NationStates Jolt Archive

I continually hear negative things about Bush and for good reason as so many of the things he has done are stupid, laughable and sometimes downright scary. But I need something positive. Being president he must have done something that we can say was good for this country. Give me something here please!

He hasn't started a nukular war yet.

I continually hear negative things about Bush and for good reason as so many of the things he has done are stupid, laughable and sometimes downright scary. But I need something positive. Being president he must have done something that we can say was good for this country. Give me something here please!

Hmm, he made the number of politically aware people grow?

He hasn't invaded New Zealand (yet) ... for renegging on ANZUS? :p

His immediate response to 9/11. He really did come off as a leader, and I briefly really liked the guy. I felt his decision to invade Afghanistan was the right decision.

Give me something here please!
Unh.. this is hard. Well, let's see now...he had a Very Bad Idea...
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW10-19-05.jpg

He didn't invade most countries on earth...

I felt his decision to invade Afghanistan was the right decision.

That's why you shouldn't base that sort of evaluation on emotions.

He hasn't started a nukular war yet.
zing!

His immediate response to 9/11. He really did come off as a leader, and I briefly really liked the guy. I felt his decision to invade Afghanistan was the right decision.
His immediate response to 9/11 was to get on an airplane and HIDE OUT OF COMMUNICATION for SEVEN HOURS, and when asked about it, they said there was a "communications malfunction."
Bull-f*cking-sh*t did he "come off as a leader".

He decided not to have anymore children, so we wont have to worry about his son running for president, since he has no son.

He has provided ample material for MAD magazine.

Bush has worked throughout both terms towards making trade freer.

He decided not to have anymore children, so we wont have to worry about his son running for president, since he has no son.

He has provided ample material for MAD magazine.

:D

Come on now, he must have done something we can all be proud of!

Bush has worked throughout both terms towards making trade freer.
Except of course when it might have endangered US firms. Then he preferred to give the offending CEOs cosy diplomatic positions.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,367881,00.html

Except of course when it might have endangered US firms. Then he preferred to give the offending CEOs cosy diplomatic positions.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,367881,00.html
Again i say Bush's decisions are consistent with corporate agenda. And i will, i imagine, repeat myself.

Bush has worked throughout both terms towards making trade freer.
By refusing to abide by Free Trade agreements?

Except of course when it might have endangered US firms. Then he preferred to give the offending CEOs cosy diplomatic positions.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,367881,00.html


From that article:

Even President Bush believes that there is something wrong with this practice of milking the competition despite the WTO decision. He attempted -- albeit unsuccessfully -- to overturn the 2000 legal basis for the tariffs, known as the "Byrd Amendment."

It's institutional, not the the decision of the president. He picked a political appointee from private industry who benefits from existing law while working against it. That's not necessarily an endorsement of protectionism.

By refusing to abide by Free Trade agreements?
Hey, freedom isn't always free, sometimes freedom requires the absence of freedom to be truly free of unfreedomnessocity-things.

Anyway, I think that Bush's initiative in personally testing the new Super Pretzel was quite courageous, especially when it was proved that the prototype was dangerously unstable. He almost gave our lives to protect the children of the US from dangerously untested snack foods.

Hey, freedom isn't always free, sometimes freedom requires the absence of freedom to be truly free of unfreedomnessocity-things.

Anyway, I think that Bush's initiative in personally testing the new Super Pretzel was quite courageous, especially when it was proved that the prototype was dangerously unstable. He almost gave our lives to protect the children of the US from dangerously untested snack foods.
Your President almost got taken out by a pretzel? Man, our (former) PM chokes out his protesters.

Hey, freedom isn't always free, sometimes freedom requires the absence of freedom to be truly free of unfreedomnessocity-things.

Anyway, I think that Bush's initiative in personally testing the new Super Pretzel was quite courageous, especially when it was proved that the prototype was dangerously unstable. He almost gave our lives to protect the children of the US from dangerously untested snack foods.
Well, it wasn't that brave ... he has the most in common with children of the U.S. ... intellect, emotional maturity, experience, and a sheer appreciation for overindulgence. Indeed he seemed the proper candidate. And at that he even still almost lost completely.

I continually hear negative things about Bush and for good reason as so many of the things he has done are stupid, laughable and sometimes downright scary. But I need something positive. Being president he must have done something that we can say was good for this country. Give me something here please!

Despite a faltering economy, the rich are richer than ever.

[b]Give me some positive Bush decisions!

The only positive Bush decision I can think of.... is when he decided to inhale the pretzel without chewing it.

I continually hear negative things about Bush and for good reason as so many of the things he has done are stupid, laughable and sometimes downright scary. But I need something positive. Being president he must have done something that we can say was good for this country. Give me something here please!Nothing positive about him.

Bush is a waste of taxpayer's money BTW.

I continually hear negative things about Bush and for good reason as so many of the things he has done are stupid, laughable and sometimes downright scary. But I need something positive. Being president he must have done something that we can say was good for this country. Give me something here please!
I think he said he was going to brush his teeth.

He hasn't invaded New Zealand (yet) ... for renegging on ANZUS? :p

Who cares, the average American thinks New Zealand is in the Netherlands.

By refusing to abide by Free Trade agreements?

I think the bigger one; actually having a freemarket based economy in writing and in reality - hello agricultural subsidises and industry hand outs.

His immediate response to 9/11. He really did come off as a leader, and I briefly really liked the guy. I felt his decision to invade Afghanistan was the right decision.


I will give credit where its due, and say that Bush did take immediate action after 9/11.
Right or wrong, he did something. Even if little good has come from his actions, he made a choice and stuck by it.

However, any President we have had, are having, or will ever have, would have chosen to do the exact same thing in Afghanistan.
No President would back down from a direct attack (or indirect really).

"I will put food on your family." :D

That's the only good thing he ever said :D

It's institutional, not the the decision of the president. He picked a political appointee from private industry who benefits from existing law while working against it. That's not necessarily an endorsement of protectionism.
And while we're at it, Timken also contributed a lot of money to Bush's campaign, but that's entirely unrelated.

As for Free Trade:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2002-05-02-trade-war.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Free_Trade.htm
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/articles/bl-9-15-03.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wto/2003/1112steelwar.htm
http://www.acah.org/Bush091901.htm
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=463&sortorder=articledate
And so on and so forth...

I continually hear negative things about Bush and for good reason as so many of the things he has done are stupid, laughable and sometimes downright scary. But I need something positive. Being president he must have done something that we can say was good for this country. Give me something here please!

Up until the Danish cartoon controversy Europes "likeability factor" in the non-western world was steadily rising due to the countries there "not being the USA". The stereotyped image of Bush has also done wonders in unifying several of the European common people: they can mock at and despise him instead of eachother now.

To summarise: Bush was good for Europe.

Up until the Danish cartoon controversy Europes "likeability factor" in the non-western world was steadily rising due to the countries there "not being the USA". The stereotyped image of Bush has also done wonders in unifying several of the European common people: they can mock at and despise him instead of eachother now.

To summarise: Bush was good for Europe.
And this brings us to a good decision of Bush': he chose to remain an American, and thus spare some other country the shame.

Changing the regime in Afghanistan.
Changing the regime in Iraq.
Planning to reduce farm subsidies.
Generosity of aid to Stephen's Day Tsunami victims.

That is all Bush has in terms of good decisions. If he increases funding for research into alternatives to oil, then that will be good too.

Changing the regime in Afghanistan.
For better or for worse ?

Changing the regime in Iraq.
For better of for worse ?

If he increases funding for research into alternatives to oil, then that will be good too.
With this I definately agree - provided he allows people to actually do scientific research.

It's not research if all you do is hire out some obscure science and development firm and pay them to do exactly shit all. >_> And then blame them for not finding alternatives fast enough.

For better or for worse ?

For better of for worse ?
For better I think, though neither job is yet done.

With this I definately agree - provided he allows people to actually do scientific research.
It's not research if all you do is hire out some obscure science and development firm and pay them to do exactly shit all. >_> And then blame them for not finding alternatives fast enough.
Of course.

The Australian & United State Free Trade Agreement was signed!

(Good for the USA, bad for Australia of course)

He hasn't started a nukular war yet.
Neither has Kerry, so you can't let him off for that.

He advanced some of the free trade agreements necessary to keeping our economy competitive; if he can successfully negotiate a FTAA and get the Doha talks to a conclusion, he'll be quite successful in preparing the US for the future.

He also resisted protectionist sentiment in Congress that would have crushed our economy and greatly enriched foreign companies at the expense of our own (good old Chuck Schumer and his dumbass tariff...idiot).

I continually hear negative things about Bush and for good reason as so many of the things he has done are stupid, laughable and sometimes downright scary. But I need something positive. Being president he must have done something that we can say was good for this country. Give me something here please!
Ummmm, he would be an excellent used car salesman:

The Harris Poll® #18, March 26, 2003 (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=366)

Slight Majority of Americans Support Bush Decisions on War With Iraq
Large majorities still believe that Iraq has or is making weapons of mass destruction

Significant numbers feel president was too eager to go to war

_____________________________________

by David Krane and Nancy Wong

As the nation, which overwhelmingly believes that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (81%), moves into its second week of war with Iraq.....

Well, he brought to light those rumors on the internets that we might have had a draft

Well, he brought to light those rumors on the internets that we might have had a draft

So we could say his Bushisms are good for our amusement? ;)

Planning to reduce farm subsidies.

planning? planning doesn't count! calling planning a decision is like saying you're going to kill someone and saying you did! you didn't really kill them, you just though about killing them!

Well, he brought to light those rumors on the internets that we might have had a draft

Hey! The Internets is Serious Business (http://jeroenr.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/internets.jpg)

This really is a tough one. I thought cracking down on illegal immigration was good. umm lets see... this alternative fuel thing seems promising. While I really do hate Bush alot and his policys, but I think alot of people blame stuff on him that really isnt his fault. I mean seriously hes not like a god you can blame all bad happenings on... all be it you can for alot of them.

Actually the Bush administration has done one good thing.

Bono from U2 convinced him to increase spending for retroviral (anti aids) drugs in Africa, enough to support about 200,000 people.

Bono said everyone called him mad for even approaching the Bush administration.

Actually the Bush administration has done one good thing.

Bono from U2 convinced him to increase spending for retroviral (anti aids) drugs in Africa, enough to support about 200,000 people.

Bono said everyone called him mad for even approaching the Bush administration.

Really? I'm surprised Bush would care about anything that happens on Africa.

Really? I'm surprised Bush would care about anything that happens on Africa.
Well, it is a good opportunity to give more funding to "faith-based organisations" (read: Missionaries) and good PR as well. Of course, if he really cared, he wouldn't have insisted on protecting all sorts of agricultural goods when a number of African states and the US signed some trade agreement a few years back.

Hey! The Internets is Serious Business (http://jeroenr.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/internets.jpg)
But which one did Al Gore invent? :D

Good things Bush has done... Heh.
...
Uhm...
*shrugs*

Really? I'm surprised Bush would care about anything that happens on Africa.
I'm actually going to play nicey-nicey for a sec ...

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/wire.ssf?/base/news/113991241911330.xml&coll=2
Bush, U.N. to work on force in Darfur
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
RON HUTCHESON
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - In a move that ultimately could lead to the deployment of U.S. troops to Africa, President Bush on Monday agreed to work with the United Nations on the creation of a new international force to stop ethnic killings in Sudan's Darfur region.

Although Bush made no commitments on a possible role for U.S. troops, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he favors American participation in the peacekeeping mission. Bush and Annan sidestepped that issue during a White House meeting that focused on the mechanics of creating a peacekeeping force.

"When the planning is done and we come up with detailed requirements, then each government will have to indicate what they will offer and what they will do," Annan told CNN after the meeting. "I hope that the U.S. and other governments with capacity will pull together and work with us in putting the forces on the ground."

Annan said that international troops offer the best hope for ending the violence that's claimed as many as 200,000 lives and left nearly 2 million people homeless. Peacekeeping troops from neighboring African countries have been unable to stop marauding militias that operate with support from the Sudanese government.

The campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing, orchestrated by Sudanese Arabs, targets Darfur's African population. Humanitarian groups say the violence rivals the slaughter in Rwanda in the 1990s.

Bush and other administration officials have shown little enthusiasm for putting U.S. troops in the middle of the ethnic strife, but they haven't ruled it out. Bush, who has called the killings in Darfur genocide, didn't even mention plans for an international force in brief remarks to reporters after his meeting with Annan.

He said only that they had "a good discussion" about the problem.

A State Department spokesman said that any discussion of sending U.S. troops to Africa is premature.
--
Followed by ...

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-22-voa3.cfm

US Vows to Keep Pushing For UN Darfur Force
By David Gollust
Washington
22 February 2006



The Bush administration acknowledged Tuesday it may not get a Security Council resolution for a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Sudan's Darfur region as it hoped for by the end of month. But it vowed to keep pushing for the upgrade of the current African Union force.

Bush administration officials had hoped to get a resolution on the new Darfur peacekeeping presence before the United States' turn as rotating Security Council president for the month of February expired.

But with only a week to go, they are acknowledging that prospect now appears unlikely, while saying that the U.S. drive for a full-fledged U.N. peacekeeping mission will continue unabated.

At a news briefing, State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli hailed the performance of the current African Union force in Darfur, which he credited with preventing the kind of large scale atrocities that occurred in the region in 2004.

But he said that mission was never intended to be open-ended and said the United States wants to see quick action transforming the African Union Mission in Sudan, or AMIS, into a full-scale blue-hatted U.N. force. "I can't promise you that there's going to be a resolution introduced in the next week. I can say that whether we're the president or not of the Security Council, the United States will push to marshal international efforts in support of peace in Darfur, including a re-hatting of AMIS into a U.N. force," he said.

Mr. Ereli said it is important to get the logistics and mechanics of the transformation done right, but said there is an urgency to the matter, since people are still dying in Darfur.

Privately a senior diplomat who spoke to reporters here expressed frustration over the pace of work by a U.N. team now in Sudan to make an assessment of the logistical needs of a new force.

They are dragging their feet, the diplomat said, and we are getting a little impatient.

President Bush said last week he favored doubling the number of peacekeepers operating in Darfur, while the 7,000 A.U. troops already there should form the core of the new contingent.

The A.U. force, which has gotten airlift and other support from the United States, has still been hampered by funding and logistical problems in trying to contain the violence in the region, where local rebels are battling Sudanese-government backed militiamen.

The fighting has led to the deaths of some 200,000 people and displaced more than two million others, leading former Secretary of State Colin Powell to say in September 2004 that genocide had occurred.

The Khartoum government has rejected that depiction, reaffirmed in Congressional testimony last week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and has not yet given its consent to an upgraded peacekeeping force.

The International Criminal Court has launched an investigation of alleged Darfur war crimes. U.S. religious groups, including evangelical Christian and Jewish organizations, have become more vocal in recent weeks in pressing the Bush administration on the issue.

The Save Darfur Coalition, consisting of some 130 U.S. religious, humanitarian and human rights groups, is beginning a 22-city speaking tour Wednesday, to raise awareness on Darfur culminating with an April 30 rally in Washington.

---------

Bush has also supported Pathways to Housing (http://www.pathwaystohousing.org/).

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/01/01_405.html

Uh...I got nothing.

WASHINGTON - In a move that ultimately could lead to the deployment of U.S. troops to Africa, President Bush on Monday agreed to work with the United Nations on the creation of a new international force to stop ethnic killings in Sudan's Darfur region. . .
---------


I REALLY don't like him, but that most definitely counts for something positive for the time being. I hope they go through with it.

I REALLY don't like him, but that most definitely counts for something positive for the time being. I hope they go through with it.
Oh, i REALLY don't like him either. I just have this somewhat non-self-serving sense of justice that occasionally surfaces, and i try to make up for it with all of my other behaviour.
I should, for example, post this ...

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...ming_resources

and this

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...a_dying_planet

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...against_nature
*ahem*
Crimes Against Nature
Bush is sabotaging the laws that have protected America's environment for more than thirty years

(From RS 937, December 11, 2003)

For more information on the Bush administration's environmental actions, see The Bush Record from NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/default.asp

---
Hmmm ... if balance is restored, why such an empty twisting feeling?

I dunno, I like his policies in Africa, if he ever does anything there.

I liked his responses to the 9/11 attacks, though I don't like his use of 9/11 as an excuse for everything.

The housing things not bad either.

Other than that, he sucks in my agenda.

The VERB program. That is the ONLY thing I know of that hasn't turned to shit because of him. I don't know how many people have seen these commerscials but they are neat.
I heard it was his idea so I'm giving him credit.
Of course I don't really watch the news or read the news papers so I'm kind of out of the loop...

So we could say his Bushisms are good for our amusement? ;)
hey, this (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/) has given me over five years of frightened entertainment.

The only good thing I'll remember him doing is the "Do Not Call" list.

I continually hear negative things about Bush and for good reason as so many of the things he has done are stupid, laughable and sometimes downright scary. But I need something positive. Being president he must have done something that we can say was good for this country. Give me something here please!

Umm i support his decision to send Karen Hughes to the middle east to try and negotiate peace in various countries instead of going himself. After all she did manage to reverse the terrible PR after his little mission accomplished speech in his nice little bomber jacket.

I also hate to say this but I agree with him that you can't just pull the troops out of Iraq. The US has made such a huge mess there, they can't just walk out without helping to fix it and it's gonna take years.

I also agree with him when he was commenting on the Palestinian election results and said "the trouble with democracy is, sometimes you don't get what you want". Now he knows how half the country felt about 4 more years.

There i think that was 3 positive things about the man who can't even eat a pretzel while watching a football game without assistance.

Really? I'm surprised Bush would care about anything that happens on Africa.

Ahh but you forget - lots of oil and gold and diamond mines in Africa and cheap labor.

Hard to say. He's never actualy finished anything. :p

Um...

To borrow some material from Dennis Miller, I like the baseball diamond he put in at the Whitehouse so the kids of military families can play teeball. Compared to Clinton's extracurricular activities, it's a sweet gesture. :)

Hard to say. He's never actualy finished anything. :p

Um...

To borrow some material from Dennis Miller, I like the baseball diamond he put in at the Whitehouse so the kids of military families can play teeball. Compared to Clinton's extracurricular activities, it's a sweet gesture. :)
Inviting people to stay overnight in the Lincoln Room at the White House? :p

Inviting people to stay overnight in the Lincoln Room at the White House? :p

Is that what they call it now? ;)

It’s a matter of perspective. If I were a member of the corporate elite that was raping Iraq and the US taxpayers at the same time, or if I were a member of the fundamentalist religious right, I’d have to say he’s doing a damn lot of positive things for me. Otherwise I’d have to go with the penchant for eating pretzels unsupervised.

Changing the regime in Afghanistan.
Changing the regime in Iraq.
Planning to reduce farm subsidies.
Generosity of aid to Stephen's Day Tsunami victims.

That is all Bush has in terms of good decisions. If he increases funding for research into alternatives to oil, then that will be good too.

Afghanistan i will give you. Oh but wait they still can't find a very tall man near a border and the Taliban are regaining support there.

Saddam behind bars good, lying to the world about WMD not good.. he didn't say we're taking out a dictator he said they have *insert Texas twang here* "newclea" weapons, and Powell showed all kinds of phony diagrams to prove this lie to the UN.

Farm subsidies - have you asked a farmer trying to survive in rural America how that works for for him/her and their families?

Tsunami victims i will give you. But what about the people in the Gulf States in the USA who have still not seen FEMA and still do not have running water and power but do still have debris in their front yards and no home to go to some 6 months after Katrina? And lets also remember that the National guard was able to help Tsunami victims so quickly because they were deployed there to fight a war started on lies, and because of this were not at home when a nation needed them after it's worst natural disaster ever.

I do not get this whole "the Republicans can protect America best" theory! If FEMA had been in the state it has been reduced to now on 9/11 thousands more would have died waiting for help. Bush and Co could not protect the homeland against a huge human tragedy, and yes this was an act of nature BUT if it was a nuclear threat or biological one what makes anyone think they will be any better prepared?

Millions and millions of dollars have been spent "improving" National Security.. yet where are the results?????????????:headbang:

Hard to say. He's never actualy finished anything. :p

Um...

To borrow some material from Dennis Miller, I like the baseball diamond he put in at the Whitehouse so the kids of military families can play teeball. Compared to Clinton's extracurricular activities, it's a sweet gesture. :)
yes...clintons tended to be a bit salty.

He advanced some of the free trade agreements necessary to keeping our economy competitive; if he can successfully negotiate a FTAA and get the Doha talks to a conclusion, he'll be quite successful in preparing the US for the future.

He also resisted protectionist sentiment in Congress that would have crushed our economy and greatly enriched foreign companies at the expense of our own (good old Chuck Schumer and his dumbass tariff...idiot).

Yeah and then he shipped a whole lot of jobs to India and gave large companies TAX BREAKS for doing it!

Yeah and then he shipped a whole lot of jobs to India and gave large companies TAX BREAKS for doing it!
But those companies NEED the tax breaks! After all, they do pay over $200 billion in taxes while income tax solely from individuals are over a trillion.

But those companies NEED the tax breaks! After all, they do pay over $200 billion in taxes while income tax solely from individuals are over a trillion.

Good point! How could I have forgotten that but then if you follow Uncle Ronnie's trickle down theory.. we all benefit when big business benefits. Aren't we lucky? Do you feel lucky?;)

I do not get this whole "the Republicans can protect America best" theory! :headbang:
It's one of those theories from the same kind of mentality that thought "Intelligent Design" was a "theory" in some way that makes it even remotely comparable to evolution.
A large, loud, either horribly misinformed/ignorant or blatantly false/disingenuous bluster of hot empty air, that's where that "theory" garners the most credit.

Ahh but you forget - lots of oil and gold and diamond mines in Africa and cheap labor.

Too bad Africa is a third world shit hole that relies in hand outs, and spends most of its time beating the crap out of neighbours in pointless wars (both civil and cross boarder), then bitch to us 'rich whitey's' in the west for hand outs, debt relief etc.

IMHO, let the continent self implode and stop wasting those billions.

1) Bush did not lie about WMDs. The entire western world thought Iraq had WMDs. Saddam was actively seeking WMDs. Saddam used WMDs on his own people.

2) Iraq is better off. If you haven’t been there (before/during/after the war) then you really have no room to discuss its current state, or what the people there think. The majority of people I’ve interacted with in Iraq love America and what it has done for them.

3) Bush is human; he has/will make mistakes. Not every bad thing that happens in the world is his fault. The fact that people degrade him as if he is the only president to ever make a mistake is ridiculous. Even the democratic love child Clinton made mistake.

4) Just because Bush is not a terribly great public speaker does not mean he is not a good president. He is an intelligent man who is not good at kissing the publics ass.

5) Bush had a wonderful idea for Social Security that the general public shot down because they didn’t listen. The plan did not call for the termination of Social Security, but for benefits for people who start their own IRAs. Everyone was sh!t scared that Bush was going to take away their SocSec, but had they listened they would have realized that it will be gone soon (10-20 years) anyway. Bush was only trying to help people with this plan, but apparently the general public cannot fend for themselves and save money early. They need the government to provide for them. Social Security is an out-dated program. It was designed at a time when the max age expectancy was around 60. Now people live into their 90s draining the SocSec budget of every penny.

The plan did not call for the termination of Social Security, but for benefits for people who start their own IRAs.
What a hypocrite! Fighting terrorism abroad, but giving them benfits at home.:p

1) Bush did not lie about WMDs. The entire western world thought Iraq had WMDs. Saddam was actively seeking WMDs. Saddam used WMDs on his own people.

Wrong. Go educate yourself. Use my name from the archives if you have to.
But you are INDEED wrong.



3) Bush is human; he has/will make mistakes. Not every bad thing that happens in the world is his fault. The fact that people degrade him as if he is the only president to ever make a mistake is ridiculous. Even the democratic love child Clinton made mistake. Whoa now you're into Pulitzer territory here. We'll try to keep up. :rolleyes:

4) Just because Bush is not a terribly great public speaker does not mean he is not a good president. He is an intelligent man who is not good at kissing the publics ass.
No, just corporate and spend-thirsty fundamentalist rimjobs, not taxpayers' or normal law-abiding citizens

5) Bush had a wonderful idea for Social Security that the general public shot down because they didn’t listen. The plan did not call for the termination of Social Security, but for benefits for people who start their own IRAs. Everyone was sh!t scared that Bush was going to take away their SocSec, but had they listened they would have realized that it will be gone soon (10-20 years) anyway. Bush was only trying to help people with this plan, but apparently the general public cannot fend for themselves and save money early. They need the government to provide for them. Social Security is an out-dated program. It was designed at a time when the max age expectancy was around 60. Now people live into their 90s draining the SocSec budget of every penny.Wrong again. Look at the averages for the past TEN years on SS before you start saying that Bush was actually smarter than the people about it. Also, look into Citigroup's campaign contributions and their involvement in the rollovers of SS. And then, when you're done, look at how much Bush's admin personally has EARMARKED for his bloated spending in INVADING IRAQ and the costs around it while simultaneously keeping tax cuts going for the rich and corporations (especially campaign contributors).
When you're done actually bothering to educate yourself on this stuff you might be better appreciated but right now, you're just a frothing Limblob fan-equivalent.

Wrong. Go educate yourself. Use my name from the archives if you have to.
But you are INDEED wrong.

I’m sorry, but maybe you could inform me (from your obviously extensive on-hands research into the subject) what part of this is wrong? Did everyone think he had WMDs? Yes. Was Saddam actively seeking WMDs? Yes. Did Saddam use WMDs on his own people? Yes. Now perhaps I should educate YOU on the subject. WMDs do not mean Nuclear weapons. Sadam used Sarin gas on his own people. Now, you and all of your worldly wisdom may not think that Sarin is a WMD, but lets have someone detonate a 105mm Sarin gas shell in your hometown and I’m sure you’ll think otherwise. Everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, if they didn’t, why on earth would the UN be searching for them? Just for Fun? Saddam was actively seeking WMDs and was in fact planning to develop and produce them when the opportunity arised. If you don’t believe me you can find out for yourself on the many sights covering the newly released audio tapes of Saddam admitting it himself. Go have fun being educated.

Whoa now you're into Pulitzer territory here. We'll try to keep up. :rolleyes:

Please don’t use sentences like these to try and make me feel/appear stupid. The fact is that most people liked Clinton because he is the President that made everything ok. Adultery? SURE! Why not, the president does it. Lying strait faced to congress? Hell yeah, Slick Willie does it. Smoke Pot? Why not, I just "won’t inhale". Don’t role your eyes at me, you don’t even know me.

No, just corporate and spend-thirsty fundamentalist rimjobs, not taxpayers' or normal law-abiding citizens

Who creates jobs? The government? No. Corporations create jobs. How can corporations create jobs? Having more money to spend on new employees. Bush already made tax cuts for your "normal law-abiding citizens", and is currently trying to make these cuts permanent.

Wrong again. Look at the averages for the past TEN years on SS before you start saying that Bush was actually smarter than the people about it. Also, look into Citigroup's campaign contributions and their involvement in the rollovers of SS. And then, when you're done, look at how much Bush's admin personally has EARMARKED for his bloated spending in INVADING IRAQ and the costs around it while simultaneously keeping tax cuts going for the rich and corporations (especially campaign contributors).
When you're done actually bothering to educate yourself on this stuff you might be better appreciated but right now, you're just a frothing Limblob fan-equivalent.

Oh my god! Wars cost money!?!?! Wow, that’s new isn’t it. Don’t be an assclown. You tell me to educate myself? Go look at the statistics for SS and the retiree to working ratio. Look at life expectancy and how it continues to go up. SS starts at age 60, and in some cases earlier. The cost of providing for people that are living 20 to 30 years longer than when SS was conceived is amazing. It’s a natural progression. If there are more takers than there are givers, than the pot begins to empty. That’s what the SS plan was for, because when I’m 60 and get little to no SS I damn well better be prepared to fend for myself.

Finally, you really shouldn’t talk about Iraq. You've never been there, you don’t know what it is/was like. You don’t know what the people think, want or feel. I can almost guarantee that all of your knowledge comes from CNN, Web Blogs, Michael Moore and any other Bush hating asshats. If you don’t like Bush, fine, but don’t hate him for reasons that you are sadly misinformed of. Oh, and don’t comment on my "Pulitzer" skills and use the word rimjob in the same reply. It makes you look like a hypocrite.

can almost guarantee that all of your knowledge comes from CNN, Web Blogs, Michael Moore and any other Bush hating asshats.

And where do you get YOUR knowledge ? Just to make sure your opinion is based on unbiased facts.

Too bad Africa is a third world shit hole that relies in hand outs, and spends most of its time beating the crap out of neighbours in pointless wars (both civil and cross boarder), then bitch to us 'rich whitey's' in the west for hand outs, debt relief etc.

IMHO, let the continent self implode and stop wasting those billions.

Now there's a non-racially charged, well informed tolerant non flaming post that doesn't discriminate against a whole continent! Hey you should see if Bush wants you to be a roving ambassador in the region!:D Only problem is i think your views might be too right wing even for the Bush Adminstration, but good luck with that.

He formed a group (I can't remember the name) that donates money to African countries only if they clean up corruption. Good call.

He formed a group (I can't remember the name) that donates money to African countries only if they clean up corruption. Good call.

Which means not much is going to be given up unless you go bribe the US adminstration. :)

Which means not much is going to be given up unless you go bribe the US adminstration. :)

Fine, be cynical. I don't care. I much rather live in this happy fluffy world with it's pink skies, cavorting happily with faries as I consider a solution to Africa's massive poverty. (Which doesn't exist in this happy world anyway, so problem over. Yay!)

1) Bush did not lie about WMDs. The entire western world thought Iraq had WMDs. Saddam was actively seeking WMDs. Saddam used WMDs on his own people.

Like most Bush supporters, you confuse suspicion with certainty. Most of the western world suspected Saddam had WMD. Even out own intelligence services were split on whether they were certain he had them. France and Germany refused to join the coalition because they were unconvinced. In fact, MOST of the western world refused to add substantial support to the coalition for that very reason.

2) Iraq is better off. If you haven’t been there (before/during/after the war) then you really have no room to discuss its current state, or what the people there think. The majority of people I’ve interacted with in Iraq love America and what it has done for them.

Mmmhmm, sectarian violence and the threat of civil war is better. Right. Unemployment is higher in Iraq now than before the war started as well. Fewer people have water and electricity now than before the war.

DId you mingle freely with the populace, or did you just meet certain people in certain places. Are you SURE you got an accurate picture while there? How long ago did you leave? Were you openly armed while talking to people? That'll usually have an effect on how people treat you, you know. I know I'm not usually gonna mouth off to someone packing an automatic rifle.


3) Bush is human; he has/will make mistakes. Not every bad thing that happens in the world is his fault. The fact that people degrade him as if he is the only president to ever make a mistake is ridiculous. Even the democratic love child Clinton made mistake.

Part of taking on a huge responsibility, such as being PRESIDENT, is accepting responsibility for some things that aren't directly your fault. Kinda like an officer is at least partly to blame when his men screw up.



4) Just because Bush is not a terribly great public speaker does not mean he is not a good president. He is an intelligent man who is not good at kissing the publics ass.

A poor quality to have in the most highly placed PUBLIC SERVANT in the land.

5) Bush had a wonderful idea for Social Security that the general public shot down because they didn’t listen. The plan did not call for the termination of Social Security, but for benefits for people who start their own IRAs. Everyone was sh!t scared that Bush was going to take away their SocSec, but had they listened they would have realized that it will be gone soon (10-20 years) anyway. Bush was only trying to help people with this plan, but apparently the general public cannot fend for themselves and save money early. They need the government to provide for them. Social Security is an out-dated program. It was designed at a time when the max age expectancy was around 60. Now people live into their 90s draining the SocSec budget of every penny.

No, you've been TOLD that his idea was lovely. You never checked it out yourself nor took any of the criticisms of it seriously.

Bush seems to have decided that he's Texan, and he's positive about that: he even managed to convince the Dixie Chicks.

Bush seems to have decided that he's Texan, and he's positive about that: he even managed to convince the Dixie Chicks.

In fairness, they don't seem all that hard to fool.

It's hard to point fingers at Bush either way, as I think he's been somewhat level in his good/bad ratio. And as a Bush-voter, I'm not pleased to make that statement.

With all the conspiracy theories floating around, it's hard to judge what Bush's fault and what is not.

But I do know one thing. America is far better off without John Kerry flipping and flopping and flapping his way through four years of the worst wooden roller coaster ride anyone's ever been on.

And with the exception of what's going on with Iran, whatever that seems to be, America needs to worry about who's going to run the country after Bush.

When Reagan was president, and the most important, he trumped Russia into backing out of a nuclear war. I remember being almost a teen, looking out into the sky, watching to see a Russian missle fly over to hit the park that had the 'ground zero' mark around it in the newspaper. And I remember when the missles numbers rose. And rose. And continued.

And finally, when it looked like the world was coming to an end, being forced to watch "The Day After" in elementary school, the fear that ran deep in everyone's veins, Reagen came out and pulled the Ace in his pocket.

The Star Wars program.

The cool little video of a missle defense system we didn't have, with Reagen, explaining to the world, that he welcomes Russia to shoot first. Because this new technology we had would shoot every one of their missles out of the sky, leaving us to have an open field day on the world.

Moments later in 'history' time, Russia and the US came to an agreement to halt the nonsense.

Sure-the "deficit" (which is a fictional word) was the highest it's ever been, and money was a little tight at times, and we all made a little sacrifice to save the planet from total destruction.

Is Bush preventing a threat of that magnitude from surfacing again? With suitcase nukes and biological crap being worked on, to gps weapons, to the ports having anything to do with any other business than a home-country one, is the world really crazy and coming to an end, or is this just a magnified temporary problem?

I'm not pleased with gas prices. Any of them. And electricity is through the roof. Vonage rules. Verizon does not. Gas is so expensive because companies need to make their $80 million profit. :headbang:

Businesses make more money because they outsource jobs, because the country makes it impossible for them to stay in business within the country.

No help for farmers? Who the hell is growing my potatos? Please don't tell me some freak in a lab suit. I don't like organic hybrid greenhouse blah blah tomatos. Please give me the ones grown in cow crap.

Help the farmers, so they can grow stuff. Nevermind the "two-week" food supply for the country. Let them grow. Where are all the "nature-people" who should be screaming at science for ruining perfectly good food? Plants have feelings too.

I'm worried about 2008. At the moment, there is no one capable of running the country.

Saddam was actively seeking WMDs. Saddam used WMDs on his own people.

I always wonder why people keep bringing this out. If it really mattered then we would have done something when he used the weapons against the Kurds. Of course we couldn't of cared less and did nothing.

Who creates jobs? The government? No. Corporations create jobs. How can corporations create jobs? Having more money to spend on new employees. Bush already made tax cuts for your "normal law-abiding citizens", and is currently trying to make these cuts permanent

Actually.. this is known as "Supply-Side Ecomonics" and there's a large number of economists who believe it's more or less bunk.

Picture an accountant. He's got his own office. He has a secretary and a book-keeper working for him. He's making a decent living, they have enough clients to keep them busy, but not overly so. Suddenly, his friend, let's call him Gord W Buff, comes into a lot of money and decides this accountant should get a big chunk of it.

Does the accountant immediately go out and hire another book-keeper or secretary? Of course not. Why would he hire another book-keeper when he hasn't got the client base to require it?

Now, let's say that instead, Gord W Buff decides that maybe he should spread the money around and give it mostly to a whole bunch of people who didn't have enough. Suddenly, you've got a lot more people who have a reason to consider getting an accountant. Now the accountant gets busier. He finds he needs to hire another book-keeper to keep up with the work. And when he does, that's one more person earning even more money.

Demand-side economics are what drives economies and make jobs. Corporations don't create jobs for the hell of it. They do it when there's a need, and there'll only be a need when more people have the money to purchase their services.

You want to jump start an economy? Drop payroll taxes entirely and make it up in progressive corporate taxes. Use corporate taxation as a way to ensure that companies don't succeed based solely on economies of scale, but rather on the actual desirability of their products.

So who creates jobs? Not corporations. They just fulfill the need. Consumers create jobs, and actually the government, one of a very few organizations that doesn't work on the profit motive, may also create jobs. (Though they should do so very carefully, obviously)

It's hard to point fingers at Bush either way, as I think he's been somewhat level in his good/bad ratio. And as a Bush-voter, I'm not pleased to make that statement.

With all the conspiracy theories floating around, it's hard to judge what Bush's fault and what is not.

But I do know one thing. America is far better off without John Kerry flipping and flopping and flapping his way through four years of the worst wooden roller coaster ride anyone's ever been on.

And with the exception of what's going on with Iran, whatever that seems to be, America needs to worry about who's going to run the country after Bush.

When Reagan was president, and the most important, he trumped Russia into backing out of a nuclear war. I remember being almost a teen, looking out into the sky, watching to see a Russian missle fly over to hit the park that had the 'ground zero' mark around it in the newspaper. And I remember when the missles numbers rose. And rose. And continued.

And finally, when it looked like the world was coming to an end, being forced to watch "The Day After" in elementary school, the fear that ran deep in everyone's veins, Reagen came out and pulled the Ace in his pocket.

The Star Wars program.

The cool little video of a missle defense system we didn't have, with Reagen, explaining to the world, that he welcomes Russia to shoot first. Because this new technology we had would shoot every one of their missles out of the sky, leaving us to have an open field day on the world.

Moments later in 'history' time, Russia and the US came to an agreement to halt the nonsense.

Sure-the "deficit" (which is a fictional word) was the highest it's ever been, and money was a little tight at times, and we all made a little sacrifice to save the planet from total destruction.

Is Bush preventing a threat of that magnitude from surfacing again? With suitcase nukes and biological crap being worked on, to gps weapons, to the ports having anything to do with any other business than a home-country one, is the world really crazy and coming to an end, or is this just a magnified temporary problem?

I'm not pleased with gas prices. Any of them. And electricity is through the roof. Vonage rules. Verizon does not. Gas is so expensive because companies need to make their $80 million profit. :headbang:

Businesses make more money because they outsource jobs, because the country makes it impossible for them to stay in business within the country.

No help for farmers? Who the hell is growing my potatos? Please don't tell me some freak in a lab suit. I don't like organic hybrid greenhouse blah blah tomatos. Please give me the ones grown in cow crap.

Help the farmers, so they can grow stuff. Nevermind the "two-week" food supply for the country. Let them grow. Where are all the "nature-people" who should be screaming at science for ruining perfectly good food? Plants have feelings too.

I'm worried about 2008. At the moment, there is no one capable of running the country.
You're giving the SDI programme far too much credit: the Soviets were well aware that this sort of crap wouldn't work as their own attempts at anti ballistic weapons had never panned out. The Soviet Union actually collapsed because thirty years of wasting money on who can piss the highest contests with the richest country on Earth had bankrupted it.
(And as for the risk of the evil empire starting a nuclear war, until Reagan bluffed them into folding, maybe I should remind you that only one nation in history has ever carried out a nuclear attack on a foreign power, and that wasn't the Soviet Union.)

I felt his decision to invade Afghanistan was the right decision.That's about it for me. Unfortunately he didn't finish the job. Other than that I think he's easily been the most disasterous president in the history of the world. I say the world instead of the US because the whole world is going to pay for his rigid ideology and glaring incompetence. If he was just rigidly ideological or just incompetent I don't think it would've been as bad, but he is both and that's a very scary combination.

Yeah and then he shipped a whole lot of jobs to India and gave large companies TAX BREAKS for doing it!

Bush didn't ship those jobs there, the companies sent them there to save costs. Outsourcing is nothing new and the sooner we get it over with the better because the longer we shield our economy from low cost labor the cheaper it gets and the worse it is for workers in the future; if anything, giving companies a tax break now to speed up their outsourcing saves us in the long run by driving up labor costs faster. It's already soaring by 50% per year in Bangalore...

He also increased H1-B visas to import workers to the US which was a great idea because quite frankly many of our high-tech industries are suffering a shortage of skilled workers and the ones that are unemployed no longer have useful skills.

he didn't re-enact the assault weapons ban, although that was more congress.

uhhhh....

A few that I agree with:

1. Lowering our taxes -- economy is recovering nicely from the Tech Bust of early 2000 and 9/11.

2. Starting the War on Terror, which is ongoing

3. Invasion of Iraq, removal of Saddam and resulting fight for the new democracy

4. Afghanistan, removing the Taliban (status uncertain)

Bush didn't ship those jobs there, the companies sent them there to save costs. Outsourcing is nothing new and the sooner we get it over with the better because the longer we shield our economy from low cost labor the cheaper it gets and the worse it is for workers in the future; if anything, giving companies a tax break now to speed up their outsourcing saves us in the long run by driving up labor costs faster. It's already soaring by 50% per year in Bangalore...

He also increased H1-B visas to import workers to the US which was a great idea because quite frankly many of our high-tech industries are suffering a shortage of skilled workers and the ones that are unemployed no longer have useful skills.

The #1 job of a corporation is to create value for shareholders, or so we're taught in B school... because without shareholders, the company goes bye-bye along with all of the jobs it offers.

Shipping jobs overseas sucks, but sometimes executives need to make tough decisions.

Bush didn't ship those jobs there, the companies sent them there to save costs. Outsourcing is nothing new and the sooner we get it over with the better because the longer we shield our economy from low cost labor the cheaper it gets and the worse it is for workers in the future; if anything, giving companies a tax break now to speed up their outsourcing saves us in the long run by driving up labor costs faster. It's already soaring by 50% per year in Bangalore...

He also increased H1-B visas to import workers to the US which was a great idea because quite frankly many of our high-tech industries are suffering a shortage of skilled workers and the ones that are unemployed no longer have useful skills.

OMG So let me get this right!!!!!!!
.. we should speed up jobs going overseas just to get the agony out quicker and more people onto the unemployment line????
And the government SHOULD give tax breaks to huge multinational US companies that are making a fortune while the average American is struggling to make ends meet??? When the average wage is not keeping up with inflation and the middle class are worse off than they were 5 years ago according to the government's own statistics????????

As for the little "fact" about high tech industries.. DEAD WRONG.. fact of the matter is just like the nursing field what is happening is that the Government is allowing under qualified people to take jobs once held by very qualified people because then they can be paid less!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry to break this to you but your argument makes about as much sense as getting a Saudi company to run US ports!!!!!!!!!

The #1 job of a corporation is to create value for shareholders, or so we're taught in B school... because without shareholders, the company goes bye-bye along with all of the jobs it offers.

Shipping jobs overseas sucks, but sometimes executives need to make tough decisions.

Now see while I don't agree with the policy your reason for this makes a hell of a lot more sense than the orginal one on this. Sad but true fact thanks for clarifying

4) Just because Bush is not a terribly great public speaker does not mean he is not a good president. He is an intelligent man who is not good at kissing the publics ass.

Have you ever actually devoted your full attention to watching one of his speaches or a press conference??? I doubt it because if you had you would have to admit the man is an idiot!!! It's not his speaches - they are actually pretty good cos thats why he has speach writers.. where you see that the lights are on but nobody is home is when he is unscripted and has to think and talk on his own!!

I'm still trying to figure out why such an intelligent woman like Laura with money on her side of the family would marry GW and the only thing I can come up with is that he must be damn good in bed!!!!:D

I think I’m finished here. Not because I've won or lost, but because I realize that regardless of what anyone says, does or proves nothing is going to change. I like Bush, others do not, and that’s fine. Nothing I say is going to change the mind of someone who dislikes Bush, and nothing anyone who dislikes him says is going to change mine. I respect the opinions of everyone here, but the personal attacks are a bit too much for me. I don’t need to get worked up every time I see a reply laden with personal attacks.

Finally, if I've offended anyone, I apologize. I may have been a little hasty in my reply, and filled it with too much emotion. Good luck with what you do, and I hope everyone enjoys what you have, because we're only here for so long.

I’m sorry, but maybe you could inform me (from your obviously extensive on-hands research into the subject) what part of this is wrong? Did everyone think he had WMDs? Yes. No.
That's why i said look it up. I've posted MANY, MANY TIMES on this subject with supporting links and evidence. You don't have anything but talking points, and old, wrong ones at that.
Was Saddam actively seeking WMDs? Yes. Did Saddam use WMDs on his own people? Yes. Now perhaps I should educate YOU on the subject. Laughable. :D
You got the first part wrong, and so i think until you fix that, save yourself the trouble of thinking you're on top of the issue. You're not only wasting my time, you're wasting yours. As i said, type my name up in the archives. Then educate yourself.
Everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, if they didn’t, why on earth would the UN be searching for them? Wrong. See both Duelfer Reports, see the Downing Street Memos, see the first BND release, see the Butler Report, and then you might have an inkling of you don't seem to know anything about. That's right, sources.
Go have fun being educated. So far you seem pretty happy not knowing what you're talking about in general.
Please don’t use sentences like these to try and make me feel/appear stupid.*sob* You must be regularly embarassed on your diatribes to have to include that caveat so quickly. And, of course, it's too late, since i don't need to do anything to make it look that way ... whether you actually have the presence of mind to feel that way is anyone's guess. So far you're SORELY lacking critical reasoning on this issue.
The fact is that most people liked Clinton because he is the President that made everything ok. Adultery? SURE! Why not, the president does it. Lying strait faced to congress? Hell yeah, Slick Willie does it. Smoke Pot? Why not, I just "won’t inhale". What in the living f*ck does this have to do with anything? You're disproving any integrity you might have had by at least STAYING CLOSE TO THE SUBJECT in the first place. Now you're just whining, a wannabe foam-at-the-mouth conservative with Slick Willy envy.
Don’t role your eyes at me, you don’t even know me. Like this? :rolleyes: You don't even know what you're talking about. What do you think you merit, a kiss? :fluffle:
I do know you don't know how to spell. I also know you don't know what you're talking about. I also know you're insecure about it.
That's a good enough reason to roll my eyes. :rolleyes:
Who creates jobs? The government? No.
Under Bush, the biggest it's ever been. "Yes" would have been the correct answer ... and unsurprisingly, you chose poorly.
Bush already made tax cuts for your "normal law-abiding citizens", and is currently trying to make these cuts permanent.
Again, go look it up. At least back up ONE SINGLE THING with a fact/link.
Oh my god! Wars cost money!?!?! Wow, that’s new isn’t it. Don’t be an assclown. You tell me to educate myself?Physician, heal thyself. Again you're an empty, rattling can.
Finally, you really shouldn’t talk about Iraq. You've never been there, you don’t know what it is/was like. You don’t know what the people think, want or feel. I can say whatever i damned well please. You don't like it, move on back there, under the assumption you ever had the cajones to be there in the first place (which i doubt, you sound like a right-winger neocon wannabe). What did i actually say?
I can almost guarantee that all of your knowledge comes from CNN, Web Blogs, Michael Moore and any other Bush hating asshats.
This is singlehandedly the core of your ignorance above all other of your posts.
Go look up my posts on the subject AND count every one one of those people are quoted. You are a truly sad, ignorant individual. You didn't like being called on your BS and now you want to attribute your own misunderstandings to other people WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
I don't even WATCH CNN, except for this one little ditty on the new year ...
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/laurabush/a/laurabushcomedy.htm
If you don’t like Bush, fine, but don’t hate him for reasons that you are sadly misinformed of.Black! Kettle!
Oh, and don’t comment on my "Pulitzer" skills and use the word rimjob in the same reply. It makes you look like a hypocrite.You've already set a distinct precedent for lacking critical reasoning, so i'm not particularly concerned how i look to you. Frankly, almost EVERYTHING you've said so far is connotative of a rimjob, especially favouring Bush.
No offense.

I think I’m finished here. Not because I've won or lost, but because I realize that regardless of what anyone says, does or proves nothing is going to change. I like Bush, others do not, and that’s fine. Nothing I say is going to change the mind of someone who dislikes Bush, and nothing anyone who dislikes him says is going to change mine. I respect the opinions of everyone here, but the personal attacks are a bit too much for me. I don’t need to get worked up every time I see a reply laden with personal attacks.

It would seem you're a smidge thin-skinned to be dealing with such complex subjects.
The problem isn't that you have an opinion (remember, opinions are like alimentary canals ...)
The problem is you provide ABSOLUTELY ZERO qualifications for it, and then you attack Clinton as if he had anything REMOTELY to do with it. You basically 'jacked yourself. And don't BS me about "respecting my opinion".


Finally, if I've offended anyone, I apologize. I may have been a little hasty in my reply, and filled it with too much emotion. Good luck with what you do, and I hope everyone enjoys what you have, because we're only here for so long.
A quaint but appreciable sentiment, even though i'm pretty sure you didn't mean me when you say "everyone". Besides, it's predictable that someone representing the right-wing would react with too much emotion, that's exactly the problem. They're the ones that "foam at the mouth", and they're the reactionary ones. Usually with the intent to not change in the face of facts that don't jibe with their POV, intent, and opinions.
So, par for the course.

I do like your last sentence though, so be it for you as well.

Who creates jobs? The government? No. Corporations create jobs. How can corporations create jobs? Having more money to spend on new employees. Bush already made tax cuts for your "normal law-abiding citizens", and is currently trying to make these cuts permanent.

Nice to see how you forget that the government has INCREASED in size under Bush, not decreased.

OH, as for tax cuts, why not give them to businesses first? if it were me, I would have cut taxes; get rid of crap like pay roll tax, and replace it with a flat 15% for business; for citizens throw in a GST of 15% and a flat income tax rate of 15%; in NZ aroun 19 years ago, there was a move to have a flat rate tax of 16.7%; GST, Income Tax and Business Tax - too bad it didn't go ahead :(