On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:47:24AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> Gore and Lieberman would have been no prize in office either,
> but they wouldn't have done much more damage to the economy
The majority of the damage was done before the election, then again
on 9/11/2002.
Bush has done a moderate job of moderating the economic damage, but
that's about all a president *can* do.
> or to civil liberties, probably much less, and would have been
Ruby Ridge, Waco?
Everything that was in the Patriot Act was shit that the feds had
been lobbying for for 10 years.
Gore would have been just as eager to sign that bill as Bush was.
Hell, there was only what, *1* no vote against it?
> less gung-ho about getting us into a war and would have found
Who bombed the Chinese embassy? An aspirin factory?
Sorry Mr. Stewart, normally I've got a lot of respect for what you
say, but history shows us that Democratic presidents generally have
much worse war records than Republican ones, and Shrub is doing
quite well on the Use Of Force scale.
Yes, he's got some (lots) of issues on the Constitution scale. On
the Speaking Well scale, and the Friend of Freedom scale.
But Bore and Lierman would have been far, far worse.
> some kind of pork that's more productive than military hardware
> to spend our tax money on.
The problem is that Congress keeps passing bills saying "the
pentagon will get this", and that pentagon keeps saying "we don't
need that much of it, and we really don't want it anyway". Somehow
we've managed to get to the point where we've got a bunch of people
in the DoD who are really much more interested in breaking things
and killing people than in building a big military industrial
complex. Wierd but true.
--
The difference between math and physics is the difference | Quit smoking:
between masturbation and sex. | 268d, 13h ago
--Paul Tomblin | petro@
| bounty.org
