Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Bush's Legacy....I'd Vote For Him A 3rd Time, If I Could!!

not sure where antlers sexuality came into play


and don't know whether it's true or not, or if it matters



but say for the sake of argument antler that you're correct, Bush is A: either the biggest villain to occupy the White House

or B: is the most inept to do so



what's your answer to fix it?


iow's we've heard your criticisms


how do you resolve to fix it?


who gets your vote come November?

you excited about any of the candidates?

It has been an interesting thread, but man has it wandered :-)

In the end Bushs legacy will not be determined by anything Clinton did or how much someone thinks Bush talks funny.

Presidents are judged by how they play the hand they are dealt.

Bush will not fare well.

Clinton left office with an approval rating of 65% which says that a lot of Republicans thought he did a good job. Bush will leave office around 30% which says that a lot of Republicans think he didn't do a good job.

I know this is not a popularity contest but the level of dis-satisfaction among Republicans should tell you something.

JMHO

Piper

Steve, to get back to the point that I started on, and which Penguin expanded on so eloquently, should corporations be expected to have loyalty to the nation that made their sucess possible? Do they have a responsibility to be a good corporate citizens? Is there any difference between a corporation destabilizing our economy by exporting jobs and wealth and some one like John Walker destabilizing our national security by selling military secrets?

Winston Churchill left office after a stunning political defeat and was highly unpopular at the time.


History holds him in higher regard,opinion polls are popularity contests and not really indicative of the real success of anybody. There are many other examples: Truman and Lincoln come to mind. Tough decisions in war times do not bolster the popularity of any leader.

Britt

In the end, I will never know what Bush's legacy is.

Right now, I do know what I think of Klintoon and his wife and that is that they are scum They disgraced the Office of The President and the People of the United States and lacked the character and courage to resign and leave. The fact that both of them are pathological liars has escaped some folks but not all of us.

They will always be trash so far as I'm concerned and right now, that really is all that matters to me.

Piper:

Reckon those would be the RINOs, pilgrim. You know, people like McCain and effete talking heads like George Will.

There are probably only a handful of genuinely conservative Republicans in this country. Not enough to put a genuine conservative Republican in the White House.

Democrats make up about half the country, give or take.

RINOs make up - oh, I don't know - a good chunk of the remainder.

So, a majority of Americans would be liberals of one stripe or another.

Going to be that way for another 8 years, minimum.

Get used to it, comrade. As SteveNO says, adapt.

- Tom

Gadfly....Corporations owe fiduciary duties to their shareholders, whose money they hold. They owe regulatory duties to the states that incorporate them, and to the feds if they're regulated at that level. They owe taxes.

That's pretty much the list. When you start telling them what they can do with their own money and property beyond that, you're taking private property, or simply enacting socialism.

I'd think all the people who freaked out over the Kelo decision would recognize that. Once you start deciding for other people what they can do with their money, it ain't America any more.

Now, what they choose to do as a matter of public or investor relations is another thing.....thus, the BP greenie commercials, and the other "feel good" campaigns by big corporations. If they're doing things that are perrceived as bad for the US, and they're owned mostly by Americans, that's not good for their market position.

But a board that deliberately pursued a policy of losing money for its shareholders because it thought it was benefitting the United States as a whole would be violating its duty and liable to suit.

Yep there is only a handful that know the true way and the secret handshake, any Republican that thinks or votes in some way other than how you approve gets the dreaded RINO label. That sure makes up for a lot and means you never have to admit you and Bush are wrong. Must be nice :-)

Please don't tell me you think Bush is Conservative.

So tell me, are you voting for that ole RINO McCain?

Piper

"Profit Before Country"

The battlecry of corporate America.

yep, sure am.

Steve

I like McCain as a person and supported him in 2000. I took a lot of heat from my Bush loving friends but to this day think he was the much better choice.

The world has changed, McCain has changed and I can't see voting for anyone that can't make up his mind if he wants to be like Bush or completly different. Let me know when the real John McCain wakes up.

Piper

I suspect you're talking about Walter E. Williams, who I'm a big fan of also. The Walter Williams above is not the same guy.

So, it would be okay for an American corporation to sell centrifuges and other plutonium processing equipment to Iran? I mean, after all, it's their private property and they have a willing buyer that will pay them handsomely for their product. Just think of the dividends for the stock holders!

No, there are already specific federal statutes which limit foreign investment in corporations whose products are sensitive, as well as outright bans on export of not only scary things like centrifuges but also things as benign as seismograph cables and geopositioning technology.

I don't understand you to be talking about those....you're talking about exporting jobs and facilities that do economic damage. If you're talking about secret defense products or info, that's already covered.

As far as strategic materials, here's a paper you might find informative. I did.

http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/industry/reports/2007/pdf/2007_STRATEGIC_MATERIALS.pdf

Piper, I could write a book of things I don't like about John McCain. But I accept the fact that either he or B. H. Obama is going to move into the White House next January, and Obama isn't changing addresses if I can help it.

Piper:

I'm voting for an America that looks like me.

That's right, the old white guy.

- Tom

You listed as many reasons why I wouldn't vote for the likes of Bush again as why I might consider it. All in all, he was a dismal failure, IMO. ...too bad Romney won't get the chance to straighten out the mess we're in.

Well the thinking behind leaving them out was that the unemployment number should reflect the number of people within the labor market of the private sector that were out of work. Military personnel are excluded from the whims of the market and therefore give no valuable information on the state of the private sector.

But the government as a whole was less of a player at the time as well. As we stand now government in its many forms is a huge chunk of the employed. I'm not sure it matters. Only insofar as the unemployment number dropped permanently in its final calculation once this change was made.

But what does matter is that you cannot compare figures from now against the backdrop of the figures prior to the changes. These changes ~do~ make a difference and they have lowered both the CPI and the unemployment figures. The term 'historically low number' loses its meaning when history begins in 1994.

Take a good hard look at the fundamentals of employment since new years day:

1) Total employed workers has dropped by a few hundred thousand.

2) Total working age population has increased by perhaps 400,000 to 500,000 people.

3) Unemployment has risen, but only by a few tenths of a percentage point.

The numbers don't add up. Same thing for CPI. I know this thing was adjusted downward so that Social Security and all the rest could be constrained in their growth. But come on, who in their right minds actually believes that we had the lowest first quarter inflation in 5 years.

I cannot type that without smirking. Seriously.

Those little 'adjustments' may sound small but they are the difference between showing an honest contraction in GDP for the first quarter and maintaining the masquerade of staying positive. The reality is that we have been flirting with a recession on and off since 9/11. And our debt and total employed numbers reflect it.

And let's be brutally honest here: the total number of people who are employed is still underreporting the facts on the ground. There have been more real estate agents and Wall Street bankers laid off since January 1 than the total number reported in the BLS numbers combined.

I'm not saying this to bash Bush or run down the economy. I am saying that we need to start being honest with ourselves. We cannot afford 8 more years of pretending to be a prosperous growing country when doing so requires an ever expanding debt load. Let's take our medicine like a man. We have only maintained the trappings of a wealthy country by borrowing against the next generation. That has to stop.

We aren't nearly as rich or prosperous as the FIRE economy wants you to believe. A significant portion of our populace is debt poor and will be that way for the rest of their lives.

Will

Piper:

Bush is a man without beliefs. Only desires.

No, he's not a conservative.

- Tom

The countries that lend us money are being as hurt by the rise in energy costs as we are. Maybe more.

China is hurting. Are they going to keep lending us money?

Probably not for long.

- Tom