I would rather have Bush than Roh. Atleast it’ll look like we have some fucking balls. We’d look stupid as hell but i’d rather have balls and be stupid than be stupid and have no balls.
Well, that’s a choice with two very poor options but, looking through my 20/20 hindsight glasses, I’d take Roh. Stupid with no balls isn’t as likely to be as dangerous to a country as stupid with the courage to act. I doubt Roh would have tried to run a theocracy as Bush has, nor have gotten the US involved in a very expensive, religiously motivated war in the deserts of the Middle East - one that will haunt us in economic and political contexts for a very long time.
Bush’s Republican cronies in Congress are also responsible for the finiancial crisis in the US, which is rooted in their legislation that incentivized making loans to people that couldn’t afford them. All the risk was passed to institutional investors. Originators just harvested their fee and passed the paper and risk along - incredible. Bush, for all his and the Republican’s rhetoric about fiscal conservatism, has been an absolute financial disaster for the US - one we’ll be paying for a long time into the future.
Interestingly, the idiots had similar ruling styles: they surrounded themselves with ‘yes men’ and created an administrative culture that rewarded only those who sang the party song. That’s how Bush got all the bullshit blown up his ass wrt “weapons of mass destruction”. He wouldn’t listen to the UN inspectors who’d actually been there multiple times and couldn’t find shit.
Korea News via Google
3 Comments
“Not all was shitty during the last year of the Roh Moo-hyun administration.”
Only 1 budget surplus for the whole during of the Roh administration? Sounds pretty shitty to me.
shitty is an understatement.
I would rather have Bush than Roh. Atleast it’ll look like we have some fucking balls. We’d look stupid as hell but i’d rather have balls and be stupid than be stupid and have no balls.
Well, that’s a choice with two very poor options but, looking through my 20/20 hindsight glasses, I’d take Roh. Stupid with no balls isn’t as likely to be as dangerous to a country as stupid with the courage to act. I doubt Roh would have tried to run a theocracy as Bush has, nor have gotten the US involved in a very expensive, religiously motivated war in the deserts of the Middle East - one that will haunt us in economic and political contexts for a very long time.
Bush’s Republican cronies in Congress are also responsible for the finiancial crisis in the US, which is rooted in their legislation that incentivized making loans to people that couldn’t afford them. All the risk was passed to institutional investors. Originators just harvested their fee and passed the paper and risk along - incredible. Bush, for all his and the Republican’s rhetoric about fiscal conservatism, has been an absolute financial disaster for the US - one we’ll be paying for a long time into the future.
Interestingly, the idiots had similar ruling styles: they surrounded themselves with ‘yes men’ and created an administrative culture that rewarded only those who sang the party song. That’s how Bush got all the bullshit blown up his ass wrt “weapons of mass destruction”. He wouldn’t listen to the UN inspectors who’d actually been there multiple times and couldn’t find shit.