[BellasBmw]

If the Bush dynasty continues.. I swear to God im moving to italy. Hey im already a citizen there, why not.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by cdheaven

All i know is bush started an unneeded war, took the country from finally being out of debt, to a record high debt, i believe we had record high unemployment during his term. the first attack on our soil in i dont know how many years.

There were many, many good reasons for going to war with Iraq, regardless of whether they had WMDs. The war has been extremely successful, and one of the biggest benefits of the war has been that the terrorists are now fighting our army rather than attacking our cities.

We don't have record high unemployment. In fact, unemployment is lower than ever historically. There have been millions of new jobs created since he took office. The economy is growing at a record pace. Bush's tax cuts saved the country from a depression after 9/11.

The nation has not been out of debt anytime in the recent past. I believe it goes back to WWII or maybe even back to the late 1800s. There was a projected annual budget surplus towards the late 1990s of a few hundred billion dollars, but the national debt is nearly $7 trillion. The war on terror as well as the economic slowdown that occurred at the end of Clinton's term (which Bush has turned around with his tax cuts) caused the budget deficits we are facing now. I will agree that Bush has not been fiscally responsible with the budget. He has never vetoed any spending bill. Both Congress and the administration need to be much tougher on spending and cut all of the pork from the budget.

As far as the first attack on American soil in you don't know how many years, how about the World Trade Center bombing in 1993? I don't know how you could figure that 9/11 was Bush's fault in any way either. He was only President for a few months before the attack, and they had been planned and the setup for them went back almost two years. If you want to blame any administration for 9/11, it should be Clinton's. He actually refused to take custody of Bin Laden when Syria offered him to us.

[deutschmann59]

I think one of the main reasons people don't like Bush is because the guy doesn't seem to have the greatest luck...

People like Michael Moore blame him for 9/11, but as others have said, he may very well have inherited the terrorism troubles from other administrations.

But look at what has happened to our country during his term: gas prices have gone crazy, companies like GM and Ford are in the worst financial condition in their history--slashing thousands of jobs, our ecomony seems to be stuck in a rut with high lending rates and low growth on investments, no WMD were found in Iraq, the "war on terror" is beginning to take the shape of the "war on drugs"--in that it's just an idea with no clear path to victory, the world is becoming increasingly hostile (Iran) and there's not a whole lot we can do since we're spread thin the way it is in Iraq, health insurance is still completely unattainable for many Americans and nothing is really being done, and on top of all that, we're still on edge from 9/11--constantly looking over our shoulders in a state of paranoia.

Is all of this Bush's fault? Maybe not all, maybe some, but the whole point here is this is a pretty bad time in our history and Bush just had the bad luck of being president when everything seemed to start falling apart. This may not be a great depression financially-wise for some, but the world definitely is in a sad shape today...even moreso than usual.

[timzerofive]

See, the thing about Bush is... all his supporters can say is he didn't do anything wrong. This is not his fault, that's not his fault. Name something significant that he did right?? You are saying the "terrorists" in Iraq are now fighing our soldiers instead of attacking our countries... perhaps you forgot, it was another organization, from a different country that launched the major attack.

In addition, you say it doesn't matter if we foudn WMD or not... It DOES matter. Why? Because thats the MAIN reason he gave to the people of United States for attacking Iraq, now he's trying to weasel his way out of it by saying, hey look, it doesn't matter, they needed attacking anyways. I believe, something like that is illegal in the US. Police cannot search someone's private property unless they obtain a warrant based on reasonable doubt. Bush had no reasonable doubt, in fact, every fact he got points to the opposite. If the police were to find something illegal when they enter the private property illegally, any case against the criminal would be thrown out, correct?

Perhaps Bush has been ridiculed and blamed for some stuff that he wasn't directly responsible for, but you have to admit he did a lot of stupid things too. And if all you can say for a President is that he didn't do anything wrong, so its not his fault, then this is not a good president. And yet... people still voted for him purely because of the belief his party stands for... and it's not even a majority of the population who voted that first time.

[sdorn]

The terrorists currently fighting us in Iraq are Al Qaeda, the same group that carried out 9/11. Ayman al-Zawahri is the number two guy in Al Qaeda, and he is the leader of the terrorists in Iraq right now. Al Qaeda takes responsibility for nearly every single major attack in Iraq.

I never said it wasn't important that we haven't found WMDs in Iraq. I said there were many reasons to invade Iraq regardless of whether there were WMDs. In fact, we have found WMDs in Iraq. We found Sarin gas and other materials used to manufacture biological and chemical weapons. You just don't hear about that because the media in this country is so biased.

The rest of the paragraph where you talk about warrants and reasonable doubt was so full of inaccuracies, I don't know where to start. The police obtain search warrants based on probable cause, not reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is what you need to be found innocent in a criminal trial. The requirement for search warrants is based on the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and protects U.S. citizens. It has nothing to do with us going to war with another country. Finally, virtually all the political leaders of the U.S. (including Democrats) as well as the leaders of most countries believed that Iraq had WMDs. There are plenty of quotes from before the war where Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many other Democrats say that anyone who doesn't think Iraq has WMDs is basically an idiot.

I won't argue that Bush has never made any mistakes. I believe that the post-war handling of Iraq has been far from perfect. I also believe that the administration has been fiscally irresponsible on domestic spending issues.

[deutschmann59]

Originally Posted by sdorn

In fact, we have found WMDs in Iraq. We found Sarin gas and other materials used to manufacture biological and chemical weapons. You just don't hear about that because the media in this country is so biased.

The rest of the paragraph where you talk about warrants and reasonable doubt was so full of inaccuracies, I don't know where to start. The police obtain search warrants based on probable cause, not reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is what you need to be found innocent in a criminal trial. The requirement for search warrants is based on the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and protects U.S. citizens.

For the first part, yes I have a friend currently serving in Iraq and she wrote to me that they indeed did find WMD...perhaps not nuclear, but they did find loads of illegal nerve agents, ect.

The second part about search warrants...I went along with the idea of Iraq and supported war behind the president because for a while there, they kept showing satellite images "exactly" where the WMD were. For me this was "plain view" maybe not in the lilteral sense since major nuclear/etc weapons were never found, but it goes along with the idea that in PA, a police officer can search your car without a warrant if an open alcohol container is in "plain view" for example.

[cdheaven]

im almost POSITIVE that Clinton took us out of debt. Im also pretty sure that he almost got impeached for LYING about having sex, but George bush LIED about WMD's. And i would say it was a bold lie. not like, he really believed they had them, like he just wanted a good reason to go there so he PRETENDED they had them. im also pretty sure that George bush had a report given to him MONTHS before 9/11 saying there was rumors of an attack on new york, or on the towers, using airplanes. soooo, maybe he shoulda done the thing with the air marshalls then, or some other action that im not smart enough to think of, but our president should be smart enough to think of.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by cdheaven

im almost POSITIVE that Clinton took us out of debt. Im also pretty sure that he almost got impeached for LYING about having sex, but George bush LIED about WMD's. And i would say it was a bold lie. not like, he really believed they had them, like he just wanted a good reason to go there so he PRETENDED they had them. im also pretty sure that George bush had a report given to him MONTHS before 9/11 saying there was rumors of an attack on new york, or on the towers, using airplanes. soooo, maybe he shoulda done the thing with the air marshalls then, or some other action that im not smart enough to think of, but our president should be smart enough to think of.

No, Clinton never took us out of debt. It is true that there were projected budget surpluses during the last couple of years of his administration. Whether that was because of his administration's policies is debatable. Many economists believe that it was the result of the economic policies put into place during Reagan's administration and followed up on during Bush senior's administration.

What you need to understand is the difference between the annual budget and the national debt. The budget is prepared annually, and when there are projected revenues that are greater than projected expenses, there is a projected budget surplus. When expenses exceed revenues, there is a projected budget deficit. The actual national debt is the accumulation of all the money the government has borrowed over the years to finance the annual budget deficits we have had since WWII or longer. This entire national debt is currently just over $8.2 trillion.

Clinton was not impeached for lying about sex. He was impeached for lying about sex while under oath in a deposition, and at Congressional hearings. That is called perjury, and it is a serious crime. People go to jail for doing it. He just got disbarred, and impeached.

As far as George Bush lying about WMDs, find me one statement he made that you can prove was a lie, and that he knew was a lie when he made it. There aren't any, but go ahead and waste some time looking. As I explained earlier, everyone believed there were WMDs in Iraq. And, as it turns out, there were. The problem was that our intelligence wasn't as good as it should have been, and that was Clinton's fault. He cut the nation's intelligence budget by huge amounts during his administration.

The report you are referring to warning of terrorist attacks in the U.S. was actually a daily intelligence briefing (as in he gets one every day) which contained a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner. There was no indication that it would be used to attack buildings or be used as a bomb. There was no indication as to where or when the hijacking might occur. Plus, this was just part of the tons of chatter intercepted every day by intelligence networks. There was no reason to believe this intelligence was any more valuable or noteworthy than the other intelligence received. It's easy to say what should have been done in hindsight, but the reality is there was no practical way to prevent these attacks given the information we had and the national security infrastructure in place prior to 9/11.

[cdheaven]

thanks sdorn. i appreciate you clearing things up. i havent been into politics for many years, so im still kinda "new" at the whole thing. You definitly corrected a few things that i thought i knew, and i appreciate you clearing that up. The unfortunate thing after all this, is even in correcting my post, with a longer post, you still havent actually said ONE GOOD thing about what george bush has actually done. you just made it sound like the bad things i said, are slightly less bad. also, even when clinton was it the end of his administration, i was still relatively young, i was 17, and i wasnt able to vote during the first bush campain, unfortunately, but i dont remember him actually getting impeached. did he?

[Enroutte]

Originally Posted by fllpunk

ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!
(aint it timzero)! haha..
WTF m8!

(if youre lost google endoftheworld)

w-t-f mate?

[Enroutte]

isnt' there an economic cycle? the US's economy is like a Sin curve.. so you cant really blame bush because.. regardless of how great our economy was, it has to come back down. and then there will be recession and itll eventually go back up.sin curveee sin curveee.

bush was hot, back in the day.

[BellasBmw]

Originally Posted by Enroutte

isnt' there an economic cycle? the US's economy is like a Sin curve.. so you cant really blame bush because.. regardless of how great our economy was, it has to come back down. and then there will be recession and itll eventually go back up.sin curveee sin curveee.

bush was hot, back in the day.

LoL, your post sounded totally legit, UNTIL you said bush was hot, back in the day..

LoL.. NOW CLINTON, thats a diff story hahah

[Jason]

Holy sh*t, an actual political debate thread I didn't have to shut down before it got to two pages Props to you guys for keeping it mature and actually discussing it, not arguing it.

[Enroutte]

Originally Posted by BellasBmw

LoL, your post sounded totally legit, UNTIL you said bush was hot, back in the day..

LoL.. NOW CLINTON, thats a diff story hahah

haha no seriously, some of our ex presidents were studs when they were younger. im not gonna lie


i dont like bush though. kanye west told me that bush hates black people

[BellasBmw]

Originally Posted by Enroutte

haha no seriously, some of our ex presidents were studs when they were younger. im not gonna lie


i dont like bush though. kanye west told me that bush hates black people

Ill give it up for JFK..

[eleven24]

A couple of months ago I saw this report on one of the news channels and they were in some midwest state at a town hall. There might have been a couple hundred people in attendance, and the speaker asked how many people thought Bush was doing a good job. About 1/3 to 1/2 of the people raised their hands. He asked how many people thought the country was in good shape, maybe 1/5 of the people raised their hands. The final question was whether the people would vote for Bush again and EVERYONE raised their hands.

IMO, this is what is wrong with the country. While I may disagree with 75% (if not more) of Bush's and the Republican party's decisions I certainly wouldn't vote for Democrats just because they are, well... Democrats. I vote for the person that I think is best for the job, and could care less about Dem vs Rep.

To me, Bush has completely blurred the line of separation between church and state (Damn, there's two "illegal E90 Post topics" in one comment!). He is against gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research simply because his faith tells him so. He has even gone as far as saying there is no such thing as global warming. The list of statments, or political stances this guy makes is completely bewildering to me at times. Even more bewildering is that Bush is appointing these fundamentalist conservatives to so many lifelong positions that his legacy will live FAR beyond his Presidency.

For me, it becomes increasingly difficult to look at him and feel the Country is in good hands.

On the other hand though, it appears the Dems might run Hillary in 08. If they do, it's a free ticket to the White House for whomever the Republicans run. While she may be a great leader, I don't think this country is ready for a female president. I'm also skeptical that other countries (specifically the Middle East) will give her the same respect as they would a male.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by cdheaven

thanks sdorn. i appreciate you clearing things up. i havent been into politics for many years, so im still kinda "new" at the whole thing. You definitly corrected a few things that i thought i knew, and i appreciate you clearing that up. The unfortunate thing after all this, is even in correcting my post, with a longer post, you still havent actually said ONE GOOD thing about what george bush has actually done. you just made it sound like the bad things i said, are slightly less bad. also, even when clinton was it the end of his administration, i was still relatively young, i was 17, and i wasnt able to vote during the first bush campain, unfortunately, but i dont remember him actually getting impeached. did he?

Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, but the Senate didn't vote to bring charges against him. The way it works is that the House of Representatives has the authority to initiate an impeachment. They actually vote on the articles of impeachment, kind of like a grand jury determining whether or not there is enough evidence to go to trial. The Senate is then responsible for holding the "trial" or hearings to determine what should be done, if anything. There has to be a 2/3 majority in the Senate in order to actually impose punishment, and there weren't enough votes for that so he was not punished as a result of the impeachment.

As far as good things that Bush has done, I can list a few.

The economy is doing very well, despite the fact that some sectors of the economy like manufacturing are not doing well. Overall the economy is growing at a pace that is as high as it has ever been. The economic downturn that began before 9/11 and continued afterwards would have been a lot worse, in my opinion, if it had not been for the tax cuts Bush pushed through. People don't like to hear it, but the way you grow the economy is by giving people more of their money to spend. A very good way to do that is by cutting taxes.

What people will say then is that only the rich get the tax cuts. Well the truth is that only the top 50% of wage earners, in aggregate, pay any federal taxes at all. That isn't to say that no one in the bottom 50% pays taxes, just that as a group there is zero net tax revenue from the bottom 50% of wage earners. This is a result of tax credits like the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit that allow people to actually receive money from the government rather than pay taxes. So, by definition a tax cut is going to give more money to the rich than to the poor, as they are the only ones paying taxes.

This sounds like it might not be such a great deal, but it actually helps the economy and the poor to give rich people tax cuts. When you give a poor person a few extra dollars, they go and spend it on food or clothing or rent or whatever, and then it is gone. When you give a tax cut to rich people, they invest the money in the stock market or they grow their business. This creates jobs and allows the economy to grow, which actually helps poor people more than just a few bucks that is gone before they know it. I don't know about you, but I have never worked for a poor person.

Another good thing I think Bush has done is the way he has handled the war on terror. Sure, people can criticize him, but I know many die hard Democrats who told me on 9/11 that they were glad Bush was President. He took lead and did what was necessary immediately following the attacks to keep the country going. People argue over whether the war in Iraq was the best move, but not many people have complaints about his handling of things up to that point. The war in Afghanistan and the pulling together of the entire world to combat terrorism was the work of a great leader.

His idea to fix Social Security was a step in the right direction as well. There was just so much misinformation pushed by lobbyists and special interest groups that he didn't have a chance of getting people to see how bad of a situation both Social Security and Medicare are in. It seems to me like common sense for people to prefer to have the choice of being able to take some of the taxes they pay to support the Social Security system and put it into a savings account rather than just giving it to the government. However, the people that want the government to control every aspect of our lives scared everyone by saying they were going to lose their money if they agreed to such a plan.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

The report you are referring to warning of terrorist attacks in the U.S. was actually a daily intelligence briefing (as in he gets one every day) which contained a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner. There was no indication that it would be used to attack buildings or be used as a bomb. There was no indication as to where or when the hijacking might occur. Plus, this was just part of the tons of chatter intercepted every day by intelligence networks. There was no reason to believe this intelligence was any more valuable or noteworthy than the other intelligence received. It's easy to say what should have been done in hindsight, but the reality is there was no practical way to prevent these attacks given the information we had and the national security infrastructure in place prior to 9/11.

Actually, during an interview with the former CIA director at the time, they indicated the report does contain specifics about hi-jacking airplanes and using them as bombs. Granted, Bush probably gets a similar report every single day so they can't take it TOO seriously, afterall, hind-sight 20/20. However, you would think they would have more of a plan structured for such incidents. You would think once the very first plane hits the tower this plan would immediately go into effect.

This might not be a directly fault on BUSH himself, but it's his administration's fault. They lacked anticipation, and they failed to respond quick enough. Just as the New Orleans disaster. They knew of the dam breaking earlier then everyone though. Yes they RECOMMENDED an evacuation, and the people stayed at their own risk, but you again, would think these guys would respond faster. Nope, what are they doing? Taking vacations, hunting at Texas ranches...

One thing is I have an old co-worker from my old job who's a die hard republican. I knew him since that very first election. At the time he told us that Bush is a family friend, and that although Bush seemed clumsy, he's actually a very likeable guy. He said Bush is actually very articulate (ya, shocker), but gets very nervous when speaking in public. I still remember most of the other co-workers who didn't vote for Bush all said let's hope you're right. Some of us had a get together a few months back, and when the topic got on politics, all he can do is shake his head about Bush with nothing more to say.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

One thing is I have an old co-worker from my old job who's a die hard republican. I knew him since that very first election. At the time he told us that Bush is a family friend, and that although Bush seemed clumsy, he's actually a very likeable guy. He said Bush is actually very articulate (ya, shocker), but gets very nervous when speaking in public. I still remember most of the other co-workers who didn't vote for Bush all said let's hope you're right. Some of us had a get together a few months back, and when the topic got on politics, all he can do is shake his head about Bush with nothing more to say.

I will often not say anything when I am around a bunch of people that hold different political views than myself. It is usually impossible to change someone's mind about these kinds of topics as their beliefs are usually rooted deeply as a result of the environment in which they grew up, their parent's beliefs, where they went to college, etc. One conversation isn't going to overcome all that.

As far as Hurricane Katrina goes, I have to say that was handled badly by everyone involved. The mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana were far from prepared to handle the situation. The federal government compounded the problem by not acting fast enough. The Department of Homeland Security was thrown together so quickly that FEMA was not properly set up. There is definitely enough blame to go around over this for everyone to get their fair share, including Bush.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

As far as good things that Bush has done, I can list a few.

The economy is doing very well, despite the fact that some sectors of the economy like manufacturing are not doing well. Overall the economy is growing at a pace that is as high as it has ever been.

Another good thing I think Bush has done is the way he has handled the war on terror. Sure, people can criticize him, but I know many die hard Democrats who told me on 9/11 that they were glad Bush was President. He took lead and did what was necessary immediately following the attacks to keep the country going. People argue over whether the war in Iraq was the best move, but not many people have complaints about his handling of things up to that point. The war in Afghanistan and the pulling together of the entire world to combat terrorism was the work of a great leader.

His idea to fix Social Security was a step in the right direction as well. There was just so much misinformation pushed by lobbyists and special interest groups that he didn't have a chance of getting people to see how bad of a situation both Social Security and Medicare are in. It seems to me like common sense for people to prefer to have the choice of being able to take some of the taxes they pay to support the Social Security system and put it into a savings account rather than just giving it to the government. However, the people that want the government to control every aspect of our lives scared everyone by saying they were going to lose their money if they agreed to such a plan.

The economy is only taking a slightly upward swing because of the interest rate being at record lows. Did Bush do this? Nope, he had nothing to do with it. We have Mr. Greenspan to thank for this. Let's see how things play out when he hands the job over to the next guy. The main growth of economy is due to the large boom in the housing sector, again, directly effected by our bottom of the well interest rate.

The way he handles "the war on terror" can go either way, but the fact is, lots of factors point to the notion that Bush IS the cause of this war on terror. I personally thinks he didn't do too good of a job. Like that infamous 911 movie stated, he raises the warning level when he thinks everyone's getting too comfortable, and drops it again so people think he's taking care of stuff. Why in the world would he announce that they dwarfed an attack on LA 2 years after the fact.

As far as social security goes, I can't argue with you there. He made an attempt to change something that's obviously going down the toilet, unfortunately, he didn't get anything significant done. The thing is I've already accepted the fact that our generation won't be getting any social security by the time we get to retirement age. He's really just beating a dead horse, and has accomplished nothing.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

I will often not say anything when I am around a bunch of people that hold different political views than myself. It is usually impossible to change someone's mind about these kinds of topics as their beliefs are usually rooted deeply as a result of the environment in which they grew up, their parent's beliefs, where they went to college, etc. One conversation isn't going to overcome all that.

Perhaps you misunderstood me... by shaking his head, he was agreeing with what some people there had to say about Bush negatively. He did say he decided not to vote for Bush the 2nd time around, so he didn't go vote at all.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

The economy is only taking a slightly upward swing because of the interest rate being at record lows. Did Bush do this? Nope, he had nothing to do with it. We have Mr. Greenspan to thank for this. Let's see how things play out when he hands the job over to the next guy. The main growth of economy is due to the large boom in the housing sector, again, directly effected by our bottom of the well interest rate.

Slight upswing? The DOW is back up over 11,000, right back where it was before the tech bust in early 2000. There have been millions of new jobs created during Bush's administration, and most of them aren't related to housing at all. I am personally making three times as much as I did when he took office. Low interest rates have helped the economy, but not because of Greenspan. The Fed has been raising interest rates for the last three years. The economy just refuses to follow suit, and as a result interest rates have remained low. We are actually living in one of the rare times in which the yield curve is inverted. The economy is growing in large part because of the Bush tax cuts.