Monday, March 31, 2008
McCain's VP?
I say that he should go with Minnesota's Pawlenty. Crist of Florida seems to have too much baggage according to the link I posted. But that's all speculation, and no confirmed facts. We saw that Minnesota (a swing state) was a blue state in 2004 and with Pawlenty as VP, Minnesota may turn red.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Westerners.... The new terrorists?
I read last year in the summer how Al-Qaeda would recruit Asians and Africans to join their cause. It seems that new reports indicate that "westerners" are being recruited.
Future of the GOP
This dude Bobby Jindal seems to be impressive. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the new face of the GOP in the years to come.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
What Bush has done right
I ripped G. W. in my last post, but I'll give him some props for things the media doesn't pay attention to.
(1) Tripling Aid to Africa. No president has ever given Africa that much money (not even Clinton).
(2) Encouraging Libya to get rid of its WMD program , and they did. Too bad Hussein didn't comply.
(3) Strengthening relations with India, and having a passive-aggressive relationship with China.
(4) Fourth, but not least, Bush's aggressive measures to combat extremism have been quite successful (I'm not talking about Iraq here). This controversial list includes the Patriot Act, wire tapping, secret prisons, and many more. A bunch of my peers constantly argue with me saying that Bush is no different from Stalin. He abuses his power beyond belief, and we're constantly under surveillance. I don't understand why people have such a problem with the FBI, NSA, or CSS listening in to people's conversations. Remember the IPOD/liquid gel scare in 2006. So what if the US, Britain, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries stopped spying on people's phone records. I mention this fact to some peers, and all they mention is that they "want to have privacy." So what I'm getting from this argument is that people would prefer to keep their civil liberties, rather than thwarting a terrorist attack (an attack which could crumble the markets like in 01; it's fortunate the US had extra reserves due to the money they didn't have to use after the Y2K scare in 2000). Otherwise, we'd faced a depression, and the world would suffer from those consequences as well. I understand why people would be against torture (since an innocent individual who has nothing to do with terroristic activity is harmed through tough interrogative methods). Let's look at Bush's rough play though. George Tenet, former CIA director, claimed that around 70% of torture has been effective, and at times, have given tips to prevent attacks. So in other words, 30% of the time torture hasn't worked. The question to ask is: What's the principle of lesser evils here? Should the US torture (they should torture those who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) or stop torturing all together (and give these guys rights)? Remember this though, our torture cells are considered like "Disney Land" (no lie) compared to some Middle Eastern cells. I wonder how this will play out in the future.
(1) Tripling Aid to Africa. No president has ever given Africa that much money (not even Clinton).
(2) Encouraging Libya to get rid of its WMD program , and they did. Too bad Hussein didn't comply.
(3) Strengthening relations with India, and having a passive-aggressive relationship with China.
(4) Fourth, but not least, Bush's aggressive measures to combat extremism have been quite successful (I'm not talking about Iraq here). This controversial list includes the Patriot Act, wire tapping, secret prisons, and many more. A bunch of my peers constantly argue with me saying that Bush is no different from Stalin. He abuses his power beyond belief, and we're constantly under surveillance. I don't understand why people have such a problem with the FBI, NSA, or CSS listening in to people's conversations. Remember the IPOD/liquid gel scare in 2006. So what if the US, Britain, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries stopped spying on people's phone records. I mention this fact to some peers, and all they mention is that they "want to have privacy." So what I'm getting from this argument is that people would prefer to keep their civil liberties, rather than thwarting a terrorist attack (an attack which could crumble the markets like in 01; it's fortunate the US had extra reserves due to the money they didn't have to use after the Y2K scare in 2000). Otherwise, we'd faced a depression, and the world would suffer from those consequences as well. I understand why people would be against torture (since an innocent individual who has nothing to do with terroristic activity is harmed through tough interrogative methods). Let's look at Bush's rough play though. George Tenet, former CIA director, claimed that around 70% of torture has been effective, and at times, have given tips to prevent attacks. So in other words, 30% of the time torture hasn't worked. The question to ask is: What's the principle of lesser evils here? Should the US torture (they should torture those who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) or stop torturing all together (and give these guys rights)? Remember this though, our torture cells are considered like "Disney Land" (no lie) compared to some Middle Eastern cells. I wonder how this will play out in the future.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Why Bush Is An Idiot
(1) Invading Iraq (nothing else to say on this).
(2) Promoting potential home buyers to use ARMS (adjustable rate mortgages...which were mainly subprime loans) to purchases houses (we can also attribute this problem to Greenspan). So what we had here was that several homeowners placed NO MONEY DOWN for their houses, and all of a sudden, these guys couldn't make mortgage payments as soon as the interest rate went up. Usually, people place at least 10% down, and several individuals place 20% down. Next thing we know, the big I-banks invested heavily in these subprime loans (the mortgage backed securities), and these stocks plummeted. It's hit the market hard, and now with a big supply houses & a lower demand, the economy will continue to fall for awhile.
(3) Excess spending. By spending too much, we're now in a deficit, while the dollar continues to fall. :(
(4) Bush's proposal of "Amnesty." How on earth are you going to get America better when you are promoting illegal behavior of crossing one's border, while punishing those individuals who are playing by the rules. America is NOW a developed country, and obviously it's better to have those who are educated. This is not the 1850's when there was a huge demand for unskilled labor. Times have changed. It's interesting how people who want to come to the US legally must go through a gut-wrenching process, while this president suggests that we should grant illegal behavior (so these guys can be citizens). What about those who come to American universities to study in the fields that America needs (doctors, pharmacists, entrepreneurship, etc.)? These guys go in debt like crazy, and can't get jobs here (for the jobs we need filled, since there's a huge demand for these jobs). Some of my peers argue that America's immigration policies were racist in the past. Yes, they were. It may be racist, but looking at the population in 30 years, America will have a majority population of nonwhite people. Yea, something must be done to solve this immigration problem, but granting amnesty isn't the best way to do so.
(2) Promoting potential home buyers to use ARMS (adjustable rate mortgages...which were mainly subprime loans) to purchases houses (we can also attribute this problem to Greenspan). So what we had here was that several homeowners placed NO MONEY DOWN for their houses, and all of a sudden, these guys couldn't make mortgage payments as soon as the interest rate went up. Usually, people place at least 10% down, and several individuals place 20% down. Next thing we know, the big I-banks invested heavily in these subprime loans (the mortgage backed securities), and these stocks plummeted. It's hit the market hard, and now with a big supply houses & a lower demand, the economy will continue to fall for awhile.
(3) Excess spending. By spending too much, we're now in a deficit, while the dollar continues to fall. :(
(4) Bush's proposal of "Amnesty." How on earth are you going to get America better when you are promoting illegal behavior of crossing one's border, while punishing those individuals who are playing by the rules. America is NOW a developed country, and obviously it's better to have those who are educated. This is not the 1850's when there was a huge demand for unskilled labor. Times have changed. It's interesting how people who want to come to the US legally must go through a gut-wrenching process, while this president suggests that we should grant illegal behavior (so these guys can be citizens). What about those who come to American universities to study in the fields that America needs (doctors, pharmacists, entrepreneurship, etc.)? These guys go in debt like crazy, and can't get jobs here (for the jobs we need filled, since there's a huge demand for these jobs). Some of my peers argue that America's immigration policies were racist in the past. Yes, they were. It may be racist, but looking at the population in 30 years, America will have a majority population of nonwhite people. Yea, something must be done to solve this immigration problem, but granting amnesty isn't the best way to do so.
Why McCain Will Win
(1) Democrats are beating up on each other due to Operation Chaos
(2) Too many defectors will head over to McCain.
(3) Obama will most likely win the Democratic nominee, and people won't like that his record in the senate is pretty (extremely is a better word) liberal.
(4) Pulling out of Iraq will destabilize the Middle East.
(2) Too many defectors will head over to McCain.
(3) Obama will most likely win the Democratic nominee, and people won't like that his record in the senate is pretty (extremely is a better word) liberal.
(4) Pulling out of Iraq will destabilize the Middle East.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
This November
Imagine this scenario. Obama v McCain in the general election (which probably will happen). Let's say a repeat of 2000 occurs. Obama wins the majority of the votes, while McCain wins the electoral college. I wonder if Rodney King Part II would occur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)