, it plateaus (decreases) from second to third.On this topic at my blog I've got a post here about my lack of enthusiasm for a two-tiered society and one here about the counter-intuitive benefits of diversity.
Post a Comment