Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tycho102
Bush?
For refusing to secure the borders because it will impact Republican financial donors and influential hedge-fund managers?
For refusal to actually build nuclear power plants, alleviating the need for crude oil from hostile and malicious nations?
For refusal to jeopardise the $20 trillion business model of Halliburton, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips, DuPont, Boeing, British Petroleum, Shell, who all tend to lobby the Republican party more than the Democratic Party?
For refusal to let the moslems kill each other, driving up the price of oil, allowing the "free market" to develop energy alternatives to the oil industry's $20 trillion infrastructure investment?
Why, yes. I know where to " point the finger". (NESFW, not entirely safe for work) |
Both Republicans and Democrats have refused to defend our southern border, both sides are guilty on this issue.
Both sides have propogated their side of donors in return for "campaign donations." And letting the Moslems have at eachother over there doesn't necessarily mean that Texaco is immediatly going to go out and invent a renewable energy source. They're gonna want to empty our wallets before that happens.
As for nuclear power; who complains the loudest over environmental issues but decries the building of hydroelectric dams and other attempts made toward discovering renewable energy? It certainly isn't the right that is doing so.
Along the same lines of Left Vs. Right: Why is it that the left criticizes the United States for inaction on Darfur when European nations are perfectly capable of doing something about it themselves? Or that the massacres against civilians is so horrid, yet push for "womens' choice" in killing their unborn child? How do you justify that?
How do you rationalize leaving the Iraqis to be slaughtered by the Islamofascists while the Left ties the hands of our soldiers in this war?