NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush should just keep doing what hes doing and not admit his mistakes. It worked for Lincoln just look at him! On tv shows, in the history books even childrens cartoons, just because he didnt admit his mistakes.

And what mistakes were those?

Could I aslo add that Lincoln was assassinated. Noone gave him time to admit his mistakes(and i cant think of a one besides getting assassinated). Are you saying Bush should get assassinated? Because if you are then I agree with you...

And what mistakes were those?
Totalitarianism.

Could I aslo add that Lincoln was assassinated. Noone gave him time to admit his mistakes(and i cant think of a one besides getting assassinated). Are you saying Bush should get assassinated? Because if you are then I agree with you...
Suspending Haebus Corpus, Delaying on Emanicipation, Requiring the return of run away slaves to the South...

I have better advice for Bush.

Get nearly assassinated. :mp5: Failing that, get assassinated. :sniper:

Make sure it's by a Democrat. :fluffle:

Then the Dems will lose for the next fifty years. :D

And you can call them hypocrites because they have guns. :p

Suspending Haebus Corpus, Delaying on Emanicipation, Requiring the return of run away slaves to the South...

Alright Habeus Corpus might have been wrong but requiring the return of runaway slaves to the south?! It was a federal law by the Compromise of 1850! Also he delayed on Emancipation because he thought that he could settle the civil war without haveing to causeing economic collapse in the south...

Honestly, if I were a second term president, I wouldn't give a fuck what the polls say as long as I can get my agenda or goals through Congress and in to law. If I feel it needs to be done, I'd get it done regardless of whether or not the people "like" it.

Alright Habeus Corpus might have been wrong but requiring the return of runaway slaves to the south?! It was a federal law by the Compromise of 1850! Also he delayed on Emancipation because he thought that he could settle the civil war without haveing to causeing economic collapse in the south...
So you agree with returning slaves?

Honestly, if I were a second term president, I wouldn't give a fuck what the polls say as long as I can get my agenda or goals through Congress and in to law. If I feel it needs to be done, I'd get it done regardless of whether or not the people "like" it.

:mumbles: Fascist :mumbles:

Honestly, if I were a second term president, I wouldn't give a fuck what the polls say as long as I can get my agenda or goals through Congress and in to law. If I feel it needs to be done, I'd get it done regardless of whether or not the people "like" it.
Kind of like Australian Senators, they figure they have six years before they have to answer to anyone and can do what they want for the first five and a half.

Bush has not made any major mistakes, and the small ones that he has made are much less signifanct than the ones that John Kerry or any other liberal would have made. Additionaly I owuld like to remind those who made the assaniation comment that you can be imprisoned or held as a terrorist for that kind of comment (even though you have free speach in america it dose not apply if you are talking about harming the leader of the free world).

he should blow me

So you agree with returning slaves?

Would you have rather lost the Civil War and granted the South independence?

The only reason Lincoln did that was because he was afraid of the border states seceding with the Confederacy like the upper south did. It was a smart move, and helped save the Union from disaster in the first years of the war.

Kind of like Australian Senators, they figure they have six years before they have to answer to anyone and can do what they want for the first five and a half.

That's it, I'm going to Australia. Do they have term limits?

So you agree with returning slaves?

No but I also think that he was just doing what was the law. You have to imagine the atmosphere back then. You couldnt get a state entered into the Union without a state that had opposite views on slavery being entered. I mean COME ON!

That's it, I'm going to Australia. Do they have term limits?
We don't have term limits in Canada.

In fact, the Senate is a hot bed for cronyism and neptism... so, you get in, you're set. You can hold office as long as you're not voted out.

We don't have term limits in Canada.

In fact, the Senate is a hot bed for cronyism and neptism... so, you get in, you're set. You can hold office as long as you're not voted out.

Snap! Time to kick back and live it up once I get elected. Hopefully I'll be replacing somone who is retiring so I can get their endorsement and win easier.

Bush has not made any major mistakes, and the small ones that he has made are much less signifanct than the ones that John Kerry or any other liberal would have made. Additionaly I owuld like to remind those who made the assaniation comment that you can be imprisoned or held as a terrorist for that kind of comment (even though you have free speach in america it dose not apply if you are talking about harming the leader of the free world).

First off I never said that I was going to assassinate the President. Secondly, he hasnt done anything wrong?! Are you fucking insane! Lets go in order shall we.

Ignored evidence that 9/11 was comeing. Check
Takeaway basic rights of people because they look different(Patriot Act). Check
Declare war for no reason. Check
Create a four trillion+ dollar defecit. Check
Spent first Hundred days of presidency on vacation. Check

The list goes on and on but I am too lazy.

Bush should get Chaney to resign. Appoint McCain VP. Then resign himself. At least he would get credit for doing three things right.

Bush should get Chaney to resign. Appoint McCain VP. Then resign himself. At least he would get credit for doing three things right.
Indeed. If McCain runs in 08 and no good dems run Im voteing for him!

Create a four trillion+ dollar defecit. Check.

Hey, it helped us recover from the vaporization of seven trillion dollars in paper wealth during his predecessor's term.

No but I also think that he was just doing what was the law. You have to imagine the atmosphere back then. You couldn't get a state entered into the Union without a state that had opposite views on slavery being entered. I mean COME ON!
Still the wrong thing to do. The physical size of the Union should not of superseded the importance of the ideals it was founded on. Lincoln set a very bad tone of compromise for future Presidents to follow.

Still the wrong thing to do. The physical size of the Union should not of superseded the importance of the ideals it was founded on. Lincoln set a very bad tone of compromise for future Presidents to follow.

We wouldn't have had a Union anymore if he hadn't done that. It was a political necessity given the climate of the country in 1861.

Hey, it helped us recover from the vaporization of seven trillion dollars in paper wealth during his predecessor's term.
Not true, The failure of the Bush Adminstration to understand the concept of "fluid wealth" is a shining beacon of incomptetance. The global economy is consistantly shifting away from "physical" growth to "fluid holdings" growth in a similar to way to the gradual shift from barter to currency.

First off I never said that I was going to assassinate the President. Secondly, he hasnt done anything wrong?! Are you fucking insane! Lets go in order shall we.

Ignored evidence that 9/11 was comeing. Check
Takeaway basic rights of people because they look different(Patriot Act). Check
Declare war for no reason. Check
Create a four trillion+ dollar defecit. Check
Spent first Hundred days of presidency on vacation. Check

The list goes on and on but I am too lazy.
First Off bush never got the 9/11 evidince in time to stop 9/11 ( it is very easy to look back and point fingers, while it is much harder to make the decesion in real time). Secondly the patriot act was put in place to guard against another 9/11 and as long as you are not going to harm the USA you are not in any real danger from the patriot act. He did not declare war for no reason, First I think the intel was good because the same senators who clame it is false today saw the exact same pictures and said it was good three years ago and Saddam needed to go anyways you cant leave a guy in power who used nerve gas on his own people and tortured them for speaking out against him. Thrid any president could not have prevented the deficit without making major sacrifices in spending which i do not believe any politian would do. Finally even if the president is not in the whitehouse he still has the same responsbilites and his worl can be done anywhere on earth just as well as in washington so why not do it from where you want.

We wouldn't have had a Union anymore if he hadn't done that. It was a political necessity given the climate of the country in 1861.
It's still wrong. No matter the reason behind doing what he did, it was still wrong. Especially when you're arguement is muted by the fact that later emancipation and the following civil war victory proves a compromise was not nessacary...

Not true, The failure of the Bush Adminstration to understand the concept of "fluid wealth" is a shining beacon of incomptetance. The global economy is consistantly shifting away from "physical" growth to "fluid holdings" growth in a similar to way to the gradual shift from barter to currency.

We had to put fiscal stimulus in to the economy following the dot com collapse. While I disagree with the repeated deficit spending (which threatens the global economy in multiple ways, the least of which being inflation), it is beyond a doubt that this nation needed this degree of stimulus following the collapse of the dot-com bubble.

Deficit spending needs to be reduced, but at the time was necessary.

Hey, it helped us recover from the vaporization of seven trillion dollars in paper wealth during his predecessor's term.

This may be one of the dimmest comments I've ever seen.

So Clinton wasn't responsible for the incredible economic prosperity that lead up to the the dot.com bubble bursting (which still ended up with the economy in a beter place than it was before he came into office,) but he is responsible for it eventually taking a downturn? Also note that Clinton balanced the budget.

Meanwhile, Bush isn't responsible for the slowest recovery in American history, the growing number of people in poverty and the biggest deficits in American history.

You got any snake oil to sell as well?

It's still wrong. No matter the reason behind doing what he did, it was still wrong. Especially when you're arguement is muted by the fact that later emancipation and the following civil war victory proves a compromise was not nessacary...

We would have lost that war if Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri had thrown their lot with the South, and violating the Compromise of 1850 would have pushed them over the edge. Lincoln could not have won that war if he pushed for emancipation in 1861-1862.

Those states would have added hundreds of thousands in manpower, thousands of slaves, a gigantic boost in industrial capacity and transportation infrastructure as well as food production, and considerable strategic control over major cross-national rail lines. In addition, the Ohio and Mississippi rivers would have been at least somewhat cut off.

Lincoln waited until September, after Antietam was won and hopes for foreign recognition of the Confederacy dashed to issue the proclamation. Even then, it only freed the slaves in the rebellious regions, leaving the border states still free to hold slaves.

We had to put fiscal stimulus in to the economy following the dot com collapse. While I disagree with the repeated deficit spending (which threatens the global economy in multiple ways, the least of which being inflation), it is beyond a doubt that this nation needed this degree of stimulus following the collapse of the dot-com bubble.

Deficit spending needs to be reduced, but at the time was necessary.
The global economy needed economic packaging after the collapse of the dot.com bubble. There is not questioning this. However, this should not have involved increased spending in traditional growth enterprises.

Traditional growth enterprises are not capable of generating the increases nessacary to fill the economic voids and was a major failing on the Bush Camp's economic policy.

Other countries (ie Australia) floated fluid shares onto the market and experienced upward growth against a falling US currency.

This may be one of the dimmest comments I've ever seen.

So Clinton wasn't responsible for the incredible economic prosperity that lead up to the the dot.com bubble bursting (which still ended up with the economy in a beter place than it was before he came into office,) but he is responsible for it eventually taking a downturn? Also note that Clinton balanced the budget.

Meanwhile, Bush isn't responsible for the slowest recovery in American history, the growing number of people in poverty and the biggest deficits in American history.

You got any snake oil to sell as well?
First you must factor in inflation if you want to compare deficits. Secondly you must factor in population growth because based on percentages the great depression is much worese then even the left wing media portrays it to be now. If you look at stock numbers rather than looking at your left wing media babeling heads with polotical agendas we actually in a period of economic growth.

So Clinton wasn't responsible for the incredible economic prosperity that lead up to the the dot.com bubble bursting (which still ended up with the economy in a beter place than it was before he came into office,) but he is responsible for it eventually taking a downturn? Also note that Clinton balanced the budget?

No, the Federal Reserve did along with the technology industry.

Incredible prosperity? Yes, if you were well off. The income gap widened faster than ever before for the poor and real wages were flat to down until the bubble started inflating in 1998. Simply put, you did not benefit considerably from the 1990's unless you were already somewhat well off. GDP growth was at best average, and overall gains in industrial production were average.

Clinton managed to knock down inflation to a low level by encouraging a balanced budget, for which he deserves credit, but not overwhelming praise.

The things he deserves credit for are NAFTA, GATT, welfare reform, lowering crime to record lows, refunding medicare and the Balanced Budget Act. Clinton did some good things, but too many people see the 90's as halcyon, even prosperity rather than gains concentrated in a relatively small number of people.

His economic record benefitted considerably from the bubble. It was never bad, but it was not blistering prosperity as it seems to be painted.

The global economy needed economic packaging after the collapse of the dot.com bubble. There is not questioning this. However, this should not have involved increased spending in traditional growth enterprises.

Traditional growth enterprises are not capable of generating the increases nessacary to fill the economic voids and was a major failing on the Bush Camp's economic policy.

Other countries (ie Australia) floated fluid shares onto the market and experienced upward growth against a falling US currency.

The reason why they failed is because it isn't politically acceptable to try and do these things. They have to continue to use these old economic ideas because it satisfies their various special interests and the conservative base, which borders on protectionism and currency fixation. Personally, I don't like the Bush economic policy anymore. It's outlived its necessity and we stand to lose from it unless we modernize.

First you must factor in inflation if you want to compare deficits. Secondly you must factor in population growth because based on percentages the great depression is much worese then even the left wing media portrays it to be now. If you look at stock numbers rather than looking at your left wing media babeling heads with polotical agendas we actually in a period of economic growth.
The problem is ratio growth. Worldwide we have seen a period of rampant economic growth, however America' economy is growing at a slower rate then competing western economies. On a consistant basis.

Incredible prosperity? Yes, if you were well off. The income gap widened faster than ever before for the poor and real wages were flat to down until the bubble started inflating in 1998. Simply put, you did not benefit considerably from the 1990's unless you were already somewhat well off. GDP growth was at best average, and overall gains in industrial production were average.


The gap between rich and poor is much greater now, and you know it.

The reason why they failed is because it isn't politically acceptable to try and do these things. They have to continue to use these old economic ideas because it satisfies their various special interests and the conservative base, which borders on protectionism and currency fixation. Personally, I don't like the Bush economic policy anymore. It's outlived its necessity and we stand to lose from it unless we modernize.
Again I repeat. This is a clear example of incompetence. To use an antiquated and fallicous model, simply because it won't ruffle upper middle-class feathers is ridiculous, cowardly & a poor judgement call.

No, the Federal Reserve did along with the technology industry.

Incredible prosperity? Yes, if you were well off. The income gap widened faster than ever before for the poor and real wages were flat to down until the bubble started inflating in 1998. Simply put, you did not benefit considerably from the 1990's unless you were already somewhat well off. GDP growth was at best average, and overall gains in industrial production were average.

Clinton managed to knock down inflation to a low level by encouraging a balanced budget, for which he deserves credit, but not overwhelming praise.

The things he deserves credit for are NAFTA, GATT, welfare reform, lowering crime to record lows, refunding medicare and the Balanced Budget Act. Clinton did some good things, but too many people see the 90's as halcyon, even prosperity rather than gains concentrated in a relatively small number of people.

His economic record benefitted considerably from the bubble. It was never bad, but it was not blistering prosperity as it seems to be painted.
The causes of economic growth was an administration the focused on new world growth opportunities, instead of focusing on the stable growth markets which are well institutionalised. The resultant over inflation of techonology stocks cannot be blamed on Clinton, but rather on a rise in market demand for shares at a larger ratio then for product.

The causes of economic growth was an administration the focused on new world growth opportunities, instead of focusing on the stable growth markets which are well institutionalised. The resultant over inflation of techonology stocks cannot be blamed on Clinton, but rather on a rise in market demand for shares at a larger ratio then for product.

I only "blame" it on him as a response to similar claims levied against Bush. Generally, the President has little control over the economy other than his fiscal discipline and who he appoints to the various economic bureaus and Federal Reserve.

Again I repeat. This is a clear example of incompetence. To use an antiquated and fallicous model, simply because it won't ruffle upper middle-class feathers is ridiculous, cowardly & a poor judgement call.

I agree absolutely. Unfortunately, the state of the American people's understanding of the economy is so poor overall that most people simply do not see the damage these things are doing to our economy, and so continue to rail against those who endorse such policies. We've got a rude awakening unless we take action.

I only "blame" it on him as a response to similar claims levied against Bush. Generally, the President has little control over the economy other than his fiscal discipline and who he appoints to the various economic bureaus and Federal Reserve.
So you blame Clinton because someone blamed Bush for something? Please leave this kind of childish rubbish on the playground.

Clinton was not responable for the dot.com collapse and it's a well documented fact.

However, Bush is responable for his Adminsitration's poor handling of the aftermath.

I agree absolutely. Unfortunately, the state of the American people's understanding of the economy is so poor overall that most people simply do not see the damage these things are doing to our economy, and so continue to rail against those who endorse such policies. We've got a rude awakening unless we take action.
This is a major concern many people are beginning to voice. The current Bush Administration does not appear to have the level of economic competence necessary to manage the economy or to deal with the resultant powder keg the global market is now sitting on.

The gap between rich and poor is much greater now, and you know it.

Of course it is, but this is only the continuation of a decline dating back to the 1970's (coinciding with the first oil embargo). To try and solely blame Bush or Clinton, or anyone for it is ridiculous. However, it also must be stated that the 90's boom did little to reverse this trend and at best kept it flat rather than declining.

Clinton's smartest move was balancing the budget. It brought inflation under control at a perfect time, when productivity was skyrocketing.

Of course it is, but this is only the continuation of a decline dating back to the 1970's (coinciding with the first oil embargo). To try and solely blame Bush or Clinton, or anyone for it is ridiculous. However, it also must be stated that the 90's boom did little to reverse this trend and at best kept it flat rather than declining.

Clinton's smartest move was balancing the budget. It brought inflation under control at a perfect time, when productivity was skyrocketing.

Do you have a source for the supposed widening of the rich/poor divide under Clinton? Because I've always heard the opposite.

Bush has not made any major mistakes, and the small ones that he has made are much less signifanct than the ones that John Kerry or any other liberal would have made. Additionaly I owuld like to remind those who made the assaniation comment that you can be imprisoned or held as a terrorist for that kind of comment (even though you have free speach in america it dose not apply if you are talking about harming the leader of the free world).
Stop right there: you can tell the future?

You predict Kerry or any other Librertarian would have made worse mistakes? {Kerry isn't as Liberal (Libertarian) ...}

So prove you can predict the future or you are assuming that Libertarian or Kerry woud have dione worse.