Dubstepforum.com

Echo Wanderer wrote:

mos dan wrote:

Little Boh Peep wrote:With the democrats having control of the house and possibly senate as of yesterday's election, I see his resignation as pretty much an admission that he won't be able to further his agenda anymore, so he's thrown the toys out of the pram.

am I right in thinking that with the House now under a Dem majority Bush's legislative programme is essentially dead, because everything that requires new or reorientated funding has to be ratified by them?

I don't buy the 'same shit under a different name' theory: even if Rumsfeld resigning is solely symbolic, that's some good symbolism right there. Thanks for the Gates briefing tho guys.

It's alway the same shit with a different name really.Historically,very few Presidents/PMs/Monarchs/leaders ever go against tradition.And the ones that do are almost always assassinated.They all lie to thier people to gain for themselves.While I agree that Rumsfeld won't be able to further his mission,it's more the Bush Regime's mission,and Gates will now have the same one.Rumsfeld is a front for Bush's "stay the course" ideals.Rumsfeld has tried to resign a few times now,but Bush wouldn't allow it.Probably because that means "the terrorists win".The only admission that seems to come out of the some 15 resignations under Bush's administration is one of guilt.

Bush knows this looks bad.He knew it when 9/11 Comission found he could have stopped the WTC attacks.He knew when Hans Blix and the UN found he lied about the WMDs,simply to start the war in Iraq.He knew it when Powell resigned because he simply couldn't take lying to the constituents anymore.He knew it when McClellan,Ashcroft,O'Neill,Snow,Abraham,Mineta,Ridge,Veneman,Norton,Evans,Thompson,and Paige resigned.And each time,he has appointed a friendlier,public-ready version of the same jackass for that position.And all those positions have gotten even worse.Healthcare,agriculture,and education have become terrible.Hundreds and thousands of veterans have had vital information stolen from them.Housing is harder and harder to afford.There are millions of homeless in America,but nothing is done about it except the closure of programs,so the admin. can re-route the money to the war.Social Security is at a standstill,as opposed to the promises that it was due for much needed change.And this is all done with a "smile".It's like,Bush knew Powell had such an impact on black empowerment,and that he was probably the sole reason he got any black votes at all,that Bush figured only Condi could replace him,and possibly garner women's support as well.And look at Powell now.He is out there trying to make up for helping Bush by telling the truth.

The democrats will have a lot of cleanup work,but it will only look good on the surface.Bush is in deep shit,but he,as well as the rest of his cabinet,know that congress can do absolutely nothing.Money talks in America,not the voice of reason,and Bush has a lot to say.

Symbolism?Yes.Good symbolism?Maybe.But a lot can happen in 2 years,or even 2 months,and nothing can happen until January anyway.Bush can accomplish a lot more havoc until then.Rumsfeld or not.

Spaceboy wrote:
Taking the texan ethos to foreign policy is so obtuse. Only Texans bounce with that kinda vibe the rest of the world has to understand it through old westerns...

Not saying anything is wrong with it in itself, but, i dont think it really holds much weight in this context.

Spaceboy wrote:

Echo Wanderer wrote:It's like,Bush knew Powell had such an impact on black empowerment,and that he was probably the sole reason he got any black votes at all,that Bush figured only Condi could replace him,and possibly garner women's support as well.And look at Powell now.He is out there trying to make up for helping Bush by telling the truth.

Powell got short changed by being in Bush's administration. I respect that guy - he did make it happen for himself all the way

Product wrote:

Echo Wanderer wrote:Yeah...Rumsfeld out...good times....three more peeps to get the fuck out of there!

I wouldn't trust Gates any farther than Rumsfeld though.Gates hasn't ever had my trust.The Iran-Contra scandal did that for me(god I'm old!).He was Bush Sr.'s(also ex-head of CIA) go to guy for "intelligence" that somehow usually proved to be false.And he is probably considered a "Honorary Bush Ranch Texan" since he heads up A&M Uni.,which scares the bejeezus outta me,considering that Dubya constantly uses the whole "Don't mess with Texas" pathos(as well as Christian morals) as an excuse for waging war,intentionally falsley convicting and executing minorities ad nauseum,keeping racism,sexism,and classism alive,lying to the American people"for our protection",and practically praising any and all assholes within the military for beating,raping,sodomising,and killing innocent civilians(and not just in Iraq and Gitmo.America is fookin' EVERYWHERE!!!).

The Dixie Chicks were right...Bush in fact DOES give Texas a bad name.

Nothing at all against Texans(my mum was born in Waco) or the honest soldiers(some enlisted for college money and got a bad deal when Dubya bought his way in),but getting Bob Gates in there isn't going to help matters.In fact,I'd be willing to bet that he is like Tony Snow("The palatable McClellan")..."the rich man's Rumsfeld".The scenario isn't going to change,it's just going to have a friendlier face.

Gotta love Bush's "Nice Guys".

Shonky wrote:It's a step in the right direction, but its done with midget legs. People gotta start thinkin stilts.

Shonky wrote: Creedence .

Parson wrote:
bush ain't from texas at all. he was raised in new england

Parson wrote:essential viewing right here:

its the story of how karl rove put this dildo in the whitehouse

Shonky wrote:One of the best PR exercises of all time was persuading the US public that Bush was a cowboy and distracting from his rather priveliged background.

Been listening to Creedence a lot lately and Fortunate Son (sadly) still seems to ring true.

Echo Wanderer wrote:Rumsfeld has tried to resign a few times now,but Bush wouldn't allow it.Probably because that means "the terrorists win".The only admission that seems to come out of the some 15 resignations under Bush's administration is one of guilt.

elgato wrote:

Echo Wanderer wrote:Rumsfeld has tried to resign a few times now,but Bush wouldn't allow it.Probably because that means "the terrorists win".The only admission that seems to come out of the some 15 resignations under Bush's administration is one of guilt.

i think that also Rumsfeld may have been retained in case of this very scenario... if he'd already gone and the public spoke out so strongly against the right, and in particular (it seems) against Iraq, Bush would struggle to make noises which might convince the public that he had the intention of changing anything...and it was increasingly obvious that the mid-terms were shaping up this way... i heard Rumsfeld referred to as a 'lightning rod' yesterday, which i think there is a lot of truth in

more generally, i dont have a sufficient understanding of the governmental process in America to know the implications of this swing... can anyone enlighten me? none of the bloody news coverage explains it. clearly the neo-liberal legislative agenda is now on hold, but what about in terms of policy?

elgato wrote:thanks man, although i actually meant more specifically in terms of how the governmental process runs through the houses...the roles of the houses as it were