A Challenge Regarding the Last (current) Administration

[neonlyte]

Rather than blame Bush (or his string-pullers), a government - any government - has to represent the aspirations of its citizens. I'll bake, and send, a Christmas Pudding [seriously - I do make the best ever Xmas Pud's] to anyone who can legitimately and honestly name three issues the Bush administration has decided that make you, as an individual, feel proud to be American AND two issues that showed America to be a leader of world opinion. I'll accept any argument supported by five of your peers.

(This a spin off from, Kev's thread)

 

[cloudy]

I'd dearly love a pudding from you, but I can't even come up with one.

 

[neonlyte]

I'd dearly love a pudding from you, but I can't even come up with one.

My daughter an I are making a batch in February, so they mature for next Xmas. Since you asked, I'll reserve one for you. I've got your e-mail so I'll get in touch for an address

W

PS The one we had yesterday was 2 years old, fantastic

 

[cloudy]

My daughter an I are making a batch in February, so they mature for next Xmas. Since you asked, I'll reserve one for you. I've got your e-mail so I'll get in touch for an address

W

PS The one we had yesterday was 2 years old, fantastic

You're a love. Thank you.

 

[john-the-author]

I, too, would dearly from a pudding, but I'm completely unable to think of anything. My wife's a Federal administrative law judge and my current co-author is really high in the Department of Homeland Security (which I personally loathe), and there is absolutely nothing I hear about what they're doing in their day jobs that W's responsible for that makes me want to do anything but hide my head and go "Fuck, no!!"

 

[neonlyte]

I, too, would dearly from a pudding, but I'm completely unable to think of anything. My wife's a Federal administrative law judge and my current co-author is really high in the Department of Homeland Security (which I personally loathe), and there is absolutely nothing I hear about what they're doing in their day jobs that W's responsible for that makes me want to do anything but hide my head and go "Fuck, no!!"

OK - two, but I'm limiting to four (plus Mat/Min who will be able to give objective feed-back ) Only because I liked your reply to Kev

 

[MarshAlien]

The invasion of Afghanistan was a proper response to the attacks on 9/11 and meets both of your criteria.

1/3
1/2

still thinking . . .

 

[neonlyte]

The invasion of Afghanistan was a proper response to the attacks on 9/11 and meets both of your criteria.

1/3
1/2

still thinking . . .

Yep... I'd go with that as the correct response at the time.

Just to add... anyone who meets my highly subjective criteria will get the pudding... in addition the 4 mentioned in post 6

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Bush allocated 87 Billion Dollars for disaster relief in America. Clinton allocated 29 Billion.

Bush sponsored the creation of Medicare Part D, to help geezers with the cost of meds.

And Bush sent billions to Burma for tsunami aid.

 

[jomar]

Sounds like a sucker bet...

 

[Liar]

To his credit, he did a pretty decent job at making sure his cabinet and appointees were not a "white males only" club.

 

[3113]

To his credit, he did a pretty decent job at making sure his cabinet and appointees were not a "white males only" club.

I dunno if that should count. I mean...that's kinda like saying, "He didn't have a sex scandal." Well, no he didn't, but does that constitute doing something right or just not doing something wrong?

 

[Bazzz]

I like pudding so I'll ride on the coat tails of some of the previous posters who were good enough to come up with an idea or two.

Just to summerize - We have our response to 9/11 in Afganistan.
- The amount of disaster relief he has spent for our country.
- The diversification of his cabinet which may match even Obama's choices.
- Our country's response to the Tsunami in Burma where the Presindent appointed his father and former President Clinton as our country's representatives and I believe that worked out very well.
- And my contribution is that from what I understand the aid by our country to African nations with regards to controlling the AIDS epidemic has been very big. Bush has done quite a bit towards humanitarian aid to these countries. It may be the equivalent of peeing in the ocean but he has made the effort.

Also not to bring up that old familiar "We are better than all the other countries" because we aren't but has there been any other leaders or countries out there that would have made the world sit back and take notice of their grandeur lately? I'm probably not as up on current events as others in this thread but you have to admit that as far as having good leaders or bad leaders over the past twenty years or so, we all seem to be in the same boat whether we speak English, German, French, Chinese or hang our hats in the Middle East or down by the South Pole.

By the way what's the story with a two year old pudding? How does that really taste?

 

[neonlyte]

Bush allocated 87 Billion Dollars for disaster relief in America. Clinton allocated 29 Billion.

Bush sponsored the creation of Medicare Part D, to help geezers with the cost of meds.

And Bush sent billions to Burma for tsunami aid.

Not sure I can accept those, JBJ. he was pretty tawdry in settling relief on New Orleans, and I'm not sure aid to a Burmese government counts on any level, besides, the Tsunami hit Indonesia, not Burma.

 

[neonlyte]

I like pudding so I'll ride on the coat tails of some of the previous posters who were good enough to come up with an idea or two.

Just to summerize - We have our response to 9/11 in Afganistan.
- The amount of disaster relief he has spent for our country.
- The diversification of his cabinet which may match even Obama's choices.
- Our country's response to the Tsunami in Burma where the Presindent appointed his father and former President Clinton as our country's representatives and I believe that worked out very well.
- And my contribution is that from what I understand the aid by our country to African nations with regards to controlling the AIDS epidemic has been very big. Bush has done quite a bit towards humanitarian aid to these countries. It may be the equivalent of peeing in the ocean but he has made the effort.

Also not to bring up that old familiar "We are better than all the other countries" because we aren't but has there been any other leaders or countries out there that would have made the world sit back and take notice of their grandeur lately? I'm probably not as up on current events as others in this thread but you have to admit that as far as having good leaders or bad leaders over the past twenty years or so, we all seem to be in the same boat whether we speak English, German, French, Chinese or hang our hats in the Middle East or down by the South Pole.

By the way what's the story with a two year old pudding? How does that really taste?

Hi Bazzz, nice to have you here.

I'll start with the last. A good Xmas pudding needs to mature at least six months. A grand Xmas pud, should be made in January or February for the following Xmas. A superb Xmas pud... the type I make, uses only organic ingredients, the fruits are steeped in brandy for 48 hours. The pudding is made and slowly cooked for 4 - 9 hours depending upon size. Sealed with waxed paper and cooled. Covered in double foil and stored in a dark cool place. The fruit slowly matures, like a good wine, and the end result - steamed for an hour minimum on Xmas Day - is a heavenly gooey crumb of fruits, with a hint of brandy and spices, delicious with double cream, creme fraiche or custard. I'll be making 1.5lbs puds, we find they are enough for four people.

1. 9/11 I agree with Afganistan, not with the subsequent invasion of Iraq 1-0
2. Can't agree with the USA disaster relief - Bush had to be shamed into providing the relief and Mrs Bush Seniors comments undermined any notion of charity 1 - 1
3. Interesting point... I need to think about it. I get where you are coming from but I'm not sure that he didn't choose from who was left 1-1 (1)

2(1) Yup... except it was in Indonesia - so no more Tsunami answers 1 1(1) 0-1
2 (2) Nice... but not conclusive. The UK's Labour Party led the world in demanding debt relief for Africa as a mechanism to allow the continent to afford AIDS medication, that the USA subsidised the cost of medication was almost a given since the major AIDS medication companies are USA based, 1 - 1(1) 0-2

 

[neonlyte]

Sounds like a sucker bet...

Sucker...

 

[neonlyte]

To his credit, he did a pretty decent job at making sure his cabinet and appointees were not a "white males only" club.

Hmmm... does Condaleza count as non-white male? Did she actually say anything during 2008? Or 2007 come to that?

Sorry, Liar... not on the scale.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Rather than blame Bush (or his string-pullers), a government - any government - has to represent the aspirations of its citizens. I'll bake, and send, a Christmas Pudding [seriously - I do make the best ever Xmas Pud's] to anyone who can legitimately and honestly name three issues the Bush administration has decided that make you, as an individual, feel proud to be American AND two issues that showed America to be a leader of world opinion. I'll accept any argument supported by five of your peers.

(This a spin off from, Kev's thread)

Jeez, Neo, it sounds to me like I agree with the opinion that this IS a sucker bet. It also sounds like like a fine example of let's take this opportunity to bash the shit out of America cuz their President sucked.

I guess I'm basing this feeling on the second qualifier which implies that America SHOULD be a "leader of world opinion" (and PLEASE don't give me the "Last Standing Super Power" saw).

I don't see too many threads taking wacks at China, the EU or Russia, so mebe I'm thinking that it's just a bit too easy to call "Ms. America" a cunt, while ignoring all of the other skanky bitches running all over the earth.

 

[neonlyte]

Jeez, Neo, it sounds to me like I agree with the opinion that this IS a sucker bet. It also sounds like like a fine example of let's take this opportunity to bash the shit out of America cuz their President sucked.

I guess I'm basing this feeling on the second qualifier which implies that America SHOULD be a "leader of world opinion" (and PLEASE don't give me the "Last Standing Super Power" saw).

I don't see too many threads taking wacks at China, the EU or Russia, so mebe I'm thinking that it's just a bit too easy to call "Ms. America" a cunt, while ignoring all of the other skanky bitches running all over the earth.

Not at all. Eight years is a long time to get three things right for the people who elected you, and get to things right that paint you (the nation) favourable in the eyes of others.

I can name at least three things Bush did right for the USA... and several things that improved the USA's standing in world opinion, the problem is non-Americans, and many Americans, tend to see the negative elements of the Bush administration, which is both a feature of the current Presidency and an abstract of timing.

Contrary to any opinion you might hold of my views, and without trying to sound patronising, it took a much overdue visit to America in 2007 for me to begin to appreciate the enormity of the task of governing the USA. The USA is not a fascist nation but its social policies are at the extreme right end of what is tolerable in Europe. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. What makes holding extreme views tolerable is exercising restraint in the face of provocation and the USA (Bush) certainly demonstrated the ability to pull the final punch... now, did he do it out of strength or weakness?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Not at all. Eight years is a long time to get three things right for the people who elected you, and get to things right that paint you (the nation) favourable in the eyes of others.

I can name at least three things Bush did right for the USA... and several things that improved the USA's standing in world opinion, the problem is non-Americans, and many Americans, tend to see the negative elements of the Bush administration, which is both a feature of the current Presidency and an abstract of timing.

Contrary to any opinion you might hold of my views, and without trying to sound patronising, it took a much overdue visit to America in 2007 for me to begin to appreciate the enormity of the task of governing the USA. The USA is not a fascist nation but its social policies are at the extreme right end of what is tolerable in Europe. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. What makes holding extreme views tolerable is exercising restraint in the face of provocation and the USA (Bush) certainly demonstrated the ability to pull the final punch... now, did he do it out of strength or weakness?

A-fucking-hem, Neo. Try being a lesbian in California before telling me about "social policies are at the extreme right end of what is tolerable". I kinda GET that part.

Now, contrary to any opinion you might hold of MY views, and without trying to sound patronising back, I agree with you - unless you live here (or there) you CAN'T understand the dificulties of governing a specific contry. Unless you LIVE it, you can only function off of "sound bites" and "hind sights". That's why it often amazes me that the other "Powers" of the world seem to get such a free pass from their own citizens.

Oh, and just so you understand where I'm coming from: I don't think anybody should get a free pass for wacking at other contries (INCLUDING the US). That's YOUR shit, this is OUR shit. We don't get a say in YOUR stuff, YOU don't get a say in ours. No trade restrictions, no "special" deals, no nothing. We leave you and your country alone to sink or swim on it's own and we STRICTLY worry only about ours - unless you physically attack us (as a country), them we have the right to fight back to win regardless, of other "opinions".

 

[Bazzz]

Neo,

Thanks for the info on the pudding. It sounds so good I don't know if I could keep my spoon out of the bowl long enough for it to properly mature.

It was interesting to read your views regarding Europe's social policies vs those of the US. I think that they both work to various degrees and as to why policies at the opposite ends of the spectrum would both be viable is a bit a of a mystery. Do you think that as you had mentioned in your post that the sheer size of the US is a major reason why a more socialized approach wouldn't work here but is more successful in the smaller European countries? In theory the Republican approach is to have the states make there own decisions for the most part. This would of course make things more manageable as they must be in Europe. Of course as we have found with our most recent financial debacles that our politicians, regulators and leaders are not very good at the federal level and it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican most have been exposed as greedy bafoons. I believe if we ever could solve the issue of the sad state of our current politicians' abilities our systems would improve substanitially.

 

[trysail]

*Well, most of you ought to know my thoughts on the theory of anthropogenic global warming by now ( for those who don't know: "the greatest scam in history" )— and the quadrillions of dollars of costs the enviro-zealots seek to impose (which would be reflected in prices of nearly everything you can think of).

*Here's some food for thought: how hard would it have been to plant WMDs in Iraq, if one were inclined to prevarication?

*When all the world was screaming about high global energy prices and the price of gasoline, the current administration didn't give in to the temptation to pander— which would have been very popular (and equally wrong).

 

[neonlyte]

A-fucking-hem, Neo. Try being a lesbian in California before telling me about "social policies are at the extreme right end of what is tolerable". I kinda GET that part.

Now, contrary to any opinion you might hold of MY views, and without trying to sound patronising back, I agree with you - unless you live here (or there) you CAN'T understand the dificulties of governing a specific contry. Unless you LIVE it, you can only function off of "sound bites" and "hind sights". That's why it often amazes me that the other "Powers" of the world seem to get such a free pass from their own citizens.

Oh, and just so you understand where I'm coming from: I don't think anybody should get a free pass for wacking at other contries (INCLUDING the US). That's YOUR shit, this is OUR shit. We don't get a say in YOUR stuff, YOU don't get a say in ours. No trade restrictions, no "special" deals, no nothing. We leave you and your country alone to sink or swim on it's own and we STRICTLY worry only about ours - unless you physically attack us (as a country), them we have the right to fight back to win regardless, of other "opinions".

Good Lord... you think our guy's get a free pass?

We could start with the dwarf, Sarkozy, husband of Carla Bruni... and incidentally, President of France, who thought he ought be Ruler of Europe whilst we steered 'our ship' through the current crisis. Or maybe 'our Gordon' (Brown) who recently Freudian slipped that he had (single handed) saved the World. Modesty was always his strong suit. Perhaps the roundly hated Angela Merkel deserves singling out for outstanding ineptitude or the conjurer José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero - Prime Minister of Spain - did anyone know? Just how has Spain survived with 20 - 25% unemployment for the last twenty years. We could look at Italy and the criminal Silvio Berlusconi whose only way of staying out of prison is to keep winning elections, a man who surrounds himself with 'models' as Ministers because they 'look nice'.

At least I live in an honest Communist enclave of Portugal. Communist since the revolution in 1975. We understand communism... it's about improving the wealth of the few so that the many might benefit... we are very patient, but don't foist our opinions on others, not even in the next village.

Too much responsibility in proclaiming leadership... you might have to lead by example, and that might mean giving up the very things that make Communism worthwhile. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that it's cheaper than Capitalism (what ever that was), quieter than democracy (though we regularly vote over 70% of the population) and we don't ever claim supremacy in case the local restaurants get filled up with 'forin'ers' (which would unfortunately mean increasing the price of lunch). Hell... when a decent three course lunch costs 5$ (6$ with wine) keeping stumm seems the least decent thing to do. It's like those Sunday newspapers that proclaim the next great restaurant/bar/car/political system... by the time you've got there, some bastard's increased the price, reduced the quality, and found a way to screw over the customers with hat check fees, napkin service charge, and 'special water' in a bottle... all under the guise of complimentary blow-jobs beneath the table.

Feels good at the time, but leaves everyone with eight years of indigestion.

 

[Liar]

Hmmm... does Condaleza count as non-white male? Did she actually say anything during 2008? Or 2007 come to that?

Sorry, Liar... not on the scale.

Hey, I didn't say it was a whooper. Just a little something-something that didn't, per se, suck.

 

[3113]

- And my contribution is that from what I understand the aid by our country to African nations with regards to controlling the AIDS epidemic has been very big.

I don't see how you figure that given that the Bush Administration has been anti-birth control and this includes condoms. This quote from The Nation was in regards to sex education in the U.S. but it applied to all aid given by the U.S. to foreign countries for the purpose of controlling AIDS and/or unwanted childbirth (2004):

The new CDC regulations, published in the Federal Register, are mandatory for any AIDS-fighting organization that receives federal money for HIV prevention....the regs demand that any sex-ed "content" include information on the "lack of effectiveness of condom use." In other words, the Bush Administration wants AIDS-fighting organizations to tell people: Condoms don't work. At the same time, the regs mandate the teaching of...abstinence from sex until (heterosexual) marriage.

Hence, Bush's aid in trying to control AIDS, here or in Africa, was undermined by what came to be a reoccurring theme of his administration: ignore the facts, which in this case were that teaching abstinence doesn't work so well as teaching people to use condoms (98% effective in cutting down AIDS), but Bush decided what he wanted to be true was true and that was the only thing that was going to be taught here or anywhere else that got American money. No sex till marriage...and if you're gay, you're shit out of luck. No sex at all for you.