Reply With Quote
Net job loss during his first term.
Big time government spending under a republian president and a republican House and Senate.
Spending billions in Iraq while cutting programs here at home.
I simply do not agree with some of his policies.
he's gay.
Net job loss during his first term.
Big time government spending under a republian president and a republican House and Senate.
Spending billions in Iraq while cutting programs here at home.
I simply do not agree with some of his policies.
And what policy of Bush caused this? You realize that many of the job losses are a product of the recession that started in 1999?
Spending always goes up in a time of war.Big time government spending under a republian president and a republican House and Senate.
What programs were cut?Spending billions in Iraq while cutting programs here at home.
What policies in particular do you not agree with?I simply do not agree with some of his policies.
Spending on non-defense, non-security related programs usually doesn't go up in wartimes.Spending always goes up in a time of war.
I think you're looking at this through GOP colored glasses.
In re the presidency of George W. Bush, I'm wondering how many of you experienced his governship of Texas? Six years in that post obviously prepared him for running the entire US?! The guy was a meeter and greeter as governor (the TX governor has very little power, if you remember your high school civics) and that's how he became president and how he has remained president.
Hail fellow, well met... Never mind that he has the IQ of a gnat and the morals of a gutter snipe, a lot of people identify with this person. God knows, he isn't any smarter than anybody else and he mixes up his words like a lot of us folks, and he speaks a few words of Spanish but he hasn't gone all sissified and learned to speak French or English - just West Texan.
But, I'll give the guy this much: he's a survivor. He's not half the man his father was or is, but he's a better conniver than his father ever thought of being. He's the best kind of liar - the baldfaced kind who tells a lie and never backs down, no matter how many people call him on the lie and no matter how strong the evidence is against him. He's incredibly ill-informed, but he manages to make stupidity look like something everyone should strive for, like being unable to read briefings is preferrable to being able to. He is the poster boy for the slow learner, the uninformed, the rich bas who doesn't care about anyone but himself, and the rich bas who is not the sharpest tool in the shack and hasn't rightfully earned any of his money and who can't empathize with anyone who can't pull him/herself up by their bootstraps like he did.
We have here an arrogant, stupid SOB who has never put his life on the line for a cause (other than drinking and driving), who doesn't know what the he's doing. I'd love to engage him in conversation, but I can't see it going much beyond, "You're a real jerk, Mr. Bush!" and "You're under arrest, Mrs....."
While you are good at calling names and whining about all kinds of things, like most other ignorant democrats - your intellect or lack thereof shows by having nothing to back those accusations up.
"W is Dumb" - ok back it up. You claim he has a low IQ - what is it? His military tests and grades at Yale were both higher than Kerry's. Bush has two Ivy league degrees.
Go with some specifics about how he has done a bad job, how he is immoral or how he is a liar - or prove yourself to be another ignorant, indignant liberal.
I see that you too are like most other ignorant republicans who don't blame Bush for anything (it's always Clinton's fault) yet want to give him credit for everything.
Under this administration we have had the largest governement spending and taken us from the black into the deep red. Oh yeah, I forgot that this was due to Clinton.
Call it lying or whatever but it is clear to me that he didn't take the advise of Colin Powell and other intelligence but chose to hear only what he wanted to hear and that was "what ever you say Mr. President" and he refuses to acknowledge any wrong doing what so ever. The "Mission Accomplished" photo op still pisses me off..
Some of his supporters prove themselves to be ignorant and indignant republicans.
I'll be the first to admit Clinton was not perfect can't some of you admit that neither is Bush?
Funny how when the jobs were down it was Clinton's fault but when there was an announcement of jobs created it was due to Bush.
When there is lack of armor for our troops it is Clinton's fault yet "Mission Accomplished" is Bush's success story.
I should probably just stay out of this topic...
I absolutely hate his forgien policy. I think it has splintered the world and has led us into an expensive war in Iraq where we will spend decades trying to accomplish our goals. I think there were cheaper alternatives to be used, and I think a lack of patience and releying on bad intelligence has led us to where we are today. I don't think there's some conspiracy involved here. I simply believe he's arrogant and is surrounded by people with the hit first ask questions laster mentality. Collin Powell was his only link to a differing viewpoint and that view is now on it's way out.
I hate his policies when regarding civil liberties. The patriot act is a piece of law that is RIPE for abuse which has been shown. His religion does not bother me when it doesn't govern for him, but in the case of gay marriage it bothers me greatly.
Economicly, I hate that he's run deficits, and spent money irresponsibly. However, I don't know enough about economics to make my own judgement on him.
Enviromentaly, he is the WORST president in the history of the United States. This is truely an administration that simply does not care about protecting the enviroment when you compare it to making money.
Forgien policy is my biggest gripe with him, with the enviroment not far behind. But to be quite honest, it's the American ignorance that is nationwide which needs to change before a president changes. He is the ultimate manifistation of US lack of understanding of the rest of the world.
Thank you Joe and Thank you Manny! I'll keep your advice in mind!
This pretty much sums up what I think of Bush.
Somehow, we already knew Johnny!
This pretty much sums up what I think of Bush.
No - you seem to blame him for everything without specifics. I am trying to get you to show what specifics you blame him for.
Again - look at history. We were in a huge economic growth in the late 90s. When the economy is growing huge, the government is always in the black. As we started into the recession, we still had plenty to draw off of, but once we had to start paying billions because of 9/11 and billions for the war on terror, in addition to the .com bubble bursting, no president could keep us in the black.Under this administration we have had the largest governement spending and taken us from the black into the deep red. Oh yeah, I forgot that this was due to Clinton.
Powell said that he believed we were right to go into Iraq. I would like to see your evidence that Powell or other intelligence was ignored.Call it lying or whatever but it is clear to me that he didn't take the advise of Colin Powell and other intelligence but chose to hear only what he wanted to hear and that was "what ever you say Mr. President" and he refuses to acknowledge any wrong doing what so ever.
And you still haven't mentioned a lie Bush said.
Bush didn't put the banner there. The mission that carrier had was accomplished.The "Mission Accomplished" photo op still pisses me off..
What does this have to do with your attacks on Bush. There are many idiots on both sides of the aisle.Some of his supporters prove themselves to be ignorant and indignant republicans.
This isn't a Bush vs Clinton fest. Clinton did a lot of good things as President. Neither is perfect, and both have their faults.I'll be the first to admit Clinton was not perfect can't some of you admit that neither is Bush?
The President has very little influence on jobs. The unemployment rate is one of the most misleading stats in current politics.Funny how when the jobs were down it was Clinton's fault but when there was an announcement of jobs created it was due to Bush.
When there is lack of armor for our troops it is Clinton's fault yet "Mission Accomplished" is Bush's success story.
I would like to see some sources on "clinton lost jobs, bush gained them" etc. Seems like a straw man.
Show me some cases where it has been abused.
Why should he change the definition of marriage to suit a small number of people when the majority of people are against that. Even California - one of the most liberal states - voted over 60% against gay marriage.His religion does not bother me when it doesn't govern for him, but in the case of gay marriage it bothers me greatly.
Re: irresponsible money - what money spent would you cut?Economicly, I hate that he's run deficits, and spent money irresponsibly. However, I don't know enough about economics to make my own judgement on him.
Compare it to making money? Makes no sense.Enviromentaly, he is the WORST president in the history of the United States. This is truely an administration that simply does not care about protecting the enviroment when you compare it to making money.
What environmental programs of his do you disagree with?
The more I understand the rest of the world, the less I want to. We are the leaders of the free world, and have been for decades. Why should we look at all the nations that are behind us in order to change? We need to be looking forward, not backwards, and we are well beyond the rest of the world.Forgien policy is my biggest gripe with him, with the enviroment not far behind. But to be quite honest, it's the American ignorance that is nationwide which needs to change before a president changes. He is the ultimate manifistation of US lack of understanding of the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=2pacThe President has very little influence on jobs. The unemployment rate is one of the most misleading stats in current politics.
I would like to see some sources on "clinton lost jobs, bush gained them" etc. Seems like a straw man..[/QUOTE]
Directly yes, but his policies can have far reaching economic effects. Especially those that involve wars. Oh and that doesn't stop the president and other cantidates from campaigning on their ability to gain jobs. Maybe if they are going to open their mouths on the subject they should be willing to be accountable as well?
BTW, I in no way give credit to Clinton for the job boom of the 90s.
I agree. Bush and Kerry made too much of it. I remember Kerry said something like he could create 5M new jobs in his first term. Unless he is expanding the government, he isnt doing that.Directly yes, but his policies can have far reaching economic effects. Especially those that involve wars. Oh and that doesn't stop the president and other cantidates from campaigning on their ability to gain jobs.
While a war costs the government money, it is usually a boost to the overall economics of the country. It is somewhat of a delayed reaction in the market 9as are most economic policies) but if we fight a war, most of our defense spending goes to American contractors like Boeing.
Other than voting them out of verbal lashings, there is no real way to keep them accountable. If you look at all the promises every presidential canidate makes during their campaign - it would be completely impossible for any president to accomplish all of it. Heck, JohN Edwards said that if Kerry was President, people like Christopher Reeve would walk again.Maybe if they are going to open their mouths on the subject they should be willing to be accountable as well?
Oh 2pac, this was why I was going to stay out of this thread. You'll have my response in less than an hour, but right now I need food.
Did you just make this up? The US Government has rarely been "in the black" under any economic situation, period.Again - look at history. We were in a huge economic growth in the late 90s. When the economy is growing huge, the government is always in the black.
Since 1962, there have only been 5 years of surpluses, both in real terms and when cyclically adjusted. Source: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...ence=0#table13
On the other hand, all but 5 years in the same time frame have seen positive annual GDP growth. Source: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls
Sorry, try again.
You really don't know much about economics do you Manny? The President is a very important part of the overall health of our country's economy. He sets the pattern for congress on Federal taxing, and State, National and International trade regulations on business. The President can call for embargo's, raise or withdraw tariffs, sets business regulations and enforcement, go to war, and tighten or loosen the nations purse strings. All of these things can have a very direct impact on health of the economy.BTW, I in no way give credit to Clinton for the job boom of the 90s.
Clinton was pretty pro-business for a Democrat. For what its worth, his tax hike was perfectly in line with prevailing economic theory that you raise capital during growth years so that you have the ability to deficit spend during the years the economy is not growing fast enough so that spending doesn't overwhelm tax revenue. In fact, all the money that the NeoCons under W have stolen from our economy under the guise of 'liberating' Iraq, was money that Clinton saved by tightening enforcement on en lements, plus the military 'peace dividend'.
Overall, the economy grew at a very health rate under Clinton. You see Manny, growth is good, but too much growth too fast is bad because that's inflationary. One way to slow growth is to raise interest rates, but doing that too fast can kill growth, so another safer way of slowing growth in the economy is to simply raise taxes. Which is exactly what Clinton did. Clinton let the feds, under Greenspan work their magic at the reserve, basically keeping a policy of cheap money, all the while keeping growth in check.
Dan, that boom was due to the efficency growth due to the introduction of large numbers PC's, an large increse in the computer literate workforce, and the internet (which Al Gore did NOT invent).
I know you love to blame the right for everything and you love to give the left credit for everything, but some of us don't automaticaly see it that way.
However, I will digress, I'm not an economic expert nor have I ever claimed to be. However, this is an economist amoungst us and I'd love to hear his take. Scott? Something tells me he's not going to jump on your bandwagon, but I could be wrong.
The PC and internet boom was mostly a stock-market phenomenum. Sure there were more powerful PC's around, but companies weren't really the ones taking advantage of the new-found processing power. Most of them stuck with inferior software until the newer windows operating system came out that supported networking and was as reliable as Windows NT. It was the consumers who were driving the PC hardware and software market with computers that could do more and more multi-tasking for less and less money.Dan, that boom was due to the efficency growth due to the introduction of large numbers PC's, an large increse in the computer literate workforce, and the internet (which Al Gore did NOT invent).
Meanwhile, unjustifiable speculation was sending new internet stock offerings through the roof on Wall Street. There was really nothing the Government or Clinton could have done to save investors from their own stupidity and greed. It was a bubble that was destined to burst.
Infidel Bush is e! ARRR!!!
"I'm the ruler of the world."
And don't you forget it punk!
"I'm the ruler of the world."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
