So true right now here in Australia. The Conservative opposition coalition (lead by the Liberal party, just to tie it into the convo above) have just proposed to build 7 nuclear power stations. They won't talk costs nor the amount of power delivered. Initiated to disrupt the current wind and solar powered roll out we got going. Why? To keep the gas and coal grift going for another 20 years.
(the old cartoon is from Oz i believe) and yeah everything i read about mr potato head's nuclear proposal is fantasy land bs meant to divert money away from renewables, everything about his proposal is stupidSo true right now here in Australia. The Conservative opposition coalition (lead by the Liberal party, just to tie it into the convo above) have just proposed to build 7 nuclear power stations. They won't talk costs nor the amount of power delivered. Initiated to disrupt the current wind and solar powered roll out we got going. Why? To keep the gas and coal grift going for another 20 years.
Heh yup... thankfully the media has been very sceptical on this idea. This political cartoon sums it up the best I think;(the old cartoon is from Oz i believe) and yeah everything i read about mr potato head's nuclear proposal is fantasy land bs meant to divert money away from renewables, everything about his proposal is stupid
Not sure who mentioned Eisenhower. It was JFK who got the US seriously embroiled in Vietnam.
As for Wilson, that's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Yes he was pretty racist, but liberals can be racist and often were in the past, because liberals tend to be very conservative.
Nope. You mentioned the American president that got us mired in Vietnam. That was Eisenhower. You are wrong, sorry. By 1954 we were paying 80% of France's bills for Vietnam. When Eisenhower picked the president of South Vietnam to lead our new client state, the French wanted nothing to do with him, effectively said 'You put this asshole in office, and we're gone.'
Wasn't a bluff - and we got stuck holding the mess. Kennedy had nothing to do with this process, sorry.
FWIW, I'm talking about the Dixiecrat agenda Wilson helped into law; deeds not words. Helping to roll back hard won rights for black folks, segregating federal offices, making interracial marriage illegal in D.C... the man was a frothy Presbyterian who thought America should christianize the globe FFS, and white supremacy was not a deal breaker (feature not a bug). Calling him a liberal would mean you've managed to ignore actual liberal values and priorities since at least the Civil Rights years. Yeesh.
With regard to Vietnam, Truman’s government refused to recognise Ho Chi Minh’s 1945 declaration of Vietnamese independence. Instead, Truman supported the restoration of a pro-French government in Indochina. In May 1950 he committed $US10 million in military aid and established the Defence Attaché Office in Saigon, with the purpose of supporting anti-communist forces in Vietnam. More US military assistance and advisors were sent to Vietnam in 1951-52. Truman’s aid to Vietnam was modest when compared to that of subsequent presidents, however, it did establish an American commitment to the region that would shape future policy. Truman left office in January 1953
In Denmark minimum wage 138DKK (~$20) Big Mac 49 DKK (~$7 USD) Ratio 2.8:1Per the internet Big Macs were more like $1.50 then however it’s still two Macs per hour.
Actually, (as a Dem, I don't like to admit this) Truman got things going in Vietnam...
Nope. You mentioned the American president that got us mired in Vietnam. That was Eisenhower. You are wrong, sorry. By 1954 we were paying 80% of France's bills for Vietnam. When Eisenhower picked the president of South Vietnam to lead our new client state, the French wanted nothing to do with him, effectively said 'You put this asshole in office, and we're gone.'
Wasn't a bluff - and we got stuck holding the mess. Kennedy had nothing to do with this process, sorry.
FWIW, I'm talking about the Dixiecrat agenda Wilson helped into law; deeds not words. Helping to roll back hard won rights for black folks, segregating federal offices, making interracial marriage illegal in D.C... the man was a frothy Presbyterian who thought America should christianize the globe FFS, and white supremacy was not a deal breaker (feature not a bug). Calling him a liberal would mean you've managed to ignore actual liberal values and priorities since at least the Civil Rights years. Yeesh.
Can we please stop whining about things that happened 50 to 60 years ago.Saying Kennedy had nothing to do with it is silly. All Presidents post WWII take ownership of the US' insane, often genocidal anti-Communist policies, as they all had a hand in it, be it Korea, Vietnam, South America, or anywhere else it was used (which was basically everywhere, including in the US). [Added in later: That's not to say it was always wrong, or at least the intent (South Korea would likely view it as a positive for instance), but there was a lot of "the ends justifies the means" behavior. Like when we sent military advisors to witness (likely direct at times) the anti-liberal purge that happened in Indonesia (with the US military having a very different outlook when similar happened in the Philippines under Duterte). Which also happened elsewhere (which highlights, no matter what strain it is, authoritarians act the same ways, for instance the Khmer Rouge did similar purging as they took power in response to the US' meddling in Cambodia; of course similar happened in Soviet Countries, and in countries where the US helped dictatorships/monarchs stay in power; and of course the anti-intellectualism that's prevalent in modern conservatives is alarming).]
Even more absurdly, those administrations were actually the liberals compared to the military people that argued for us to just nuke 'em all. The main reason Nixon gets most of the grief about Vietnam is because him and Kissinger met the military psychos halfway and were like "we won't nuke them, but we'll bomb them to hell and kill as many as we can".
Guess we'll just chalk it up to yet another part of American history we haven't actually reckoned with, just like slavery and subjugation of native peoples (and all the other racism), that still impacts us because of the latent guilt (and knowledge from hindsight) it brings anyone that knows like any of the history, whilst the psychos that pushed it passed that down the line to other psychos seeking to maintain power and the status quo of American society. Its all the same shit. Its been the same shit the entire time. The reason for wiping out native peoples was the same that brought slavery and was the same that enshrined racism as a national institution, and was the same that led to the anti-Communist policies/actions, and the same that is using religion to keep their power these days.
Frankly speaking, even the founding fathers largely wanted the power for themselves (and the wealthy white men like themselves) instead of the King, they were just angry that the King wasn't treating them as proper wealthy white men. They weren't fighting for freedom of all Americans like women and poor people, let alone black people, that was just to get enough support by common people to put their lives on the line so the wealthy white men could get theirs. American authoritarians have always pulled the wool over the American Peoples' eyes, convincing them that they should give their lives (and money/power/etc) to fight off some other authoritarians, which convinced Americans that they were anti-Authoritarian (be they Kings, Fascist, Communist, Socialist, Muslim, or other), whilst they enabled it at home. Only when it was so atrocious, and impossible to ignore the blood and skeletons left behind such that the guilt was overbearing did Americans do anything about it at home (Civil War, Civil Rights, the minor bits we did to pay lip service to what we did to the native tribes - for instance I think most believe it was just simple greed that led to us wiping out the Bison, when it was in fact deliberately done to wipe out a major resource so we could subjugate Native Americans).
C’mon, mang! It’s LOUSYANNA. I lived there for ~5 years in the early eighties.So me calling it 'Loseriana', while mean, isn't exactly wrong. Cool.