Lets look at President Bush's Accomplishments.................


"Abortion & Traditional Values "

1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion � by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. 2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. 3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act. 4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. 5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals. 6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. 7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act � and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman. 8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. 9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools. 10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms). 11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline. 12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs.

Budget, Taxes & Economy

1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history. 2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax. 3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks. 4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority. 5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty. 6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people. 7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts. 8. Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America. 9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals. 10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. 11. Signed trade promotion authority. 12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches. 13. Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States. 14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes. 15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home. 16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled. 17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child. 18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000. 19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans. 20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year.

Character & Conduct as President

1. Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency. 2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse. 3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days:

Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."

On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation.

Education & Employment Training

1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act. 2. Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education. 3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.) 4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight. 5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance. 6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards. 7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems. 8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers.

Environment & Energy

1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. 2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc. 3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives. 4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops. 5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger. 6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger. 7. Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California. 8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species.

Defense & Foreign Policy

1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom. 2. Saddam Hussein is now dead. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured. 3. Leader by leader and member by member, al-Qaeda is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al- Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror. 4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed. 5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network. 6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century. 7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses. 8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency. 9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU. 10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year. 11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia. 12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ. 13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command. 14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs. 15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry. 16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006. 17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy. 18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments. 19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year. 20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports. 21. Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed.

Globalization & Internationalism

1. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant). 2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. 3. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).* 4. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer. 5. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."

Government Reform

1. Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises. 2. Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs. 3. Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.* 4. Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers. 5. Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals.

Health

1. Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free. 2. Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health. 3. Signed Medicare Reform, which includes:

A 10-year privatization option.

Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine.

More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "�when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors.

New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford.

Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration

1. *See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security. 2. Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004. 3. Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield). 4. Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders. 5. The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity. 6. Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals. 7. Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones. 8. Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested. 9. This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies. 10. Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability. 11. Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization. 12. Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens. 13. Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications. 14. Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack.

Judiciary & Tort Reform

1. Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. 2. Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA. 3. Nominated strong, conservative judges to the judiciary. 4. Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims.

Second Amendment

1. Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right. 2. Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit. 3. Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers. 4. *See Globalization & Internationalism.

Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism

1. Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else � to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself." 2. Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world. 3. Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative � located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families. 4. The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring � even when Federal funds are involved. 5. Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible. 6. Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them. 7. Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states. 8. Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa. 9. Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles:

Equal Justice

Freedom of Speech

Limited Government Power

Private Property Rights

Religious Tolerance

Respect for Women

Rule of Law

And for the Past 8 Years, we Have seen very little Gun Control Measures come at us like we did the past administration...

man, you just don't get it....Bush Lied, People Died


the room temperature IQ crowd will never comprehend how well Bush played the crappy hand he was dealt.....historians ultimately will.

Mistakes, plenty of them. Show me an administration that doesn't. Decisions I disagree with, again, lots of them.


Just thank God that he had the strength to stick to his guns in Iraq and not retreat and surrender a year and a half ago when the Democrats and the local Guild were running around screaming that the sky was falling. Imagine what that would have done for our ability to deal with future threats. Now everything has turned for the good, and those who wanted to haul down the flag and bug out look like, well, .....use your own word.

I'm glad we weren't governed by such people in 1942....after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and Correigidor they'd have been off to Tokyo for the peace conference. And Japanese is a hard language to learn, I understand.

....the goosestep is impossible to do when you are drunk too....

re: I'd vote for him a third time if I could

Plus numero uno-About the only WTF I have from his administration concerns illegal aliens

I'd rather him have a third term than any of the leading candidates, although I will vote for McCain. Providing that Bloomberg or someone of similar character is not his running mate.

Unlike some people I won't brand GW Bush as the worst president in American history. Truth is I haven't been alive to see most of them so I can't say for certain.

I will say this: He is the most naive and irresponsible president in my lifetime. I will also add that he is just below Jimmy Carter on my list. Not because of any great achievements of Mr. Carter, but rather because we threw Carter out after one term and limited the collateral damage he was able to inflict.

No such luck with Bush. The choices presented to the American people were so terrible that we really had no choice but to stick with him.

Will

A man who unloads some presidential baby batter onto a intern's cocktail dress, who is impeached, disbarred and a proven liar under oath ranks above GW, huh?

Calling Bush naive, after your post above, falls on some deaf ears, IMO.

Can you say "No attacks on American soil since 9/11"

I believe that in a generation,Bush will be regarded like Truman or Churchill,as a war time leader who made tough unpopular choices that were correct.

Churchill was forced out of office after WWII,his popularity at an all time low. Truman went home unloved by most americans. History has shown both had the guts to make unpopular decisions. Bush wiil be seen as the man who drew the line in the sand to protect the world from radical Islamism and it's goal of building and using nuclear weapons.

He will be proven correct if we continue to fight and are successful,or if we quit and see Israel and perhaps the US hit by nuclear weapons by radical governments emboldened by our retreat.

The stakes are high,losing is not an option,and Bush will be proven correct,one only hopes it doesn't take New York and Washington being reduced to nuclear wastelands for people to take his views seriously.

Britt

Is that from the Weekly Standard?

The pcikin's is slim. :p

Clinton was more irresponsible in his personal life. Bush has been more irresponsible in his fiscal and foreign policy. In the day to day performance of his duties GW Bush has been a near sighted, irresponsible president.

I'm not sure we have had a truly good president in my lifetime. If forced to pick I think Bush Sr. was probably better than most. The rest were subpar at best.

Will

Were you alive when Ford was president.. stupidly I voted against him but he was the best after IKE.

Just a kid Tom, just a kid.

He was an alright Dude in my book... even if he was a 'Michigan Man'. :p

Will

The scary thing is that half this country would have voted for Clinton a third time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't think Lewie Rockwell or Fred Reed wrote it!!

Clinton was equally irresponsible in failing to respond to repeated terrorist attacks on the US and its interests. The failure to aggressively go after them led directly to the 9/11 attacks and all that has followed.

so who did?,.. Fred Barnes or William Kristol?

..and if it were a Dem president that almost doubled our national debt, that significantly increased the size of govt and whom tried to push for amnesty for illegals, would you feel the same?

Yeah, I know, it's a real bich when you can't have a "cost-free" war!

And obstinately insisted that Islam was a 'religion of peace' that has been 'highjacked by radicals' instead of embarking on a reasoned and critical study of the prime motivation behind the terrorist movement.

This list could go on for a long time...

Steve I agree that Clinton was lax in his duties to go after terrorists. I said the same thing about Reagan after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. No one took it seriously until 9/11. Unfortunately Bush took us on this neo-con driven adolescent masturbatory fantasy of democratizing the Middle East instead of getting serious about finding out what the terrorism was all about.

Will

The point is that you didn't. Bristoe is asking for your source compadre.

Bush is presiding over the worst economic period since the great Depression. He is also the instigator of what is turning into the biggest military fiasco since Vietnam-if not tactically, economically. He said flat-out, that he would sign an extension of the Assault Weapons Ban if one were put before him. This after he portrayed himself as a good friend to gun owners. He is presiding over the defense of the Washington DC gun laws. He has almost single-handedly dismantled the conservative aspect of the Republican Party and is more than anybody, responsible for us going from a majority in both Houses of Congress to one in neither. I would put him below President Carter and above LBJ and Nixon as to POTUS in my lifetime. He is a failure and an anathema to conservative values.

I would be remiss to not mention his Presidency being during the largest expansion of the debt and deficit in US history. He was responsible for most of it.

An oilman in the Whitehouse during the biggest run up of oil prices in history. Draw your own conclusions.

Voting for a 3rd term for Bush is just proof of how weak the current crop of candidates are. None of the above actually inspire anything in me.

His legacy should be that he didn't sue for peace after 9/11 which is what Al Gore likely would have done.

Reagan

Is it any wonder the Republican party is floundering?

Hear-hear.

Well-said.

One thing his adolescent drive did was kill a few tens of thousands of terrorists and make it a far less attractive occupation for young Muslims unless they are really serious about the suicide thing.

And it doesn't take a great deal of study to conclude that dead terrorists aren't going to blow anything up.

It is also rather naive to think that the administration's nods to political correctness and maintaining decent relations with other Muslim-ruled states reflect the secret internal discussions of the administration on Islamofascism. I mean.....you can't simultaneously argue that his cowboy adventurism has alienated the Muslim world but that his callling Islam a religion of peace is reflective of a stupid naivete and excessive sucking up to them. But on the other hand, I guess you can, since logical consistency has never stood in the way of Bush-bashing

You know perfectly well the war is only a small percentage(maybe 20%) of the debt our country has incurred under GW's watch.

It's his domestic agenda that has significantly increased the size and scope of govt which has led to the out of control spending.

It took us what, 200+ years to get to $5.8 Trillion in debt and less than 8 years to almost double it. Bush is no Conservative and the Republican brand has forgotten what fiscal responsibility means. Dems gave us cotton candy so the Repubs try to outdo them by giving us funnel cakes.

Dude, can't you follow logic? It was within Isaacs post, therefore Isaac wrote it. Duh.

Some people make a rock look intelligent.

Hey what are all those words at the top....grin

Don't you mean maintaining viable business ties to his families historical partners, the Saudis?

Facts are now considered bashing?

Everything else we could discuss. The two issues above are absolute nonsense and totally erode your credibility. jorge

As if it could be eroded any further!!

Like saying we've killed, "a few tens of thousands of terrorists ".

The biggest problem I have with Bush aside from illegal immigration, is is inability to unwillingness to answer his critics.

There we always be loons in this country, loons who will make wild allegations; and he allowed them to voice and continue to voice wild allegations without ever calling them out. He allowed the allegations to snowball and damn near create hysteria before he would even make a token effort to defend his decisions...or else the allegations were true.

WMD's, he should have been out front:
"Mr. Kerry. did you not say?"
"Mrs. Pelosi, you saw the same intel I did, why on this date did you say the following."
"You in the press need to ask the last President why on this date he said..." You might contend a president should not be spending his time in this fashion; well if he would have answered back the first few times, he wouldn't have had to...instead he embolden them to continue on.

He should have attacked back but instead I think a streak of arrogance left him ignoring the people who were building a legacy against him.

Remember the internet clip going around showing all the democrats supporting going into Iraq becasue of WMD? I would have stood at the podium while it played behind me, and then pointed at the camera and made my case. Do it one time, and your political foes would have thought twice before making up the next wild allegation.

No, I don't think he was one of the best, his inability to take on his political foes (which every president has) allowed them to create hysteria in this country, and help liberals enlist a generation of young people who fell for the hysteria. It's all part of the job.

It would have made for an interesting administration if, in addition to fighting the Long War, Bush had tried to take on the democrats and endured the media wars that Reagan did.....the meme would have been....cruel cut in aid to the poor....no federal help for failing schools.....old people eating cat food......all the old canards used against Reagan, and against the Republican congress under Clinton.

Instead, he just rolled over, let them spend, and got on with the wars. If he'd successfully opposed the prescription drug benefit....which he obviously should have....that would be the only thing you'd have heard from the democrats and media ever since. Ditto NCLB. Immigration was a self-inflicted wound, though, since the people would overwhelmingly support him if he'd come down for the fence and secure borders. Of course, he'd have been excoriated as a racist, and that would be one of the themes of the election if he'd done it.

Despite the moaning and groaning from the myopic left and the mainstream media, It's important to appreciate the fact that things aren't bad - but could get worse under any Democrat plan we've seen so far.

Considering the alternatives were Gore and Kerry, I'd say we did okay.

I guess a person can always say, "Bush is better than Clinton". The economy was better under Clinton though.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

Piper

Yet another witty comeback without any substance. Is the extent of your defenses "if it don't fit, you must aquit,"?

In what way?....unemployment is lower and interest rates are lower under Bush. Taxes are lower. Stock market has almost doubled.

Remember the great crash of 2000?


The difference, I would suggest, is how the media has played it.

Who cares? The people who'd have said that are the ones who'd have (and do) excoriated him for something else anyway. The Mexicans ain't going to vote Republican. I don't get why the hot Reps can't understand this. The way it is, he alienated a significant portion of the Republican base. Throw away the loyalists for a shot at some clowns who will only support you in fair weather, if then? I've never thought he was stupid, despite his catchy nickname, but this certainly doesn't speak well of his intelligence or common sense.

In my humble backwoods opinion, our economic might is the single most important factor in keeping America the strongest country in the world, so to ignore it or trying to compete with the libs on spending is completely reckless and only serves to weaken us in the future when not so friendly countries like China are experiencing double digit GDP growth and in turn exponentially increasing their military spending.

How long before Chindia starts using their economic might to dictate world policy while we're stuck with such enormous debt, we have little capability to forge world policy?

There definately needs to be a better balance between fiscal responsibility and strong national defense. You can't go full tilt in either direction without suffering some ramifications.

The only reason Bush is President is because he sucks less than Kerry or Gore.That does not make him a great President in my eyes.Same as McCain sucks less.Hell of a reason to vote for anyone.Hang em all and start over.

I just don't think so Ethan, by any measure of effectiveness. In terms of purchasing power, unemployment, home ownership etc., we've had an unprecedented boom during the Bush years and the tax cuts in my view was the prime mover of this stimulus.

Besides a President, aside from "PRESENTING" a budget to Congress and proposing policies (like tax cuts that WORKED), he has little control over the budget. That's the Congress' purview. I thnk he was dead wrong on the Medicare entitlement, but he did try to reform SS and was shut down by Congress.

Also, the oil issue is particularly specific. The President tried and more than once, to pass an effective energy policy that included expanding domestic oil drilling( 84% of our Continental Shelf and Anwar have more oil & gas reserves than Iraq), nuclear, coal and eventual alternative energy. IT was Congress, but democraps and republicans that dicked this up. Oil companies have ZERO influence on world oil prices. They are the most closely scrutinized industry with the possible exception of nuclear. Their profit MARGIN (different form profit) remains between eight & nince cents on the dollar. Pretty slim by any standards. Like I said, everything else you said is opne to discuss, but the above two are just not so. jorge

He was President during that too.

Unemployment figures don't reflect those who have run out of benefits. Interest rates are lower for banks. They absolutely are not lower for the average American than they were four years ago. Folks who work at Wal Mart are only investors in the stock market due to the free shares their employer provides. The guy at Whattaburger and the chick who does your wife's hair usually ain't got a lot of shares in Conoco-Phillips.

There is no economic boom around here unless you count the sound of the local tool company literally going south.

The things Bush proposed as an energy policy could very well be seen as being self-interest.

Jorge, you are confusing people with facts, they would rather argue with unfounded emotion as their reference material..

If we let Bush have a third term, we would see a greater loss of confidence in the republican party, more factions of the GOP, and more government. Its time for a change!

Very much so.

Banks are crashing,.. the dollar is tumbling,..., home foreclosures have reached an unprecedented level,.. gas is $4 a gallon, and the Bushites are raving about how good the economy is.

You cain't make this stuff up.

yeah, all that drilling in the ANWR, off Florida and California, would really benefit.....the American people....and he's one, so yeah, I guess it is self-interest

Bush didn't take office until January of 2001. So he caused the crash of 2000 while he was governor of Texas?

He has an approval rating of 28%

I'm like Jay Leno- " Who the heck are those people?"

The crash of 2000


By Christopher Farrell
Updated: 4:25 p.m. CT Feb 13, 2004
No one should be surprised when economic or budget forecasts coming out of Washington are influenced by politics, especially during an election year. But when economic history is rewritten -- with political consequences -- that's going too far.

President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, chaired by Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, is trying to get away with exactly such revisionist history. The CEA's Economic Report of the President, released Feb. 9, unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's re-election bid.

Instead of using the accepted start date of March 2001, the CEA announced that the recession really started in the fourth quarter of 2000 � a shift that would make it much more credible for the Bush administration to term it the "Clinton Recession." In a subsequent press conference, Mankiw said that the CEA had looked at the available data and "made the call."

This simple statement masks an attack on one of the few remaining bastions of economic neutrality. For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private non-partisan research group based in Cambridge, Mass.

While there have been complaints over the years, this arrangement has been accepted by ., government agencies, and politicians � until now.

"For the first time, the federal government is intervening in the process," says Robert Hall, an economist at the conservative Hoover Institution who since 1978 has chaired the NBER panel of seven prominent economists who make the actual decision.

The NBER's decisions have been dragged into the political arena before, but without impact.

Mankiw's tin ear
In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the NBER to combine the 1980 and 1981-82 recessions into a single downturn that could be called the "Carter Recession." During the '92 election season, the first Bush administration kept hoping that the NBER would announce that the recession of 1990-91 was over � a statement that didn't come until December 1992.

To be fair, even if the latest recession did begin after Bush took office in January 2001, no one can say he caused it. And Mankiw is also under attack from Republicans for what they consider his overly tin ear on other subjects, most notably his statement that the outsourcing phenomenon is "a plus for the economy in the long run."




Still, his decision to fiddle with economic convention can't be seen as anything less than manipulation in an election year.

In his press conference, Mankiw justified his decision by saying, correctly, that the NBER panel was already considering moving the recession start date forward. Some key data that the NBER watch � including industrial production and inflation-adjusted business sales � peaked in mid-2000. On the other hand, the latest revisions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shifted the peak of non-farm employment slightly later, from February to March 2001. That's important, because the recessions of 1981-82 and 1990-91 both started in or after the month that employment fell.

But rather than waiting for the NBER's decision, Bush's CEA jumped the gun. And it made the biggest change possible, despite considerable debate within the NBER panel. The revised date is "very much up in the air," says Hall.

Adds Jeffrey Frankel, a member of the NBER panel, an economist at, and a former member of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers: "The way I read the data, there isn't a strong case for moving the date up by more than one month." That puts the start date at February, 2001, after Bush took office. The lack of a clear picture has led the NBER to hold off making a final decision pending more accurate data.
There's "no sense of time pressure," says Hall. "We want to do this right."

Economists who go to Washington always struggle to maintain their objectivity against the political demands of the administration they work for. Based on its latest performance, the CEA seems to have lost the battle.

And your Dem Congress' approval rating is less than half that.

You figure it out!!

+1

Sorry, I was thinking about the crash after 9-11.

And you can't write comedy that good either.

The Dem congress approval is higher that the Republicans Congress was. If you have a point now would be a great time to make it.

BTW I'm not a Democrat but Bush is the worst President in my lifetime and I won't defend him.

Piper

The Dem congress approval is higher that the Republicans Congress was
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Of course, you're wrong about that but I'm not doing the research for you.

A surplus caused by an unprecedented drop in consumption by the American people has not caused a price decrease, but I guess drilling in areas protected due to endangered species would? Oh but in the world of unbridled capitalism, supply and demand rule, right? Demand now being assclowns investing in oil stocks.

Got fiddle?

Hey, you don't do your own, so why make concessions to somebody on the internet? Right old chum?

I get sucked into these nonsensical debates more than anyone and I'm not sure why.lol

They just go round and round and we get nowhere but I guess it's a good way to pass time if you can't be outdoors.

Think I'll go pick up my brother and see if we can raise a little hell at the tavern. Spent way too much time today talking to lawyers to do it anymore(not that I don't like and respect ours here). Just be forewarned for when I return, I make up all kinds of stuff and greatly enjoy talking out of my backside after having one or two(or maybe 12-15).

We'll look back in 20 years and realise that the republican party of Reagen died at the hands of George W. Bush. It's dead and gone while he was the defacto head honcho of the republican party. We went from seeing how conservative the republican party could be - to seeing how many democrats the party could include.

Nah, we'll look back in twenty years and say " Those were the good old days."

The stock market tech crash is an event with an undisputed start date....January 2000 for the Dow, March 2000 for the NASDAQ. That's the tech stock bust. And it happened while Bush was in Austin TX.


The recession, to the extent administrations cause recessions, was caused by Clinton's policies whether it started in 2000, or in the first quarter of 2001, since Bush had exerted little or no influence on the economy since taking office January 19,2001 which could affect economic performance in the first quarter. The government was operating under the Clinton budget passed the previous year.

Its kind of a sophomoric dispute in the first place.

The Democrats approval rating has been higher than the Republicans. This may not be a vote for the Congress but a vote against Bush.

When will John McCain's slogan be "4 more years"? When will they be Televised on the same platform?

No endangered animal species involved in Florida or California, and until the absurd polar bear decision, none involved in ANWR.

The endangered species is millionaires who don't want to see oil rigs from their beach houses.

I think he lives in a different world than I do.

Tom

Poll: Americans Give Democratic Congress All-Time Low Rating
Thursday, June 21, 2007


WASHINGTON � Democrats pledged to take Congress in a new direction when it won control in November 2006, but less than six months after taking the reins, Americans aren't pleased with the results, giving lawmakers an all-time low public confidence rating.

In a Gallup poll released Thursday, only 14 percent of Americans have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress, a Gallup poll reports.

The poll shows an all-time lowest confidence rating and one of the lowest ratings for any institution in 30 years. The lowest confidence rating for Congress was 18 percent during 1991 to 1994. In 1994, the House switched from a Democratic to Republican majority after 40 years of one-party rule.

hard to blame that one on Bush, unless one thinks he was behind the 9-11 attacks.......which of course, a substantial body of lunatics do

I wonder if Bush would have been as hated by his enemies if it weren't for the Florida election fight? Would they have found another reason to despise him.....I mean before the war?

I guess that Bush is to blame for ratifying NAFTA, even though the ratification took place under Slick Willies watch.

I wasn't blaming him for it. I was correcting myself on the start date of a crash and who was in office. Was Bush not responsible for security at that time?

The libs figured out that in order to have a shot at the white house, that they needed to create a huge hatred for GWB from those in society who can't think for themselves. It's worked.

With Republican majorities in both Houses voting for it.

I called Bob Dole repeatedly, as did 4-6000 other Kansans, begging him not to vote for it, yet he did anyway. Big government-big business partnership at its finest!

The Reps figured out that in order to continue their further march towards the Left they had to create a huge, blind following for GWB from those in society who can't think for themselves. Its worked.

Lets see Slick Willie was pushing for ratification of Nafta and you lay total blame at the door steps of Congress and the Republicans, with no blame for Billy Clinton and his Cronies. WOW Ethan your logic escapes me..

Just go ask people why they don't like GWB. What will the response be? Iraq! Then they can't give any reasons beyond that other than the war in Iraq is bad and GWB was evil for sending us there.

I'm sorry you agree with idiots.

There is no inconsistency at all. These two concepts are part and parcel of the universalism that neo-conservatism espouses.

Will

It's what idiots do!!

I wasn't suggesting you were blaming him. But if you weren't your original point doesn't make sense.

He wasn't responsible for the 2000 tech stock crash because he hadn't even been elected, much less taken office.

The 9-11 crash was caused by a terrorist attack. Did Bush's policies "cause" the terrorist attack? Which policies would those be?

I'd vote for Bush a third time without any hesitation whatsoever. The best the liberals have offered in recent history don't hold a candle to him because of the one thing they all lack.....CHARACTER. He had the worst event in American history since Pearl Harbor dumped into his lap and has done everything he could humanly do to protect this land of ours. I believe his wife has ALWAYS been proud to be an American. And I believe his faith is honest and true and based on truth, not twisted theology. I get tired real fast of all the Bush hate going on in our country and place the blame squarly on the shoulders of the whining Dems that still can't get over the fact that he was elected twice. Instead of blaming their own misguided ideals they blame and hate Bush for everything wrong that happens. What a vile and sickening bunch they have shown themselves to be. Until the Dems wake up and chit-can the radical left from their party they will sooner or later suffer beyond repair. God bless George Bush, and his family!

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

With all due respect, ALL politicians are worthless, self-serving rat bastards. But one thing is certain, in my opinion...our LYING president has led our country into a war for oil which profits ultra-wealthy robber barrons and corporate kingpins so they can live lives of opulent luxury, and leave the wealth to their children, tax free, so their lives too can be one of sickening narcissism...all at the expense of the people of our country, and the blood of our soldiers. We have spent nearly a TRILLION dollars on this war that has made our citizens NO SAFER from terrorists; a war that has probably killed over a hundred thousand people. It was misrepresented from the beginning, and has only 'riled up' the radical muslims even more. Life in Iraq is worse now, not better, than before. We survived a sneak attack, mobilized for war, and WON the war against our enemies in World War II in less time than we have been in Iraq.
This 'conservative' president took a fiscal surplus, that was left to him by a 'liberal' president, and has spent more money than any administration in history. He has widened the gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' more than at any time in our history, except during the 'Great Depression'. He has rewarded those that contributed so much to his campain coffers (Big Oil), and we have seen oil go from $12 dollars a barrel...to over $130 dollars a barrel during his terms. Our economy is so far in the tank because of him, and his administration, that people are now having to decide between heating/cooling their homes and buying gasoline so they can drive to work...or, instead, buying food and medicine for their families. Before this president Bush, much of the world admired America and aspired to much of what it represented...now, after 5 years of death, destruction, and occupation in Iraq, and his disasterous fiscal and foreign policies in general...he will go down as one of the worst presidents, if not 'the worst', in our history. The legacy of the current Bush is no different than the legacy of organized crime. A country that was run by, and ruined by, corporations, special interests, and money...that's his legacy.

I agree Qtip. Most Americans have become negative whining sheep who can't see the big picture. It's a sad state of affairs when parents don't teach little kids to have respect for the president. And then they wonder why their kids don't respect and obey them...

damn,... the knotheads are gonna stampede because of *that* post.

antlers, thanks, you can go now.

I'd suggest www.moveon.org


....lots of folks there who "think" like you.

You are obviously full of chit. If this were a war for oil then why is gas so high? How do you protect a nation, enforce the treaty that Hussein agreed to(even though most other countries don't have the balls), and deal with national natural diaster without spending money egghead. What will the Dems. give us/ International disgrace by withdrawal from Iraq leading to a Taliban-like slaughter of hundred of thousands of innocents, a UHC system that will just about kill our economy, and a move toward "green" energy which although sounds great won't do chit in the long run for the USA when compared to other sources. They have great soudbiytes and slogans, but they are all based on the hot air theory. Your "one" post so far leads me to believe that we just might have another troll amongst us, and I hope I am wrong.


Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

I'm thinking one of the regulars re-registered as Antlers to get us all riled up....

and they're off!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4b2zgUOAlA

I give Bush high marks on handling 9-11 and the aftermath.


I give him low marks on spending, but SteveNO raises a valid point, there's some smart guys in his circle, they probably figured the long haul of the Iraq occupation of fight for freedom (whichever term you prefer) would hammer his approval rating, too large of a percentage of Americans don't have the stomach for a fistfight, let alone a real war. For him to cut funding for other programs while funding the Iraq war, would have probaby hamstrung all GOP candidates.

I do feel opportunity was ripe immediately post 9-11 to cut spending, but it still would have come back to haunt the administration.


I think most folks were in favor of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq post 9-11 (I know I was happy for it) I'm just not very optimistic that we'll be successful in creating a democratic paradise in Iraq that will view the USA as a favorable trade partner.


in my estimation the economy got headed downhill during the Clinton administration and more importantly in my view the Greespan regime at the FED.

pumping up the money supply is a great short term fix for a lot of what ails you, it creates bubble stock markets, real estate markets etc.

but you go to the well too often, so often in fact that you quit reporting M3 and there's going to be a price to pay. We're seeing some of that now imo.

imo our country is just too evenly divided idealogically for a Pres. from either party to be very effective at pleasing the masses.

tis beyond my belief that folks can cast a vote for Kerry, Gore or Obillary.

same as it is for them to see us supporting or casting votes in support of the likes of Bush or McCain.

I will say I think Bush sucks even less than McCain. I fear we've hit the slippery slope.

So, he lied about getting a BJ in the White House. How many thousands of our soldiers died as a result of this lie? And how many hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent as a result of this lie? Bush's lie...remember, "WMD's in Iraq", and "imminent threat to us"...has resulted in over 4000 American lives lost and nearly a TRILLION taxpayer dollars spent. Which lie did more damage to our country?
Also, how many attacks were there on 'American soil' during Clinton's terms 'after' the 1st WTC bombings? ZERO, NADA, NYET. For 7 years afterwards...nothing...same as Bush.

hey antler, will you do me a favor and show me post 9-11 how many democrats including the Clintons were calling BS on WMD in Iraq?


IIRC the chorus was singing the same song.

I respectfully disagree...he's done his damndest to drive this country into the ground. His administration has been the most crooked, corrupt, and treasonous in my lifetime. And I personally believe Bush is a puppet, a moron, a liar, a thief, and a mass murderer. It will take our country decades to recover, if we ever can, from his presidency. His legacy will include being a leadership that answered to nobody but itself!

Even worse when you can't have one that was based on truth instead if LIES.

And you can't cure obtuseness. Bank foreclosures amount to 2% (that two out of every one hundred) of the total mortages held. And that is as a result (mainly) of banks loaning money to people that had no business taking on that type of debt.

Gas is four dollars a gallon because demand is far exceeding supply and the Congress won't let oil companies (9% profit margin rate) drill domestically where we have plenty of oil

Why do you seem to revel in fabricating bad news? Man you must drink Maalox by the gallon. jorge

Issac

I'm not sure what those numbers really mean. It says the lowest rating was 18 % but now it's 14%

It shows "great deal' and "Quite a lot" but I'd like to know what the other options are.

Not sure what the difference is between " Confidence rating" and "lowest rating" means.

I saw one poll that said the Republican Congress had a 11% rating so who knows.

I tried to do some research and gave up. seems like there is a poll taken every month by about 25 different organizations so I guess you could pick one from column A and one from Column B and and make a point.

I think the point here is that we don't think much about Congress :-) But then again I don't think most people have any idea how Congress works ( no pun intended)

Piper

Well,... there was this one,...

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

I agree GWB will be proven by History to have been the right man for these times. I really do not care to imagine what the alternative would have been like. I think we would be a lot worse off now had Gore been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004

Thanks for bringing up NAFTA...let's take a closer look at the voting:
132 House Republicans voted FOR NAFTA.
102 House Democrats voted FOR NAFTA
43 House Republicans voted against NAFTA
156 House Democrats voted against NAFTA

34 Senate Republicans voted FOR NAFTA
27 Senate Democrats voted FOR NAFTA
10 Senate Republicanas voted against NAFTA
28 Senate Democrats voted against NAFTA

More Republicans voted FOR NAFTA than did Democrats...in both houses; and more Democrats voted AGAINST NAFTA than did Republicans...in both houses! Interesting...thank's again for bringing it up.

This administration gave them all the ammunition they needed.

Bush worshippers...it's almost like they are from a different planet, with a different reality system.

NAFTA was one of the few good things Clinton did. And of course Republicans voted for it....we are the party of free trade. Dealwiddit.

Here's the Heritage Foundation's brief report on the effects....

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1462.cfm

That figures,... the only time the Republican and the Democrat leadership gets together is when it involves screwing the American people.

see Heritage link above......protectionism doesn't benefit Americans......see Smoot-Hawley


If America's unions think they can hide from the world economy behind a tariff wall, they're smoking crack.

Who ever wins, I hope for the minimum of an occasional intelligent facial expression, and the ability to pronounce "nuclear". I am very proud of W's tax relief, but I am over the whole abortion issue, and I'll be glad when it plays NO role in politics. We NEED way more Nuclear Energy, why is that so hard? I live in Atlanta, one of my main political concerns is transportation. Our system is broken badly and the Keystone Kops in the Kapital (Republicans) couldn't pour pizz out of a boot.......
Done ranting,
DB

But Mr. Bristoe, there were also these:

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0

by John Hawkins


Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Why should I care what the Heritage Foundation says?

I don't know anyone in it,.. but I can reliably assume that they don't work for a living.

What in the hell does Smoot-Hawley have to do with current trade discussions?

We had the most protectionist and prosperous economy in the world right up until Reagan took office. Since that time I have watched us gut our manufacturing and send every damned job and industry we could box up over to communist regimes and theocratic enemies of the state.

Now we run a gargantuan trade deficit which is financing the buyout of American corporations and infrastructure as we speak. America has been put on the chopping block and sold as a result of these idiotic free trade agreements.

And the closest thing to a rationalization that I can get from all of these ideologue free traders is that it helps bring down unions. Jesus Christ. Jealousy. We have a bunch of ideologues who are willing to see American industry under the control of our enemies because we are jealous of a union line worker making too much money.

Republicans have adopted this insanity and deserve to go down in flames. It used to be an America First party.

Will

Let's see...devalue the dollar, outsource jobs, make education unaffordable, make healthcare difficult and unaffordable, give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut, foreclose on homes, increase the price of oil 1000%, wreck the economy, wreck education, wreck energy prices, wreck foreign policy, wreck healthcare, increase illegal immigration, benefit oil companies, benefit insurance companies, benefit corporations-all at a huge cost to Americans, and basically destroy the American way of life, and lay the blame where it can't be found...yep, Iraq is 'the reason' people don't like Bush.

Seems like Bush decided to keep all of those Democrats happy.

nemesis: welcome, but don't expect facts to get in the way of these people's ideology. Simply put, if Bush (or anybody else not drinking their brand of kool-aid)would all of a sudden walk on water, their response would be "yeah, that's because he can't swim."

SteveNO: Do you actually expect these bumpkins to know what Smoot-Halley was and what it did to the economy? Oh I forget, I'm sure that with the "google" function, they'll find it in Wikypedia...jorge

Vomity barf barf.

glad you're over the whole abortion thing. so are the more than 3,000 unborn Americans who will die today....they're pretty much over everything.

Smoot-Hawley is a smokescreen.

Jesus Christ don't you think I know what it was and what it did? It is a ruse used to justify an insane economic theory that says that a country need not produce what it consumes, that it need not worry about trade and budget deficits.

A credit and speculation bubble just like the one you see bursting around you right now is what caused the Great Depression. Not some ineffectual and insignificant import tax.

Do you really think a small import tax resulted in halving the size of the economy and crashing the stock market? Seriously? Think about it man. :p

Will

good read,..*this* is one aspect of the "Bush legacy".

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25318&page=7

An excerpt:

Our workers' instincts are backed up by stats. In 2007, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico soared 16 percent to $73 billion, a record. Mexico now ships more cars to us now than we ship to the world. And where did Mexico get an auto industry?

The U.S. trade deficit with China shot up 10 percent to $256 billion, the largest trade deficit ever between any two countries.

Charles MacMillion of MBG Services has run the numbers.

In manufactures, the United States had a trade deficit of $499 billion in 2007, a slight improvement over the $526 billion record in 2006. Yet that trade deficit in manufactured goods with the world is more than twice as large as our $224 billion bill for OPEC's oil.

Under Bush, the U.S. trade deficit has doubled. Three million manufacturing jobs have vanished. And America has begun to run a trade deficit in advanced technology goods of more than $50 billion.

Our trade deficit in advanced technology goods with China is $67 billion, eight times what it is with Japan.

"Free trade is essential to the creation of high-paying quality jobs," said Bush on Thursday.
But if exports create jobs (and they do), imports displace them. And if we import half a trillion dollars more in manufactures than we export, is not Bush trade policy literally slaughtering industrial jobs?

Is there not a correlation between $4.3 trillion in trade deficits under Bush, the 3 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush, the fall of the dollar by 50 percent against the euro under Bush and the resurgence of inflation, signaled by a quadrupling of the price of gold, under Bush?

Just a little interjection, here. I wish some of you guys would quit saying that one of the reasons why Clinton was a worse president than Bush is because Clinton cheated on Hillary.

Damn, people. What president have we ever had would NOT have cheated on Hillary if he'd been married to her?

Just because Clinton is a liberal doesn't mean he isn't human. I really think he ought to be given a pass on that one.

- Tom

Penguin, the government didn't send anything overseas. Private businesses made choices based on, uh, profit. You got a problem with that?

If a thing can only be made in the US at a profit with a government subsidy, why should the American public subsidize it by paying higher prices to subsidize an unprofitable industry just because it has acquired friends in government who get a tariff passed?

Steve

No one is pround of the abortion numbers in this country but trying to enact rules forbidding abortion without a exception clause for the health or life of the mother is peeing in the wind.

I was raised in Texas and during the 50's when a girl got in a family way her Dad simply took her on a Mexican vacation; a fair number never came back home. My sister and I were two years apart and in our two classes of about 100 each we could name 20 girls that had abortions and alsmost half of them died or were injured for life.

Today when you can fly anywhere on the globe for less than a thousand dollars you'll never curb abortion with laws. Sad but true. Somewhere like 75% think that Roe vs. Wade should not be overturned.

Piper

The so called capitalist companies that are making a killing by importing their goods into our country are STATE SPONSORED ENTITIES! How in the world can we justify putting Americans out of work by engaging in duty free trade WITH COMMUNIST OWNED AND OPERATED businesses?

We are helping to arm and outfit a country that is ideologically opposed to the very foundation of our country. How in the world is that justified in the name of knocking a few bucks off the price of a plasma TV or a pair of Reeboks?

If they want to move over to communist countries and throw in with the enemy then be my guest. But don't let them send the jobs and economic profit into the bank accounts of communist dictatorships and Islamic Republics and then give them duty free entry into the marketplace.

That is one world globalization theory in action, not sound economics.

Will

But we can't buy Cuban cigars :-)

Piper

The irony is astounding isn't it? :p

Will

You never were very quick......

That said, the alternatives have been hellishly bad.

gosh, Penguin, I knew Mexico and Canada were kind of leftie, but I had no idea they were Commies. Thanks for the heads up.

God, I hope so.

Doc

The only President in the 20th Century worse than Jimmy Carter was Herbert Hoover who shall always be known as the Depression President.

Doc

Mexico is not really a trading partner, they are a low cost intermediate step subcontractor. They are poor and desperate enough to take the crumbs left over from China, India, and a few others.

But China OTOH is a horse of a different color. She is just now starting to flex her muscles. And we allowed this beast to grow strong and prosperous at the expense of our middle class. And you know what the worst part of it is? We didn't even get the human rights concessions that all these geniuses in Washington told us were sure to come along with a capitalist infusion of cash. Give it time they kept telling us, they'll have decent wages and living conditions in no time.

I'm not sure we can hold out long enough to see any substantive results on that front.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Burma, Morroco, and on and on and on. We just cannot find enemies to enrich fast enough to please the Free Trade contingent.

Will

You never were very quick......
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Karen might tell you different....smartass! Adrienne too!!

"Mexico is not really a trading partner"


Well, only if the United States second largest trading partner isn't "really" a trading partner. Kind of a strange use of the language.

Good thing Lawyers who write most state law have made sure this hasn't happened to them..My Lawyer is up to $425 now bet I could get a good Indian for $75.00.

Bush's Legacy???

A recession. A deficit. A weak dollar. No to Kyoto. No to green initiatives and alternative fuels. Yes to Big Oil. Yes to SUVs. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Foreign quagmires premised on bad intelligence(at best!)or outright lies. Many children left behind (ask a typical kid to read, write, or do math!). The continuation of the abortion known as the War on Drugs. Overflowing jails and prisons. Outsourcing high paying (i.e. vital) tech jobs abroad 'cause their aren't enough smart Americans to fill the need. Shameless war profiteering (Halliburton, etc.) Usurption and erosion of fundamental American principles (e.g. Patriot Act). Didn't think this was possible but King George managed to somehow erode even more of our precious little American goodwill and influence abroad. Thousands of dead and maimed American service people and their families. Lots of vacations to his ranch in Crawford, TX.

These are just some of things that come to mind when contemplating Dubya's watch.

oh yeah - one more thing - that one banner Bush had placed behind him after spending tax payer money to land on aircraft carrier... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED...

+1 Here Qtip.

The Democrats have making that slippery slide ever since LBJ and it's got worse with every candidate in the last 40 years and with this years class of candidates being no improvement over those from the past.

In fact their Leader of the Pack and the Runner up are both poster child's of what you get straight out of the Gutter as their both Gutter Rats.

so your solution, Penguin, is to slap tariffs on imports from the countries you don't like, so that American consumers pay higher prices for the same product, the government gets its rake-off, and the rest of the tariff goes to support certain favored failing US industries so they can try to make Mardi Gras beads, tennis shoes and shirts competitively with east Asia? Is that the plan?

I don't think that's gonna sell in middle America, outside a few union halls.

I think the old fashioned way of making products or selling services people will buy at a price that makes a profit is a more American solution. The government is not supposed to be in the business of picking private businesses to save from their own inefficiencies. And that applies to sugar farmers and mortgage lenders as much as it does to shirt makers.

Man...all these new members only to jump on the legacy of GWB!!

If the end result of such globalist action means that the American working class has to compete with a Chinese working class which labors for peanuts in a communist nation where the government exercises price and wage controls,... hell yes,.. the working class of America has some serious problems with it.

Ivan, you doofus, the Kyoto treaty was turned down 95-0 by the US Senate while Bill Clinton was president and W was in Austin being governor. Get a freaking clue, dude.

(i havent read all pages of this thread.....dont have the time to play catch up on them all so if this has been brought up, sorry)


i cant like Bush's No Child Left Behind BS.....sure it may have helped getting some of the crappy schools in line but it has hurt some of the better schools. i know the local school has done more good through putting in place programs of its own cause the administration truly cares about the education of the students to help those lagging in the english and math areas....these would have been implemented regardless of the NCLBA as i know the administrators who implimented well them as they were teachers when i went to school there....however i have seen this school forced to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into administrative BS instead of putting it towards programs that help the kids because of the NCLBA when they already were dealing with a shrinking budget authority do to declining enrollment......would much rather see that money go to more and better teachers....more added programs than screwing with the required paperwork to see weither or not they meet the NCLBA benchmarks.....

so small government Bristoe now wants the US government to decide which businesses will be subsidized by tariffs extorted from American consumers, raising the prices they pay for the things they need to enrich the chosen few........that doesn't sound very Paulian.

Strange but true.

Mexico is not really a trading partner because they really can't afford to buy anything from us. We send parts to Mexico where it is put through final assembly and sent back. The whole country operates as sort of a low tech off shore factory for US companies. They operate as a non union subcontractor.

Hence my contention that NAFTA was not a trade agreement, it was an outsourcing agreement. As are most trade pacts these days. They aren't made with the intention of opening new markets for US manufactured products but rather new markets of lower wage workers for US companies to hire from.

Will

I respectfully disagree...why would a parent teach their child to respect a president who is a liar, a thief, a moron, a puppet, and a mass murderer? Americans see the big picture just fine...and I believe that you will find that out come November.

That I can go, at any speed as required by the situation, is a given.

That Karen would lie, 'cause she's a good woman, is another given.

That we both married up, is simple fact.

There are points of view contrary to what the 'herd' follows. If this group is so intolerant that they must stifle discussion and exile anyone who doesn't go along with the 'herd', then this is not a true 'discussion' forum.

China doesn't espouse a small government philosophy. They shouldn't be included in any Libertarian ideas of commerce.

Steve

I wonder what a lawyer in China or Mexico makes.

Would it be legal to hire one for simple things here in the States since we are "trading partners" ?

Piper

You sure can BS at warp speeds!!

Yeah, and it ain't supposed to be in the business of pushing a global agenda of free trade either.

Free trade with countries who play by the same rules we do? Fine. I can almost count them on one hand. And I have no problem with doing so.

But you better believe I would slap a big tariff on goods imported from China. They are a communist dictatorship. We, as a liberal democracy, aren't supposed to be in the business of enriching communist dictatorships and arming them to confront our children.

It is funny how other countries who have sponsored businesses which dumped products on American soil seem to get a pass from you guys.

Japan targeted our steel and electronics manufacturing and put it broke. They subsidized these industries long enough to bring down their American counterparts and now enjoy almost unchallenged supremacy. You see the Japanese weren't interested in 'fair play' or 'free trade', they wanted to win.

Which they did.

The steel industry was worth saving. I don't think we have enough left to actually fight a real war if we were forced into one. I'm not sure in a real live shooting war that the Chinese will be willing to send us all of these electronic parts to outfit our fighter planes.

We have a short sighted and stupid trade policy. Just like our energy policy. And our budget policy. And our foreign policy.

I don't think it is a coincidence that all of these short sighted and stupid policies have come together in one administration.

Will

Actually, many big firms and some clients directly are outsourcing legal work to India ....its a world economy in services as well as manufacturing.

http://www.americanjurist.net/media...&sourcedomain=www.americanjurist.net


It only works with someplace which has a similar legal system, like the commonwealth countries.

Outside Hong Kong, the Chinese seem to have trouble even grasping the concept of what a lawyer does.

so you'll empower the US government to tax its citizens by raising prices on the goods they buy to punish foreign countries for the way they choose to run their own governments......is this the humble foreign policy/ small, non-intrusive government model?

There's little demand for lawyers in a totalitarian government.

You might think about that whenever you get the urge to defend the additional accumulation of power within the executive branch of the U.S. government.

So the state should control the economy to the extent that anything that might impact our war-fighting ability should not be manufactured or purchased except where the government says it can?

You might be able to make some national security case for that notion.....but,tennis shoes? shirts? Mardi Gras beads? tough sell, bro.

It's not rocket science...oil didn't start to climb until AFTER the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a soverign nation. Bush hasn't protected the nation...we're no safer now, and we've been invaded by millions and millions of illegal immigrants yearly since his first term began. So much for protecting our borders. He also didn't 'deal' with a natural disaster...he failed miserably. Saddam was 'bad'...lots of dictators the world over are 'bad'...are we to invade all of them too, and overthrow their dictators, and install our own puppet government, as we have in Iraq, while killing thousands of our own young people, and spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, as we have so far in Iraq? Or, are we only going to overthrow 'bad' dictators whose countries just happen to have oil underneath them? Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism. If you felt secure in what 'you' know to be true, then you wouldn't resort to the school-yard mentality of calling other members here derogatory names.

you're babbling, man


must be shell-shock from all those terrorist attacks you've suffered through since 9-11

If you don't have a large and energetic steel industry you aren't a global power. It is just that simple.

We allowed ourselves to be talked into the notion that we are all one big happy family. It doesn't matter where stuff is made. It doesn't matter where the jobs are performed. Americans can sit back and manage these industries, trade our houses to each other for higher and higher prices, and we'll all retire as millionaires.

An absurd notion that was just dumb enough to appeal to GW Bush. And Alan Greenspan I might add.

It does matter who manufactures goods. You see, real wealth is created by those who save and produce not by those who borrow and consume. This ideal was the backbone of the American system of economics for decades. And it worked. And it created a middle class of those who produced the goods that powered America.

Right up until supply side silliness took over as the in vogue theory.

Will

OK...so...opinions are like a$$holes...everybody has one. Maybe they should first realize that this is a public forum on the internet. When discussing issues, every member here is entitled and has a right to their opinion.

The American steel industry was created by robber barons and monopolists in the 19th century, and flourished inthe 20th because we were the arsenal of democracy in two world wars, and finished the second as the only steel producer in the free world not bombed to smithereens.



you sound like it was built by widows saving their pennies.

and Bush didn't pass NAFTA, or invent free trade as a basic tenet of Republican foreign policy.

Bristoe, they can't even grasp the concept of a lawsuit. My wife and I tried mightily to explain the idea of tort liability, and going to court to enforce a contract, with our guide/translator....an educated, fairly sophisticated woman who deals with foreigners every day and is married to a music producer. She just couldn't get it.

some more than others

Piper:

I predict, in your lifetime, if not mine, that Indian lawyers will be allowed to become members of various US state bars and then practice by satellite hookup from home.

You and the guy you're suing will be in front of the judge in the courtroom, and the two opposing lawyers will be appearing on video monitors from Delhi. (And maybe even the judge will appear by video.)

It'll start with civil law. Small stuff at first. Family law. Then torts. Eventually, criminal law.

It'll be sold to the public as a cost-saving measure - part of tort reform - the Supremes will eventually come around and rule that it doesn't violate the constitution.

You'll still have the right to hire an American lawyer if you want one and can afford one, of course.

Just like you will have the right to go to India, hire a bunch of Indian lawyers to do the work, and sit back and rake in the profits.

It's the American way.

- Tom

Nearly everybody was supportive of Bush's early post 9/11 plans...most of the Democrats, including the Clintons, were on board with most of the rest of the country. The members of Congress were lied to by Bush, so they supported it... just like the mass of America was lied to by Bush, so we supported it...no mystery there. They haven't even found so much as a can of Raid over there in Iraq.

America was built by a good work ethic and a prudent financial disposition as much as anything else. As a nation of builders and craftsmen we were unparalleled. It is not coincidence that as Americans were taught that they and their work didn't matter they also acted as if the financial discipline that accompanied it didn't matter either.

Work and save. Save and work. The back bone of successful countries everywhere.

But history is also rife with the stories of once great countries who borrowed and spent their way into servitude. They are the also rans who got left behind as more disciplined and responsible countries passed them by.

Will

Will, no disagreement here on the weakening of the work ethic, the rise of a borrow and consume mentality, or the general coarsening of American culture.

But I disagree that a tariff wall will cure those problems, or even ameliorate them. That problem lies within our borders....in our devo society.

Can't we all just agree to disagree!

But personally I think we can do better than Bush

A good work ethic and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee after the factory closes down and moves to China.

No, they found hundreds of tons of yellow cake uranium ore, among many other tidbits. They did not find the massive quantities of operational WMDs they expected, yet. But of course nobody has searched Syria or Iran yet....and he had months to move them.

Bush= master [bleep]

So...the Bush plan is to bail out the banks, even though the banks were "loaning money to people that had no business taking on that type of debt". Sound logic. Gas is $4 bucks a gallon because of market speculation. The recent run-up in oil prices is due more to speculation in the commodities market than to supply shortages. Fabrication? Tell 'that' to the millions of Americans who are struggling now.

Congratulations, "antlers" you are now the undisputed winner of the most factless, erroneous and moronic posts on this forum. That's quite an accomplishment.

BTW, you'll find that if you swim at the deeper end of the gene pool, there's more oxygen there. But ok, I'll bite, the intelligence Bush saw was the same and independently delivered to members of Congress. It was the same intelligence that the previous administration received, as well as independent estimates from several other intelligence sources, like the british, French, Israeli and even Russian. They all said the same thing prior to Bush ever taking the oath of office.

Say, did you read what Steve No wrote about Kyoto and when it was rejected (95-0) by the Senate? jorge

Don't-drop-dat-chit!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4NSZiq_-CcQ

Excellent point.

I think this somes up Bush pretty well!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGxyIhsSAow

Reading and facts are not the reason his organization asked him to come here. They have a assigned agenda, my man!!

He's a planted goofball, just like a couple others.

Yeah...the same number of terrorist attacks on our soil during the Clinton administration since the 1st WTC bombing and the end of his terms...ZERO.

I took about five minutes trying to even find wherever this started and couldn't do it, so I'll just stipulate you one and then deduct ten from your score for all the other points I made that you didn't even bother to address. Fair enough? Or not.

Assuming all the lunatics are wrong, I've always believed we were attacked basically because we are not Muslims, by and large. It doesn't help that people who are citizens here band together with the Muslims' own leaders who consistently rape them of their wealth all the while using their religion and its leaders to stir them up against the population of the west which is pretty much innocent, save for not doing anything about our own corrupt politicos.

And most of them stink!

Steve, what is the end game for the U.S. with globalization? What are we going to do with millions of industrial workers that will be displaced? There will not be enough demand in the service sector to employ them all, even if we were not importing millions of illegals into the country to fill the lower level service jobs. So, what are we going to do with them? Put them on welfare and increase our already over bloated entitlement class? Let them eat Cake? That didn't work to well for the French Monarchy. What are we going to do when our "globalized" U.S. enconomy will no longer support employment our population?

Plenty of industrial jobs around here. So many, in fact, they are importing asians to do them. I'm serious, Americans just don't want to come to places like this to work. Can't really blame 'em though.

Since embassies and US warships are legally US soil you're wrong even by your narrow definition, the two African embassies and the USS Cole were attacked under Clinton. Plus the truck bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia. You really are clueless, man.

It's easier to insult in a faceless forum such as this, isn't it? Don't take out your frustrations on me, just because 'your guy' just happens to be the worst thing to ever happen to this country. Being a Bush supporter, you ought to be quite familiar with "factless, erroneous, and moronic"...since those terms characterize just about everything Bush ever does or says. "The buck stops at the top" unless your 'W'...then it's everybody elses fault but yours! If you want to twist and rewrite history to make yourself feel better...have at it.

Gadfly, we have just had four years of almost unprecedentedly low unemployment rates....so it hasn't been a national problem yet.

Of course there are regional disruptions.....I didn't notice the rest of the country getting all weepy eyed and crying for higher oil prices when oil prices collapsed in the early 80s and devastated the economies of Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana, or calling for a tariff to protect US oil companies.

We're supposed to be capitalists, for heaven's sake, and used to think we could outcompete anybody. And we faced a world of protectionist trade competitors then, too.

Adapt, improvise, think......

Do I have a notion for how to revitalize rust belt heavy industries that are not globally competitive....no, I don't.

I'm not a dinosaur veterinarian.

The fun part will begin when China doesn't need the American market any longer and nationalizes all of the industry that America has set up for them over there.

Steve,

To be fair if you want to count the Khobar Towers then you need to count the Riyadh compound.

Piper

I assume you're talking about poultry or beef processing plants, or something like that. Working conditions in such places will never be great, but they could be a lot better than they currently are without significant expense.

Bristoe,

If they stop trading with us it would be a blessing,do away with most of our trade deficit other than oil. You can't complain about the trade deficit,and complain that it may come to an end,not logical.

But then most of the dope induced ramblings you spew are not any better.

Britt

Shalom to you too,...

Mr Antlers,

It does appear that you are a Troll plant from moveon.liberal or some such nonsense.

When are you going to post about elk hunting or handloads?

We see you for what you are,nice try. Are you gay,muslim,or a proabortion nut? You are so passionate,it has to be one of those hard core true believer things.

Actually it is the petroleum/petrochemical/oil refining buisiness. It is booming like never before.

OK...if you're gonna 'reach' and distort, something 'your guy' Bush is good at...I suppose that since someone sent weaponized anthrax to some senators and news outlets ONE MONTH AFTER 9/11, and killed 5 Americans and sickened 17 more, that 'it' could technically be considered a 'terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11'! At least it was actually 'on our soil', as the statement was originally made by another poster. Clueless? That's 'your guy'...Bush. It describes him in one word.

Steve, as bad as the oil bust was in the 80's, and it was bad (I knew a lot of people in Tulsa with Geology and Engineering degrees working in convenience stores) it was a relatively short term event compared to what is going to happen with the decline of manufacturing. It is not just a simple matter of switching to a different job sector. What does the service sector service? The bulk of the demand for the upper level service sector (heavy construction, engineering and even a significant portion of legal services) is manufacturing. No manufacturing; no need for those services, and growth in natural resource extraction will not make up for the loss in manufacturing. I am not much impressed with the current employment numbers you cite. Stability of employment is only being maintained by the current surge in natural resource extraction, and that, as we both know, can shut off almost overnight, like it did in the early '80's. That is why I was asking you what the end game was. Where are we going to be 20 years down the road?

What? Oklahoma's Alfred P. Murrah federal building doesn't count as US soil? Is that the new [color:#3366FF][b][u]Obama Geography[/u][/b][/color] that they're teaching the kids now'days?

No offense, but 25 years is a pretty long term crisis.

Geeze, how about the D.C. sniper and the School shootings. Man you and Steve are really reaching.

Piper

Piper, you think calling bombing two embassies, attacking a ship and blowing up a barracks full of troops terrorist attacks on the US is reaching?

What exactly would YOU call a terrorist attack on the US if your embassies, ships and troops aren't an attack on the US?

Steve you're reaching when you count those, which should be counted but don't count the attacks that have occured while Bush has been in office. Do you wish to count the attacks on humm Vees?

Is that too hard to understand?

Piper

I don't consider the petroleum industry to have been in "crisis" for the last 25 years. No one that I knew that lost their job in the early '80's has remained unemployed until the present petroleum boom. They all got jobs in different sectors, some of them much better jobs. And, of course, the petrochem compaies did not collapse (though there was a good bit of consolidation).

As opposed to a Jerry Fallwell type heterosexual, who wants a Constitutional Amendment that says 'marriage is between one man and one woman'...how insecure can one be? As opposed to a Pat Robertson 'christian', who is so greedy that he went into a gold-mining venture in Liberia with Charles Taylor...just think 'blood diamonds'. I guess all those checks, money orders, and love offerings weren't enough...he found time to do business with a butcher. As opposed to a self-righteous anti-abortion nut who holds up large photographs of a bloody, dead fetus in a crowd that includes small children, who are not responsible for this and shouldn't be exposed to this violent content. They hold these photos up for all the children to see...hypocrites who care more about an unborn child than the kids who are standing right in front of them. No thanks. The truth is what it is.

Gadfly, you're right of course that that particular oil crash was only about five or six years long....which seems like a lot longer if you're in it, I can assure you. Changed my legal specialty from oil and gas law to commercial bankruptcy.


I've been hearing about the decline of heavy manufacuring in the US since I was a small boy in the early 60s.....

Predicting the end game would require a crystal ball.....I mean, who would have predicted 25 years ago the extent to which the internet would come to dominate both commercial and private life?

Some similarly unexpectedly important innovation may shuffle the whole economic deck. The emerging markets of China and India are properly seen as opportunities....hundreds of millions of new consumers....find something they need (or you can convince them they need ;)) and sell it to them.

I don't think the entrepreneurial spirit is dead in the US....we're still smart, creative, competitive people who need not fear global competition. I wish we would show more initiative in litigating against protectionist countries under the WTO, but tariffs won't turn back the clock to the time after the War when we were the only intact industrial collosus in the west.....that was a happy historical accident.

"I respectfully disagree...he's done his damndest to drive this country into the ground. His administration has been the most crooked, corrupt, and treasonous in my lifetime. And I personally believe Bush is a puppet, a moron, a liar, a thief, and a mass murderer. It will take our country decades to recover, if we ever can, from his presidency. His legacy will include being a leadership that answered to nobody but itself!"

All these kind words coming from a person that doesn't like being called names or told that he truly is full of chit. You whine about not being able to carry on a decent debate here; but I challenge you to see how long a conservative poster would be tolerated at Huffingtonpost or DailyKos.
Moving right along here..I see by the above quote that you think GWB is the equivalent of the anti-Christ and that he willfully, joyfully, and intentionally has tried to bring this nation down. You and your hypocrisy really slay me. If he and his ilk are in it just for the oil $$$$$$ would it makes sense to destroy the goose that lays the goleden egg? Your are no more than a liberal, deluded troll; one of the "true believers" ; one of the pod people from the far secular/progessive left and it is your kind that wants to bring this nation down and set up a socialist state empowered by a one-world government. You are to be pitied. And defeated at every turn.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

In essence, he was a child left behind!!

so you think attacks on US troops' humvees in a war/occupation zone....which we instantly and forcefully retaliate for....are in any way analogous to massive unpunished peacetime attacks on US diplomats and troops and ships in neutral countries or at sea.


the statement from Antlers was that there were no attacks on the US after the WTC....which BTW was also unpunished except by a criminal prosecution on a few al Qs we caught here.

In fact, there were devastating attacks on two embassies, a warship and a barracks, with massive loss of life and no real retaliation. That was the Clinton legacy.

If you think there's a parallel between that and attacks on the troops in Iraq, you need to restudy the definition of parallel.

Whenever anyone does that, they hire the Chinese to manufacture it.

Quite right, Piper. You are absolutely correct. My bad.

More 'reaching' and distortion...things Bush is very good at. I don't believe the member who made the original post that pointed out "no attacks on American soil since 9/11" was intent on including domestic terrorism (Americans versus Americans)...nor was I. We 'are' after all, talking about Iraq, and foreign policy, among other things. 9/11 was a 'foreign' terrorist attack, and the original poster made his comment in that light, and my subsequent comments were made in that light also. Nice try though!

you can't tariff yourself out of being uncompetitive....if you can't make anything better and cheaper than China, you better get out of the making business and into the thinking business

The people in the thinking business have decided that they want the Chinese to do their making for them.

I don't think it's too hard for most people to understand the difference between critisizing the post itself, and calling the poster names. No, it doesn't make sense to 'cut the head off of the golden goose'...but they are! As for the rest of your post, and your personal attacks on me...YAWN.

Antlers,

i kind of liked your insights for awhile. Don't judge us all by what a few idiots do or say. We aren't all Fallwell's or Robertson's

I've always wondered about what mentality it takes to troll around the internet, looking for new sites to crash, and see how quickly you can become a laughingstock to hundreds of people.

Do you, like, go back and post the link to the Campfire threads on leftie sites and say "look at these dumass rubes who still respect the president and want to win the war?"


Do you own a firearm? Do you hunt with it? Do you have any "antlers"? Other than spouting standard issue juvenalia from MoveOn or DU, have you anything at all to contribute to the site?

Just looked it up,.. the average yearly pay in China is 25,000 yuan,.. which translates into $3,600.

When Americans begin accepting $3,600 a year for their labor, America will be able to compete with the Chinese.

Until then, forget it.

"personal attacks"

I believe that is the only reason you showed up. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Or does the shoe fit a little tight?


Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

Steve,

My point was you can't excuse Reagan for the attack in Beirut, blame Clinton for the Attacks under his watch and then turn around and give Bush a pass on 9-11.

There are a lot of definitions of terror and terror attacks and you are right it's not fair to count attacks on the Military as terrror attacks. I guess if they hit the embassy in the green zone its just war as usual.

Someone else mentioned the Oak city bombing and if we want to count that then there are others that have to be counted as well.

It's really an useless argument, since the terrorists could care less who is in power when they have the chance to strike and they will strike again at the softest target they can find.

I enjoyed the chat but its cocktail time in Texas.

You take care and I'll see ya later

Piper

Don't stray from the truth...something Bush often does...I said "no attacks 'on American soil' since the 1st WTC bombings"...not "no attacks on the US after the WTC" as you attribute to me.

antlers, the Campfire already has a resident "Oh No" chorus. They don't always make much sense, but they always have an intersting perspective and even an original thought from time to time. Regurgitating MoveOn talking points will eventually annoy even the people who agree with you. Developing a sense of humor wouldn't hurt, either, or did the evil BushCo slash Humor Enrichment Grants for dull, whiney leftists on top of all his other perfidy?

Agreed...I know you're not all "Fallwell's or Robertson's". No offense to you, sir.

As I explained to you once, but will do again.....embassies and warships, as a matter of law, ARE United States soil. As an apologist and surrender monkey, I am not surprised you would seek to minimize the significance of the destruction of two embassies and a suicide attack on a warship.

Kind of comes with the territory.

"
Agreed...I know you're not all "Fallwell's or Robertson's".



The fact that you even bring them up is just more evidence you're just a provacateur.....singing from the MoveOn play book.....gun-nuts....religious right....Bush Lied, People Died...we've seen this before.

we've seen this before
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He's one of the dumbest of the dumb, though!

Ennybuddy who don't lak Bush is one 'nem move-own.ork dummace's.

If its labor a Chinese peasant can do as well for $3600 a year as an American union worker can do for twenty times that, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who's going to end up getting that work.

your number is low, because its distorted by averaging in hundreds of millions of subsistence farmers, but even an average industrial wage would be a fraction of what it is here....as is the standard of living, and the cost of living.

Nah...His first post and his incohernet, non-factual,non-thinking ramblings thereafter did.

That Ok with you??

So all an American worker has to do is perform the labor of 20 Chinese and it'll all work out, eh?

Well,... I guess so,..but then, I've been reading stuff from you and Steve_NO for quite some time,.. so I'm used to it.

Maybe you just have a problem with rational discourse...I know...it's much easier to talk politics with people who 'agree' with you...it's more difficult to discuss politics with those who disagree with you. So, you resort to insulting me...instead of open minded criticism of my posts. It's easy to insult others over the internet because you don't have to deal with the repurcussions. If 'you' respect 'this' President, and 'you' want to obtain the unobtainable, at all deplorable costs to the people of this country...then go ahead. I don't.

Antler,

Just as I thought,you are a pro gay marriage,pro abotion,anti Judeo-Christian leftist.

Does it disturb you how transparent you are? You really must try harder to fit in before you succede in gaining any influence here.

Maybe you could tell us about handloading with your 'partner'.

Well maybe that's a bad idea since this is a family site.

Translation:

There's two kinds of people in the world,.. surly dentists from Alabama,.. and homos.

You are wrong...I realize you would rather discuss these things with people who 'agree' with you...that takes no effort...no cognitive exercise. How about discussing these things with someone who disagrees with you...without personal attacks and insults to the poster 'who doesn't go along with the herd'.

Bristoe,

That is a grossly simplistic.

You left out jewish illumunati and neocon lawyers.

How about 'you' state your opinions...and I'll state mine, and let's go on from there...without personal attacks and insults directed at members here?

antlers,

I am not part of your imaginary herd, such as the ones that exist at DailyKos. The way you came onto this forum was considered a personal attack by many who have been members longer than I. Most here don't agree with Bristoe and we trade insults all the time but it is in good fun and livens things up. And although I rarely agree with Bristoe I still respect him. You did not come here except to try to stir things up and now that you have you whine. Go home if you have one.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

As a matter of fact, 'you' took what the original poster said, and what I said, out of context...period. Insulting me, and calling me names doesn't make you right, either! Distorting the truth comes natural to Bush, so 'your' tactics don't surprise me either.

Well, at least we can say he's the worst in a couple generations.......





GW Bush is the most handled president in American history....He sure did have a lot of brains--unfortunately, none of them were his.......



Casey

Yeah...it sucks when somebody on the other side makes a valid point...doesn't it? The truth is what it is...like it or not.

"Incoherent, non-factual, non-thinking ramblings"...you must be describing President Bush. You hit the nail on the head.

It's the latest strategy--the best way to get the Clone Of Bush elected this November is to remake Bush.....by rewriting history.........





Casey

Are 'you' so insecure, and so inadequate, that you have to tear others down in order to build yourself up? Insulting others doesn't make 'you' right...not by a long shot. Is this a true 'discussion' forum, or not?

Did James Earl Carter get written out of the history books, as if in some Stalinesque purge? If you go look up "naive" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of our 39th President.

Mr Antlers,

Earlier when addressing another forum member you said:

"Maybe you just have a problem with rational discourse...I know...it's much easier to talk politics with people who 'agree' with you........".

Since I have been trying to follow your reasoning here and would like to engage in, (as you put it) "rational discourse" with you.

Will you please provide specific examples of when the President acted in the manner that you allege in the following statement?

"why would a parent teach their child to respect a president who is a liar, a thief, a moron, a puppet, and a mass murderer"?

The thread is about 'Bush's Legacy'...others were giving their opinions...I didn't consider them a personal attack, even though their opinions differed greatly from mine. So...how could me stating my opinions be considered a personal attack by anybody? That's a weak argument. Stirring things up, as you say, without personally attacking or insulting anybody here...and instead of open-minded criticism of my posts...I get 'you' with your "go home if you have one" comments. Maybe 'you' don't want discussion...maybe 'you' just want 'agreement' with your opinions.

actually, antler, there is a lively political discourse here....running the spectrum from capitalist anarchists, through every stripe of libertarian, Randist, paleo-con, neo-con, moderate, and even a few sane lefties. We have a dedicated anti-Bush crowd, as well as several varieties of anti-war folks. We engage in civilized, mostly reasoned debate....occasionally enlightening each other, rarely changing minds but enjoying the exercise.


what we don't have, and don't need, is people who don't share our sport, who come in here spouting silly juvenile slogans from leftie web sites on their very first post, and pretty much go downhill from there.

My reading comprehension must be off today because I'm fairly certain he posted that and THEN cried about name calling. Sometimes I just don't understand people.

George

I am fairly certain Mr. Antler was not alive when Carter was president.

Steve- As Bristoe pointed out, inventing a better mouse trap will not produce more jobs in the U.S., the mouse traps will be built by the lowest bidder, which won't be here. So we are still faced with the prospect of a larger portion of the population being unemployed in the future. They won't even be able to get jobs as ditch diggers, as we do excavation with heavy machinerey now (most of which is manufactured in Japan, S. Korea & Mexico). The social unrest from such unemployment would be a significant threat to our national security (remember, America was a lot closer to going Red or Facist during the Great Depression than most people realize, Hughie Long from your State being a prime example). At some point national interest will have to placed before corporate interest or we will not survive as a nation.

This has all been discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseum. You're opinions are predictable to the point that your participation in any debate is ultimately unnecessary. We could just fill in your part from a selection of George Soros' blatherings. My opinions are on record with 1800+ posts here. Use the search function if you are interested. I'll tell you right up front, it's probably not worth the effort, but knock yourself out if you have the time to kill.

Beyond that, I comment on the things that interest me and not what you or anybody else decides I should discuss.

Ya ain't got ta be bringin' Brother Huey into this.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S8elIlcrNf0

When national interest comes ahead of corporate interest, (a nice slogan I'm surprised Obama and the other redistributionists haven't picked up on yet)....what you're really saying is the state is going to take private property for the benefit of the masses, because when you start telling people what they can do with their own property....

That's been tried and we saw how it turned out.

The US will adapt, and the capitalist system will survive, and we will still be the richest most powerful country on earth.....unless the statists succeed in taking over the private sector in the interest of fairness and avoiding strife. When has government ever been more competent to make economic decisions than people who have their own money in the game?

Exactly. People speak of the economy of this country as if it's a static thing. It's always been an evolving machine that will continue to evolve. Those with desire to succeed will find a way to live life on their terms and those that have given up and thrown in the towel will fail. Always been that way, always will be that way.

They better hurry up or they're gonna have to go to China to do it,... and I'm sure China already has their own plans along those lines.

,..or de-evolve,....whichever the case may be.

The whining sure is static.

Your choice, enjoy your bed.

Yup , and protective tariffs are hardly as un-american as many of these later day free traders make out .

The American industrial machine was born and nurtured under tariffs basically from the birth of the republic , and well into the 20th century .

But back the original topic , if faced with a choice of obamessiah , hitlery , McCain , and Bush , I would vote Bush again . He does suck on a number of issues , but he still does suck less than the next go-round .

That's right,... Reagan wouldn't have tolerated the nonsense that's going on today.

http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1134

Ronald Reagan: Trade Realist


The conventional wisdom about Reagan as free enterprise, free market champion is largely true. But on trade policy, Reagan acted decisively in five instances to save major American industries from predatory foreign competition. Moreover, as I detailed in a 1994 article in Foreign Affairs, in each case, the temporary import relief succeeded spectacularly, resulting in improved performance by these industries and avoiding the captive market prices that conventional economics teaches will always flow from restricting foreign competition.

Reagan's best-known protective policy was a tariff placed in 1983 on imported motorcycles at the request of American icon Harley-Davidson. The tariffs were to last five years, but the company's comeback proceeded so quickly that it relinquished the final months of import relief. Moreover, the tariffs encouraged Japanese rivals like Honda and Kawasaki to build or expand factories in the United States and create still more jobs for American workers.

Yet in many ways, the Harley tariffs were the least important examples of Reagan's trade realism. Far more significant and beneficial for the U.S. economy were Reagan trade policies that helped revitalize the auto, machine tool, semiconductor, and steel industries.

Reagan's tactics were flexible. In autos, machine tools, and steel, his administration subjected foreign producers to so-called voluntary export restraints. In semiconductors, Reagan officials negotiated an agreement to secure a specific share of the Japanese market for U.S. companies, and then imposed tariffs on Japanese electronics imports when Tokyo briefly refused to keep a promise to halt semiconductor dumping.

You mean people like Ken Lay, and the cat from WorldCom (sorry, don't remember his name)? I don't like big government. That includes corporate government, and let's face it, corporations now control our government and manipulate policy to enhance their profits, with no thought to adverse impacts on the country. Corporations have no national loyalty. If America went tits up they would just relocate (many already have) and continue business as usual. Teddy Rooosevelt and the progressives recognized the danger of unbridled corporatism a hundred years ago. Why can't we see the danger now.

As an aside, I find it quite puzzling that you feel that it is perfectly okay for government to exercise control over individuals, to an extent on some issues that border on constitutional infringement, but believe that corporations should be beyond all government restraint.

Reagan really made you feel good to be an American. He'd have been a better president senile than anyone since him with their faculties intact.

That's easy...he LIED when he led our country into believing there were "WMD's" in Iraq, and they were "an imminent threat to us", and took us to war based on those lies. He is a thief because his policies were responsible for 'shaking down' middle class America more than anybody ever has. Our disposable income is practically nill now; higher education is so high now, insurance is so high now-these necessities take more money out of our pockets now than ever before. The dollar is so devalued now, because he has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from China to 'fight' in Iraq, and the interest rate is practically non-existant because Wall Street wants the 'principal too'; and oil has gone up in price 1000% during his term, and these energy prices are spreading throughout our economy. He has releived millions of us from our money, in every way possible. He is a moron with his "nucular" as opposed to 'nuclear', and his "strategery" to win the war on "tara". Remember the moronic look on his face when he first learned of the 9/11 attacks? What a leader! He is completely out of touch with the mass of America. He is a puppet for big business, especially big oil...he gives them whatever they want. Paybacks for all the hundreds of millions they contributed to his campaign coffers. After his second election win, when he didn't have to be concerned with winning again, that's when he turned big business loose on us...remember, these ridiculous prices didn't start skyrocketing until after he won the second time. Tax breaks for multi-billion dollar corporations?...sure...let 'em have it. Taxpayers to subsidize billion dollar corporations?...sure...let 'em have it. All at the expense of the American taxpayer. And he is responsible for over 4000 American dead in Iraq, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis, or more.
But don't take 'my' word for it...do your own research...it's available in volumes on the internet.

'You' don't want people who feel as strongly about their convictions as 'you' do about yours.

Well, it is an undisputed fact that therewere WMDs in Iraq. That there were none found after the US invasion does not alter that fact. And Bush didn't say Iraq was an imminent threat, and your putting the words within quotation marks doesn't alter that fact either. Cheney has been quoted as saying that but the full quote shows that he immediately corrected himself. Like Casey Stengel said: "You could look it up".

Thats a nice way of saying "If your'e not an outdoorsman, your'e an idiot, and your opinion doesn't count." I agree. Put up or shut up.

The Mickey Mouse Club incarnate. How else do you explain it?


Without sugar5coating it, Bush sucks.

You can't get around the debt numbers and if you try, you're nothing more than a partisan hack who sucks on GW's little one.

It's BS, why do you guys persist on defending him? Do you have a little one as well?

At least have some resemblence of reality and admit how much we suck. To do otherwise makes you a party hack more concerned with the party than you are with the country.

dude....I'm guessing about a .16 or "Antlerless" is a blood relation!!

No, I prefer to talk to grownups who don't spout half-baked BS speeches they either memorize or cut and paste from the idiots at MoveOn.

There are plenty of people on this site I disagree with every day, through thousands of posts. Most of whom have some thoughts of their own, which I respect even if I disagree with them. I have no respect for idiotic drivel which my 13 year old daughter can disprove with a few minutes effort. Maybe she will, because, frankly you're not worth my time.....I've had these arguments a hundred times over the years with better men than you....you can look them up.

The BS of it is we would probably hang out and have a hell of a time but we can't, for the life of us, see eye to eye on the direction the party is heading.

Corporations are regulated in a hundred ways that wouldn't be tolerated or constitional done to an individual because that's the price of a corporate franchise, which is a privilege.

The fact that some individuals are corrupt or inept managers is utterly irrelevant.....you don't seriously claim government is less corrupt or more efficient do you?

The difference is this....the investors in a corporation have entrusted their capital to a board and a group of managers. Its theirs, not yours, and not the government's and what you or anybody else who ain't got skin in the game thinks they "ought" to do is irrelevant. You don't like it.....start your own corporation with your or your friends money....But don't come messing with mine.

See what I mean? Steve is probably 10 fold smarter than me. We disagree on several huge fundemental downfalls of the party but I'm betting if we ever hung out and had a beer, we could care less about the insignificance our lives play in everyday politics(mine so more thyan Steve's) and would be more concernened with with hunting issues than something we have little control over.


Sometimes it just seems so irrelevant for us to argue such inane point. Afterall, what can we do about them?

Steve - "W" did nothing to advance the agenda or spirit of Kyoto let alone any semblance of responsible stewardship of the friggin' planet

Dude, the United States senate unanimously rejected the treaty. We don't do spirits or agendas, we do laws and treaties and every voting senator said no. Before Bush even ran for president.

so, like get over it. in thirty years, people will laugh at this human-caused global warming foolishness like the Salem witch trials.

I have been invested in a corporation, Steve. The Fortune 500 company that I worked for paid their portion of the 401k in stock. Luckily, I had the option to convert it to a diversified fund. The company lost major bucks on a couple of overseas projects, the CEO imbezzled 25 million dollars, and the Board of Directors rewarded him with a 80 million dollar "golden parachute" when they canned him (wonder what they didn't want him talking about?). Stock dropped from $98 a share to $17 a share in less than two weeks.

But, enough about corporate fiscal responsibility, and back to conflicting corporate and national interests. The companies that were selling scrap iron and oil to Japan in the late 1930's when the U.S. government and Japan were in a very public dispute over Japan's military build up and invasion of Manchuria, were they within their corporate rights and not in conflict with U.S. national interests in conducting these sales?

You are right, your reading comprehension is off today...I specifically stated that I thought calling OTHER MEMBERS here names, and insulting 'them', and attacking 'them' personally wasn't in the best interest of a true 'discussion' forum. Criticize the post, but not the poster. There 'is' a difference.

Hey Antler

How's the hunting where you are? I hope you have a good up-coming season.

Now to your assertion that President Bush lied about WMD. If it is true that he did lie then every other country on the UN Security Council lied too. They all said Saddam had WMD and France, Germany, and Russia should have known best since they had companies illegally selling him banned equipment. If Saddam wasn't so arrogant he would be alive and well running his country. Raping women and mutilating his opposition. All he had to do was let the inspectors in and there wouldn't have been a reason to go in.

Mr.Antlers,

Just a few comments on your GWB assertions:

"That's easy...he LIED when he led our country into believing there were "WMD's" in Iraq, and they were "an imminent threat to us", and took us to war based on those lies.

If you had done your "internet research" here Mr. Antlers, you would have discovered that EVERYONE (i.e. Dems., Repuplicans, British Intellegence, CIA etc, etc,).... believed there were WMD's in Iraq.


"He is a thief because his policies were responsible for 'shaking down' middle class America more than anybody ever has. Our disposable income is practically nill now; higher education is so high now, insurance is so high now-these necessities take more money out of our pockets now than ever before."

Please be specific here Mr. Antlers and tell us what Bush policies were responsible for "shaking down" the middle class.
And also, how he as a "thief" has personally profited from the other increased costs that you mention?


The dollar is so devalued now, because he has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from China to 'fight' in Iraq, and the interest rate is practically non-existant because Wall Street wants the 'principal too';

So am I to understand that GWB is a "thief" because Congress approved appropriation requests to fund the war in Iraq?
Hmm.........

and oil has gone up in price 1000% during his term, and these energy prices are spreading throughout our economy. He has releived millions of us from our money, in every way possible.

I realize that his daughter's wedding was expensive, but did GWB really have to "relieve millions of us from our money" to pay for it?

Please be specific and tell us all how GWB directly affected the rise in energy costs in this country.

He is a moron with his "nucular" as opposed to 'nuclear', and his "strategery" to win the war on "tara". Remember the moronic look on his face when he first learned of the 9/11 attacks? What a leader! He is completely out of touch with the mass of America.

Are "moron's" capable of graduating from Yale University and the Harvard Business School and flying jet aircraft?

Tell me Mr. Antlers, what is your educational background?



He is a puppet for big business, especially big oil...he gives them whatever they want. Paybacks for all the hundreds of millions they contributed to his campaign coffers. After his second election win, when he didn't have to be concerned with winning again, that's when he turned big business loose on us...remember, these ridiculous prices didn't start skyrocketing until after he won the second time. Tax breaks for multi-billion dollar corporations?...sure...let 'em have it. Taxpayers to subsidize billion dollar corporations?...sure...let 'em have it. All at the expense of the American taxpayer.

I'll assume this is just an off the wall "rant" on your part and let it go at that.

And he is responsible for over 4000 American dead in Iraq, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis, or more.

Are all the other Presidents who sent American soldiers into battle murderers also?

If not, why not?

But don't take 'my' word for it...do your own research...it's available in volumes on the internet."

Mr. Antlers, I suggest you expand your information gathering horizon a little beyond the "internet"...........you may be surprised at what you discover out there in the real world!

Well Mr. "fairly certain"...you are wrong about that.

Well...that goes both ways! You don't want debate...you want agreement. So, since you have 1800+ posts here, does that mean that your opinions are more valuable than other peoples opinions are? They aren't.

With all due respect, I'm not gonna like get over it.

I love the outdoors too much for that. I believe in a Creator who meant for us to do right by His Creation. I was a friggin' Boyscout.

You can chirp all you want about the 95-0 vote, but I invite you to just go ahead and google the words "Bush record environment" and honestly look at what hundreds of thousands of sincere intelligent people have to say about Bush and OUR environment - yours and mine - your family's and mine.

How does the water taste in your city? How is the air in your city? Were there noticeably fewer dove when you went hunting last September relative to the years before that? Do you think my fave Republican of all time, Teddy Roosevelt, would be cool with W's record on the environment? Do you think that some concepts are more important than profits?

Just two weeks ago Sentator McCain was in Oregon talkin' smack about W's handling of Carbon emissions. I'm not pullin' this stuff outta my arse! YOUR friggin' candidate for W's third term is articulating the same sentiment as countless other environmental organizations.

And by the way, I am an avid history buff. I don't know anyone who laughs about the Salem Witch Trials, let alone, the prospect of environmental catastrophe.

"Were" WMD's...like in 'after' the first Gulf War, is not the same as there "are" WMD's...like the lead-up to this Iraq War. If you go to war, based on a 'fact', and that 'fact' turns out to be a LIE...what do you do? I guess, if you're Bush, you stay there anyway and fight, and kill over 4000 of your own countrymen, and spend nearly a TRILLION dollars that your country doesn't have, and wreck the economy of your country.

Well, the topic of this thread on this outdoor forum is Bush's Legacy...you tell me, what does Bush's Legacy have to do with the outdoors?

Its theirs, not yours, and not the government's and what you or anybody else who ain't got skin in the game thinks they "ought" to do is irrelevant. You don't like it.....start your own corporation with your or your friends money....But don't come messing with mine.

Oh, and by the way, I don't suppose you were invested in any of the S & L's that tanked in the '80's or have any interest in any of the mortage lenders today do you? If so you have been the recipient of MY money, deprived from me by the Federal Gov. through taxation and devaluation of the dollar to bail out high rollers who were just investing for their "best finacial interests". To quote Roger Waters: "i'm alright Jack, keep your hands off of my stack"

Just for the record, Jimmy Carter says "nukular" as well. JEC may be the worst US President in my lifetime, but he is not an unintelligent man.

You haven't disproven anything, despite your assertion that your 13 year old daughter can. I didn't know we were arguing...is that what we're doing, in your opinion? I thought we were simply having some quite lively discussion and debate!

Damn hard to argue with logic.

Thanks...I hope you have a good up-coming season too. Waterfowling was great here last year.

But, no other countries except ours and England went in (93% of coalition forces were from the U.S.). There were some smaller numbers from powerhouses like Tonga, El Salvadore, and Lithuania. Lots of evil dictators rape women and mutilate their opposition...do we need to invade them too?

No other countries except the rest of the known world LOL


U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

ALBANIA: 120 non-combat troops, patrolling Mosul airport; no plans to withdraw.

ARMENIA: 46 soldiers serving under Polish command through 2006; no withdrawal plan.

AUSTRALIA: Roughly 550 troops and support in Iraq, plus several hundred others in Persian Gulf region; no dates set for pullout.

AZERBAIJAN: 150 troops; no withdrawal plans.

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: 36 ordnance experts rotated every six months; no plans to withdraw.

BRITAIN: About 8,000 troops in southern Iraq, roughly 2,000 others in Gulf region; government and military deny media reports that 2,000 will be withdrawn starting in May.

BULGARIA: Pulled out 380 infantry troops in December; will deploy 120 non-combat troops by mid-March to guard refugee camp.

CZECH REPUBLIC: 100 military police training Iraqis; mission extended to end of 2006.

DENMARK: 530 troops patrolling southern Iraqi city of Basra; mission expires July 1.

EL SALVADOR: 380 soldiers doing humanitarian work in Hillah; no plans to withdraw.

ESTONIA: 34 troops, mostly infantry, serving under U.S. command in Baghdad; mission extended to end of 2006.

GEORGIA: 858 combat forces, medics and support personnel serving under U.S. command in Baqouba; no plans to withdraw.

ITALY: About 2,600 troops, most in Nasiriyah; government plans to draw down gradually, with contingent halved by June and civilian replacements to be deployed.

JAPAN: 600 non-combat troops based in Samawah to purify water; government and military have not confirmed media reports that pullout could begin in March.

KAZAKHSTAN: 27 military engineers; no plans for withdrawal.

LATVIA: 135 soldiers, mostly infantry; mission expires at end of 2006.

LITHUANIA: 60 soldiers, mostly infantry, serving with Danish contingent; mission to last at least through end of 2006.

MACEDONIA: 32 troops providing security; no plans to withdraw.

MOLDOVA: 11 bomb defusal experts; mission expires in July; extension uncertain.

MONGOLIA: 160 troops; no withdrawal plans.

NETHERLANDS: 15 soldiers as part of NATO mission training police, army officers; mandate expires in August.

POLAND: 900 non-combat troops; commands multinational force south of Baghdad; could be extended into next year.

ROMANIA: 863 troops, including 400 infantry, 150 mine experts, 100 military police, 50 military intelligence plus medics and U.N. guards; no plans to withdraw.

SLOVAKIA: 107 troops stationed in Hillah in Polish sector, mostly engaged in demining; no plans to withdraw.

SOUTH KOREA: 3,270 troops training Iraqis; security for U.N.; 1,000 to withdraw this year; mission expires at end of 2006.

The 'real world'? You mean the Republican World...where all Republicans are good and all Democrats are bad...where your opinions and observations are 'fact'...where invalidating a Republican talking point is labeled a 'diversion'...where everything that happens that's bad for America is the fault of the Democrats...no thanks. Your reality and mine appear to be two very different things. Incidentally...the idiot 9/11 hijackers also flew jet aircraft...and Ivy League degrees 'can' be bought.

I'm glad "the rest of the known world", all 7% of 'em, were there 'in force' to help us out. As stated earlier, U.S. forces made up 93% of the coalition forces. It's good to see such dedication 'in numbers' from our allies. You can certainly tell from these numbers just how committed they were.

Yeah, about 100% more committed than liberals. LOL

Gee Whiz Steve, even though I almost never agree with you, or at least rarely admit it, and may be one of the crazy 8, I'm with you all the way this time.

Or at least now maybe we've got someone to counter balance us for Stan!!!

I was cruising the internet and I found a picture of Antlers. How dare you say he is a troll and doesn't own any guns!

"Remember the moronic look on his face when he first learned of the 9/11 attacks?"

To the best of my memory when George Bush was informed of the attacks(saw a clip on TV) he was sitting in on a grammar school class and gave all the appearance of a man trying to hold back a river of tears. For you to call that "a moronic look" releases me from any guilt in refering to you as a sub-human organism. The more you post the more your true colors come out. Maybe I let my emotions take sway too often but when YOU are the one that demands honest discussion and then makes statements like that it just strenghtens my opinion of your reason for being here and any regrets I may have had for flying off the handle just went out the window. You are a zero, and that's about the kindest thing I can say about you at this time. I'm done wasting PC time with you and your ilk. You really remind me of a guy named Frostbite.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

Antlers, welcome to the fire. I apologize for some of the moronic insults you have endured here already. Most of the forums here are very polite and informative. You just happened to step into a political discussion where you were outnumbered. I had stuff to do today and long ago I quit letting internet pisssing matches pull me in to the point that I neglected business. At any rate, I agreed with a lot of what you said in the first twenty or so pages that I read before deciding I didn't have time to catch up. Please don't let a few here drive you off. There are plenty of posters here who share your disdain for big government/big business and the stranglehold it has on our fair country.

Be advised that most of these old boys are fairly decent on the other forums. They just step into some phonebooth somewhere when they see a political thread and wallah! Suddenly they emerge as Super Assclown, defender of all that is big business and big government. Of course some of them are just in love with Bush and that's as far as it goes.

At any rate...party on.

Dude, this is a family site. It just ain't the place for such like that.

Excellent post. You forgot to add (unless I missed it) the appointment of two young conservative supreme court justices, the discovery of the "oil for food" UN scandal, and what was basically a pocket veto, by allowing it expire, of the assault weapons ban.

The "no child left behind program" has good and bad points. Unfortunately, all that most people hear from the left is that it was an unfunded program pushed through by Bush. That's not quite true. This is a nice topic for a separate threat because I doubt that this can be intelligently discussed in this thread. There is IMHO no shortage of money in public education. One of the problems is how the money is allocated.

It's also a myth that teachers are all liberals, the NEA certainly is, but the rank and file (especially the older ones) are quite often conservative.

Another major problem in education is also one that I see on display in most malls and restaurants, kids today have little or no discipline and parents that don't know how to discipline their children. The result is that kids aren't prepared for the structure of school. To combat that parents look for medical excuses and prescription drugs. You can't go back and fix these problems very easily. A lot of parents at this point just figure it's the school's problem to deal with. I've watched this for most of my life, through the eyes of my parents who were both 30yr+ public school teachers (both republicans). My mother who has already retired and decided to go back to work to teach 3rd grade spends up to half her day dealing with the few chronic discipline problems in her class to the point that it takes away time from the others.

We spend the most money per child on students that will likely drop-out as soon as they can either voluntarily or through expulsion. Why do we do this? Why is it that private schools seem to do a better job? They don't, they just don't have to take deal with the bad apples, they get tossed out.

Well, so much for starting a new thread.

Mr.Edwards,

I have no idea what your credentials are, but I think I can fairly say that reading comprehension is not one of your strongest suits.

Throughout all of his venomous, hateful and completely unfounded rantings about the President of the United States, Mr. Antlers rarely indicated a (as you put it) "disdain for big government/big business."

Had this been his central premise, I'm confident that both he and his opinions would have been treated respectfully by most of the contributors on this site.

May I remind you that Mr. Antlers initial reply on this thread (shown below)was nothing more than a regurgitation of the Code Pink/Cindy Sheehan talking points and was responded to as such by some of the more astute members of the Campfire forum.

Now Mr. Edwards will you please enlighten us with regard to what YOU "agreed with" in the following remarks by Mr. Antlers?


Mr. Antlers speaking:

"With all due respect, ALL politicians are worthless, self-serving rat bastards. But one thing is certain, in my opinion...our LYING president has led our country into a war for oil which profits ultra-wealthy robber barrons and corporate kingpins so they can live lives of opulent luxury, and leave the wealth to their children, tax free, so their lives too can be one of sickening narcissism...all at the expense of the people of our country, and the blood of our soldiers. We have spent nearly a TRILLION dollars on this war that has made our citizens NO SAFER from terrorists; a war that has probably killed over a hundred thousand people. It was misrepresented from the beginning, and has only 'riled up' the radical muslims even more. Life in Iraq is worse now, not better, than before. We survived a sneak attack, mobilized for war, and WON the war against our enemies in World War II in less time than we have been in Iraq.
This 'conservative' president took a fiscal surplus, that was left to him by a 'liberal' president, and has spent more money than any administration in history. He has widened the gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' more than at any time in our history, except during the 'Great Depression'. He has rewarded those that contributed so much to his campain coffers (Big Oil), and we have seen oil go from $12 dollars a barrel...to over $130 dollars a barrel during his terms. Our economy is so far in the tank because of him, and his administration, that people are now having to decide between heating/cooling their homes and buying gasoline so they can drive to work...or, instead, buying food and medicine for their families. Before this president Bush, much of the world admired America and aspired to much of what it represented...now, after 5 years of death, destruction, and occupation in Iraq, and his disasterous fiscal and foreign policies in general...he will go down as one of the worst presidents, if not 'the worst', in our history. The legacy of the current Bush is no different than the legacy of organized crime. A country that was run by, and ruined by, corporations, special interests, and money...that's his legacy."

It is not a question of tariffs curing problems. It is a question of fair play and of national interest. The men who work in manufacturing have been getting SCREWED by tactics like the Value Added Tax and by state partial ownership and sponsorship of foreign companies.

And for decades our political elite have turned their heads away and said nothing. It is a disgrace.

And a damned good question for you might be why the countries that engage in these tactics are doing so much better than we are. We have been bleeding manufacturing jobs to these very same companies and countries that employ the tactics you, and those like you, say won't work. And then they use the money from the trade deficit to buy up our very own corporate infrastructure.

The real world says that limited protectionism works. And it works well.



No we haven't.

We have had 'historically low' unemployment rates since they last changed the way unemployment was calculated under the Clinton administration. Right now we are running a little over 12% unemployment if you use the 'historical method', which is not a 'historically low' number.



And why is that Steve?

Why is it that Ben Bernanke and GW Bush turn over heaven and earth to salvage the toxic mortgage backed securities and the dolts on Wall Street who bought and sold them, but do nothing to ensure that American workers go up against workers, companies, and countries that play by the same rules we do?

The Value Added Tax employed by countries like Japan and the European companies has been nothing less than a 15% import tariff on American goods.

China insists on partial ownership of most major corporate investments in their country. We trade with and enrich a communist entity every time we move a company to their shores.

And still these so called 'Free Trade' ideologues insist that American workers go up against this stacked deck each and every day. And not one damned one of them fights for American companies and workers.

It is a disgrace. It is worse than those moronic journalists who insisted on a 'neutral' stance in regards to the wars we are currently engaged in. They serve an ideology without a debt of gratitude or any type of loyalty to the system and country that nurtured them.

And if protectionist sentiment sweeps them all out of office and puts them and their Wall Street buddies bankrupt they have no one but themselves to blame. They could have insisted on a fair and free marketplace and instead allowed the people they are supposed to represent to be SCREWED in the name of Free Trade.

If what I have seen over the last 15 years is free trade brother you can have it. It is a stacked deck. The system is gamed. Tear it down.

Will

watch4bear:

Dude, you left out Canada! They've got troops there, too.

Oh, and Mexico. Our trading partner and ally to the south. You left Mexico off the list.

Let's see. How many troops does Mexico have fighting alongside our soldiers? I'm trying to remember.

- Tom

It is Iraq! We didn't need the Mexicans. There is no grass to cut!

You'll hear it in this forum and in other places over and over again. An American corporate executive has no other loyalty than the loyalty he gives to his shareholders.

Not loyalty to his country. Not loyalty to his fellow Americans. And certainly not loyalty to the employees of his corporation.

The only loyalty an American corporate executive has is to the shareholders of his corporation. He does not care who the shareholders are or what country they come from. They can, in some cases, be Arabs who use some of their profits from the corporation to fund terrorists.

At the levels of corporate executive power that people like Dick Cheney inhabit, love of country and patriotism are abstract ideals that must always, always be kept in perspective, relative to their primary loyalties, which are to the shareholders of their corporations.

It seems to me now that the idea of America being a country where Americans work to protect each other and support each other and are loyal to each other has been nothing more for all these years than a Hollywood fantasy.

America, it seems to me, is now merely a location on the globe where people happen to live.

I often wonder how we can get so many young men and women to fight for us in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. How we can get them to risk and sometimes lay down their lives.

When I know that they're not going to get much, if any protection, or any loyalty in return when they come home and take off their uniforms.

- Tom

Excellent post Penguin. Outstanding.

Most teachers are members because they want the protection the NEA provides. Most members don't give a damm about what anything but their own chapter does, except for other schools ratcheting up the average salaries so they can compare them to their own and get them up. The NEA leadership sucks in a few who listen to the party line and become their leaders of the future. Most unfortunate.

The NEA is one worthless organization.

Ethan thank you, I believe that is the first time you have ever agreed with a post of mine.

Tom, I have been puzzled by this phenomena myself. Corporate leaders have been allowed to adopt this attitude. And it is a shame that business leaders have chosen to turn their back on the very country that allowed them to succeed to such a level.

I am not saying that our businesses should be sheltered or coddled. But I firmly believe that American workers and companies could have made this adjustment to a larger and less expensive labor pool without the massive displacement that has taken place. And a good bit of it has come as the result of allowing other countries to set their rules and then not reacting in kind. One sided free trade resulted in an excruciating collapse in American manufacturing.

Will American engineers and manufacturing workers have to accept lower real wages? Probably. That adjustment should have been a fait accompli by this time. Instead we, and our government, instead tried to maintain a higher standard of living that was probably realistic through a massive increase in debt load. The entire system has gotten into very dire straits because of this.

But the adjustment should have been gradual. And it should have occurred naturally. And in the process we should have insisted that the other countries that were coming on line to compete against us were held to the same standard as we were. Instead we allowed other countries to impost strict tariffs on our goods and services by many different methods while we insisted on turning them loose in our marketplace.

What has resulted is a manufacturing base that instead of adapting and evolving into a sleeker more competitive sector that branched out into new and different products was simply allowed to collapse entirely. We wrote off manufacturing and production completely and allowed other countries to it over. What has resulted is that they have expanded their tax and employment base. They have become workers and savers like I mentioned a few posts back.

We decided to sell our houses to each other at increasingly high debt loads and call it the 'new economy'... bah! You see where that got us don't you Steve?

Will

My, my...lots of indignant blathering going on here...YAWN. Obviously our perceptions of this event are quite different. He sat there with that moronic look on his face for, what, 17 minutes? And did absolutely nothing! Such a huge tragedy for America, and 'our leader' was at a complete loss. More insults from you, as opposed to just being critical of the post itself...'how original'...and 'what a surprise'.

I appreciate your thoughtful and well stated post. And I agree with what you are saying. Politics and religion are Pandora's Boxes...probably better left alone...but rarely are. Emotions run high on these topics...from BOTH sides.

Antlers, when you make the day shift there at Blockbuster, I'll maybe care about your opinions on world leaders and their facial expressions. Because, I'm sure, you've accomplished so much.

Fly....no, I wasn't. As I said earlier, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing failure. Or protecting favored groups from economic reality.

Deposit insurance is paid for by member banks, not by taxpayers. That system was overpowered by the massive failures of the 80s.

I threw up a little in my mouth when I saw it.

I know this post wasn't directed at me, but since you mentioned me, I will respond accordingly. "A country that was run by, and ruined by, CORPORATIONS, special interests, and money...that's his legacy". And "he has rewarded those that contributed so much to his campaign coffers (Big Oil) and we have seen oil go from $12 dollars a barrel...to over $130 dollars a barrel during his terms". And 'you' criticize someone else for 'their' reading comprehension? No...that's not a "disdain" for big business at all...is it? "Venemous, hateful"? You've just described many of the reasponses that I've received from my posts. "Completely unfounded rantings"...well 'you' sure haven't disproven anything that I've said...that's for sure...and neither has anyone else here.

Will, do you have a cite for this, because you're the first person I've heard make that claim, and if it had any substance I would think it would be shouted from the mountaintops by the MSM....who have had a hard time ignoring years of unprecedented low unemployment......so how about a real world cite for this statement, compadre?

"We have had 'historically low' unemployment rates since they last changed the way unemployment was calculated under the Clinton administration. Right now we are running a little over 12% unemployment if you use the 'historical method', which is not a 'historically low' number."

Do 'you' have ANYTHING substantive to add to discussions with me? Or are personal insults and attacks directed at me the 'best' that 'you' can do?

antlers is a Homo lalalalalala best i can do

Sure why not. It isn't like it is a big secret or anything.

The change was made in 1994. The change has been adhered to since that time. Shadowstats.com has made a living out of following the original calculations versus the changes made since that time. While the numbers they put out are not without some level of controversy, they are generally believed by most economists to be in the ball park.

Even by BLS's broadest number of unemployed we are at around 9%. And this is after the change in 94 to the number of discouraged workers.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/54

QUOTE: Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.
END QUOTE

CPI, inflation, was also changed under the Clinton administration. A change was made as of January to the seasonal adjustment made to CPI. Kind of fits don't it?

I mean you didn't actually believe that Q1 2008 had the lowest core inflation of any Q1 in the last 5 years? Did you?

The fact that these changes have been made to the calculation procedure is not debatable. Neither is the fact these changes paint a far rosier picture than is warranted. You may argue, as some economists do, that the shadowstats numbers slightly exaggerate them. But not by a lot. Like I said, they are generally believed to be 'in the ballpark'.

Will

EDIT: I should add that a previous change in the unemployment calculation was made in 1983 at the behest of the Reagan administration. One of the changes was to count military personnel as 'employed' rather than leaving them out completely. This helped to juice the numbers as well.

This is a pretty good thread.

It would be a better thread if some of you guys - and you know who you are - would stop feeding the troll.

- Tom

If the change was made in 94, that means Bush's boom has had lower unemployment rates than Clinton's...measured by the same standards. Right?

The rest of that article, much as I like Walter Williams, is basically pulled directly out of...well, thin air. The netherworld, by definition, is unknown. And do we count the millions employed illegally, or in the crime business?

Comparing apples with apples, the rate is lower than during the late 90s, when everybody was raving about the wonderful economy. You can use whatever index blows up your skirt, but I'll stick to the standard one that economists and the media use.....with all due respect to you and Walter.

EDIT: I should add that a previous change in the unemployment calculation was made in 1983 at the behest of the Reagan administration. One of the changes was to count military personnel as 'employed' rather than leaving them out completely. This helped to juice the numbers as well.

Will, I remember when that was done. Since they are, demonstrably, employed...that change seemed then and still does now to more accurately reflect the economic situation. Don't you agree? I mean it does reflect a higher number, but isn't it a more reflective number of the real situation? Seems to me it is.

Well unemployment flirted with 4% under this new method when Clinton was experiencing his 'boom'. So we have remained a tad over this during the Bush 'boom'.

But comparing Bush to Clinton is one thing. Comparing Bush to anyone before Clinton is impossible because of the change to the calc method. Which is exactly what so many Bush backers like Larry Kudlow do. Even when he knows damned well that it is an apples oranges calc.

Same with CPI. It has been defined away.

Will

Its all you get, kid, unless you got something better than recycled MoveOn Code Pink quotes.

CPI calculations make my head hurt, let's don't go there.

Will, this site looks to be right up your alley....mostly beyond me. You may already have it:

http://www.nowandfutures.com/index.html

they recreate some of the old indices, and have lots of historical data, current financials, etc. Pretty dedicated doom'n'gloomers too.....you'll love the Weimar Germany comparisons

attached chart....bar graph scale distorts difference....shows Bush average rate slightly lower than Clinton but not by a whole lot. The difference, of course, is how the media covered it. Bush's performance was either ignored, or caveated with "but experts say" and then downplayed. Clinton's was cited as evidence of the man's genius, and a reason to overlook his other, uh, issues.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/bush-unemployment-at-50-bad-clinton.html

Was out of town yesterday and missed some of this fun.

For the "W" detractors I offer this reminder. All the "good" legislation that bubba signed off on, (reluctantly), was initiated by the Republican Congress. He gets credit for it only because of his position, certainly not his brains or politics.

Bubba also held sway over the biggest loss in the history of the NASDAQ after he and "butch" Reno attacked Microsoft and the technology industry. "W" did not lie, (as in a klintoon, lie), but was as ill-informed as everyone else, by the raggedy remnants of the prior Dem administration who were still holding their misbegotten positions.

You can try to twist history but you cannot change the TRUTH.

And don't forget that Bubba did what he could to advance the cause of sodomy in the military making us safer I'm sure. Don't ask.....

Phase Two is in the works open homosexuality in the military is a given with a deomocrat in the white house and their support in congress,Barney Franks is thrilled.

Maybe soon the VA will provide much needed sex change therapy to deserving vets,don't laugh it's coming.

Bush had the good sense to stand up for the Judeo-Christian traditional family,it's precisely why the left dominated by gays and socialist atheists hate him so profoundly. This is their motivation to try to turn every victory into defeat.

Antlers is mainsteam leftism in all its socialist prosodomy glory. It's good such losers surface from time to time to motivate many of us to send another check to McCain.

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

Be a heck of a lot easier if we wean ourselves off of the loans on our own accord that if they cut us off. :p

But it will hurt either way won't it?

Will

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.

Steve, you know as well as I do that wealth is the ultimate strategic weapon of war. What made us a super power wasn't our nuclear capability, it was the wealth we possessed that allowed us to fight a war on two fronts, supply our allies, as well as ourselves, and develop a nuclear capability. There will never be an all out conventional or nuclear war between the super powers; warfare is now economic. We are fighting WWIII right now, and we are losing. Exporting wealth in the middle of an economic war is just as bas as exporting weaponry or strategic information during a conventional war.

What a rational and eloquent response.

Troll? Is that 'your' definition of somebody that disagrees with you on politics? Can 'you' contribute anything other than name-calling?

I didn't think so. Maybe you'll surprise me...but, I doubt it.

Hey Gadfly,

I realize I'm new here, but doesn't good forum etiquette require some sort of an apology when you blatently HIJACK SOMEONE'S THREAD!!!!

that's what I thought you meant.....you're talking macro, not specific products

I thought so, just making sure you're talking about the government prohibiting private parties from making their own business decisions about their own property, solely in the interest of the "common good." As defined by the government du jour.

Still say, if you do that, you've become a socialist (at least) state, so what were you protecting in the first place.

Nemesis...I don't mind at all. It's what happens here and it's SOP.

I'm learning from the exchange anyways. You just gotta stay your course, regardless.

The Campfire is famous for some bizarre hijacking and this ain't nothing.

Besides, as I said earlier, I'm learning and that's never a bad thing.Unfortunately, I'm learning that my bud, WILL, is bucking to get into the "Band"

'You', for some reason, seem to be threatened by gays. If 'you' are secure in 'your' manhood...then why are 'you' so threatened by gays? 'You' keep bringing the subject up on this thread, for some reason? "Bush had the good sense to stand up for the Judeo-Christian family"...now that's hilarious. Doesn't matter that he has no problem at all lying to them, killing their children in Iraq, taking money away from them and giving it to Corporate America, and just being the blithering idiot and laughingstock that he is, the world over...just as long as he stands up for "the Judeo-Christian traditional family". If 'your' marriage is threatened by gays...then 'your' marriage isn't very strong in the first place...is it?

The thread is 35 pages long,.... there's maybe 5 people here who would vote for Bush for a 3rd term.

Do the arithmetic.

Bush will be remembered from the right as the president that squandared a great opportunity. Republican president, republican congress for a number of years...and out of that came what? Campaign finance reform and Ted Kennedy's education bill?

Pretty underwhelming there for the legislation that will go on for decades if not longer.

Great opportunity and he flushed it down the toilet.

Don't blame me for how easy it is to "Pied Piper" the whiners and doom and gloomers to a thread!

And , you get guys like Antlerless...do the math!

No, I just fail to see how allowing Europe to impose an average of 15% tax to American products we ship to their shores while rebating an average 15% to their exports to us is 'free trade'. This is what all of that free trade garbage was supposed to eliminate.

These are tariffs and subsidies. Period.

And our economic and political elite have acted like America hemorrhaging jobs and tax base is just the natural consequence of 'competition'. No it is a natural product of allowing other countries to protect and nurture their industries while we have set the wolves loose on ours. It is a national disgrace.

And yes, I blame GW Bush for being an ignorant ideologue who watched it all unfold for going on 8 years without lifting a finger to stop it.

And for the record I blamed Bill Clinton for doing the same thing.

Will

My answer to 'fix it' is to get him out of there. And to not replace him with McBush...I mean, McCain. That's a start. Actually, as far as 'fix it' goes...I think it will take decades to recover, if we ever can, from the damage that his administration has done to this country. I know that 'if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten'. That's why I'll be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is, in November. Who gets 'your' vote? I'm not excited about any of the candidates. Are you?

The only whiners I see are the hard shell GOP dead enders who are snottin' at the nose because so many people refuse join them in bending over and taking one for the team by voting for McCain.

If McCain wants my vote,.. the first thing he needs to do is have that unsightly growth removed from his shoulder.

I see this line of debate as germane to the topic. Isaac Thinks that GWB was a good President and would like to have more of the same, as would SteveNo. I see GWB as corporate puppet who has continued (Clinton was just as bad) to allow corporations to sell our nation down the drain for sake of profit. I do not want more of the same. I am directing my dicussions towards Steve because I find him a more informed and more interesting debater than Isaac (sorry Bob). Your post count means nothing to me, high or low. Interesting that with all of the divergent discussions that this thread has spawned, you choose this one to protest. Did I strike a nerve?

Bristoe:

"The thread is 35 pages long,.... there's maybe 5 people here who would vote for Bush for a 3rd term."

Nemesis:

So Mr. Bristoe, who will be your choice in the upcoming Presidential election?

I'm gonna write in my buddy "Bill".

I may even petition him to make me his Veep.

How about a country that still recognizes individual rights like freedom of speech, freedom of (and from) religion, the right to bear arms, due process of law, ect. You don't seem to grasp the gravity of the situation, we are facing economic submersion. You've been to China and have seen how things work over there. Is that what you want for here? For your kids? It will happen if we continue to weaken our nation by exporting our manufacturing. We will be an economic basket case that an economically stronger nation (most likely China) will walk in and take over without firing a shot. How do you think your personal wealth would fare under their system?

Excuse me Mr. Bristoe, but your reply doesn't make any sense.

The two VIABLE choices in November will most likely be Obama and McCain.

Wasting your vote the way you describe will simply ensure that one of forgoing candidates will defeat the other by a larger margin.

Is it that you have some sort of problem making difficult choices, or do you just feel more comfortable not making a commitment at all, so you can then sit back and take pot shots at the ultimate winner?

Please explain..........

I can't believe anyone would vote for Bush again.

In what ways are we better now that 8 friggin' years ago?

For that matter seeing the Repub's in power, both houses and the presidancy, has really soured me on them big time.

Bush has made a mess of everything he's touched. History will not be kind to the man.

Explain?

I don't like the candidates that have been presented to me by the leadership of the two dominant parties,... so I'm not going to vote for them.

*shrugg*,..what's there to explain?

If the GOP marched out Charles Manson and the Democrats countered with Rosie O'Donnell,..would you still ask me to explain?

The way I see it,.. the choices we're being presented with are on that order.

37 pages & not a single sleestack.

here ya go.


all better.

I don't know.....what is Charlie's view on judicial appointments?

I pretty much know Rosie's.

That's good ND, too good! Just to agravate the anti-thread hijacking police I am going to mix threads and tell you that as for your statement in the "Where's Bart thread" you really ought to write a book. I'd buy a copy.

I think you're overreacting, and over-perceiving a decline in the US industrial base.

China's GDP/cap (in PPP) is about 16% of USA today ($6400 vs $40000), similar to the relative ratio of Korea/US in 1970. It took Korea about 15 years to reach 1/4, and 20 years to reach 1/3 of US level. It is likely to take China the same or longer time given its huge size.

The US economy dominates the world and will continue to do so. After seeing China, I am less worried about them than I was before. And we are outperforming all the developed world economies. Precisely because we don't have the kind of government planned economy you're suggesting we need.

And I think you are looking at the economic situation through rose colored glasses. Our industrial base has been in sharp decline since the late-1970's, allow this to continue and we will suffer economic collapse. As Penguin pointed out to you, the only reason for the less than disasterous economic numbers is because of creative paper shuffling. Paper is meaningless. Real wealth lies in the tangible; factories, produced goods, and natural resources. In these areas we ain't lookin' too shiny right now.

Pardon me if I suggest that's rather outdated thinking. The power to control information and technology will determine who rules the roost going forward, not who has the most pig iron production.

US industrial output still dwarfs all our competitors, in any case.

Bristoe

"I don't like the candidates that have been presented to me by the leadership of the two dominant parties,... so I'm not going to vote for them."

Nemesis

But that's exactly my point..........

I would venture to say there is no candidate that either of the dominant parties could present to you that you would like.

Everything in the fantasy land you have created is comprised of if's, and but's and maybe's, but those of us that live in the real world, know that someone must be responsible to "haul out the trash", so we do our civic duty and vote them into office.

Not sit there and whine like a child and refuse to take part in the process because you can't have the whole enchalada......

Making hard choices is part of being an adult Mr. Bristoe, why don't you try it for once, you may find that you might even enjoy it.

I'm going to exercise my adulthood by voting the way I want to instead of the way that you want me to.

,..and yes,.. I'm going to enjoy it.

Nemesis, you are welcome to try to make that point with B, but I have worn out several keyboards trying to convince him.

Unfortunately for you,... your powers of persuasion "pro" pale in comparison to McCain's persuasion "con".

I've tried to find something positive about McCain,.. but the man just won't work with me.

Now today, he's started pandering to Hillary's backers.

Way I see it,.. unless you're an illegal immigrant who wants to close down the gunshows and combat global warming by not drilling for oil in ANWR,... you need to look at a candidate other than McCain.

Maybe the question that needs to be asked is; What you do you expect from U.S. corporations?

Do you expect them to be competitive with corporations from around the world? Are you happier if Airbus lands the big contact or Boeing? Shouldn't it come down to who can offer the better price or should all US airlines have to buy from Boeing?

Do you expect them to lose money for the good of a few, or should they just stick to making profits for their shareholders? Are they supposed to pay their employees $20/hr for a job that someone in another country will do for $2/hr? Are they suppose to stay in the US until they go bankrupt or are they allowed to relocate abroad if necessary?

Are they supposed to be patriots? I believe they're more patriotic than they may appear, the telecom companies were more than willing to share their data with the NSA to help combat terrorism. It was the Dems and their legal wing the ACLU that cried about that one, scared them with lawsuits, etc. Corporations have a long history of being helpful to US intelligence. Or is that just another example of Big Brother?

Do you expect corporations to lose money? Or is just paying their federal and state taxes enough? Exxon paid more in tax last year to the US government than their shareholders received in profits. Are you upset that they aren't "nicer" to people? Us corps donate millions to non-profits and charities in this country.

Someone in an earier post actually said, "My Fortune 400 employer matched our 401k contribution with company stock and that stock fell from $90 to $20..." Boo Hoo, So what, you should be grateful you received a match at all. They aren't required to match chit in your 401k, in fact, they don't even need to offer a plan at all.

This constant "corporation" bashing is bordering on the absurd. State what it is that you're PO'd about or move on. BTW, it doesn't make the slightest difference in this world where your corporation is headquartered, every country in the world will bend over backwards to provide you with incentives to invest. Are you happier when Mercedes opens a plant in SC? With no union pay? Are happier when Toyota moves to Ohio...into some factory that Ford pulled out of? You make it tough for corps to do business here, they will gladly re-incorporate Bermuda.

Corporate bashing is moronic and juvenile. I was in DC during a WTO protest where mostly teen aged kids used that as a forum to loot and vandalize private property. I asked one of the masked youth, why they wore the mask if he was so commited to the anti-corporate cause? He told me that he was about to graduate soon and that he didn't want get into any trouble that might hurt his chances for a "good job"...I said, "you mean like a job with a corporation?" "Yeah."

Bristoe

"I'm going to exercise my adulthood by voting the way I want to instead of the way that you want me to."

Nemesis

Go ahead Mr. Bristoe piss your vote down the tube like the other losers out there.

At least when something happens you will be able to say "I didn't vote for that guy."

And that's exactly what you wanted all along isn't it?

To go on the battlefield after the war and shoot the wounded.

John McCain may be all that you say he is, but at least he has stepped forward and volunteered to do what he can to help run this country.

Regardless of who wins in November, we can be sure of one thing, you will be right here posting your snide, Monday morning quarterbacking, 20/20 hindsight critiques of the President to anyone who will listen.

After all, that's who you are isn't it?

Me, too! I'd vote for Bush....if I liked liars....if I didn't cherish traditional American values....if I didn't mind sacrificing young American soldiers for no good reason....if I was rich....if I.....Oh, I think you get the idea.....!

dear Northern Dave - I love that you posted them sleestacks!!!

I'm almost convinced,... 20 or 30 more ignorant, insulting posts from you may push me over the top.

Sleestacks still give me the willies. That darned hissing.


Penguin, love reading your posts. You help us 80-90 IQ folks learn a thing or two.

,.. but they just turn the 55 to 70 folks into azzholes.

I expect them to go after short term profits with no regard for impacts on America, world political stability, or, for that matter their own long-term finacial stability. Why should I expect any different? That is how they always behaved. They are totally incapable of restraining themselves. That is why there is a need for some government regulation.




Airbus is heavily subsidized and probably could not compete otherwise (sure seem to be a lot of the falling out of the air). A import tarriff to offset the subsidy would allow Boeing to compete on a level playing ground. Encounter a subsidy, impose a tarriff. That's the kind of regulation that global corporatism needs.



A corporation exists to make money, but maximum profits at the expense of economic stability is unwise. Remember the story about the farmer who killed the goose to get the golden eggs? America is that goose. The eggs will keep coming at their own pace, you can't rip them out all at once.




How would you feel about McDonald / Douglas if they had opened an aircraft factory in Japan in 1942? You dance with the one that brung ya'.




When they are spying on American citizens, yes.



And receive tax deductions for those contributions.



That was me, actually, but save your tears. I always converted my stock to a diversified fund. When the stock tanked I bought back in at the bottom and sold out when the stock peaked over $90 again. I did quite well. You gotta love capitalism.




What I am "PO'd" aboutis the lack of government regulation of corporate behavior that destabilizes our country, I am not mad at the corporations, they are what they are and act accordingly when not restrained, one may as well get mad at the wind for blowing. They main culprits here are our elected representatives who have sold themselves to corporate interests and no longer serve the people who elected them to office.

And, I will move on when it suits me and not before, thank you very much, cap'n.

[quotePardon me if I suggest that's rather outdated thinking. The power to control information and technology will determine who rules the roost going forward, not who has the most pig iron production.
] [/quote]

Manufacturing will never be outdated. Computer chips and circuit boards still have to be manufactured. And we are losing ground rapidly in the technology sector. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the circuity components in my computer (and yours, too) came from Asia. Perhaps software design? Write up a new whiz bang program and see how long it takes for the Chineese to pitate it, and what recourse would you have when they did? No one else is playing by the rules that we do, and they are screwing us to death.

SEE WHAT YOU DID! HE LET HIS "SPECIAL FRIENDS" MOVE IN! There goes the neighborhood.

I'm in the same boat, kinda. I'll pledge to cast my vote for John McCain if he will promise to not invade my consciousness between now and election day. I don't think he can do it.

Yes I would vote for him again to. When is it going to occur to the Dumbocrats that there are a lot of people that want nothing to do with some of their nonsence?

I expect them to go after short term profits with no regard for impacts on America, world political stability, or, for that matter their own long-term finacial stability. Why should I expect any different? That is how they always behaved. They are totally incapable of restraining themselves. That is why there is a need for some government regulation.

Why should they have to, or need to, "restrain themselves" at all? So they can measure up to your idea of global fairness?

Airbus is heavily subsidized and probably could not compete otherwise (sure seem to be a lot of the falling out of the air).

Can you cite an example of this for us?

A corporation exists to make money, but maximum profits at the expense of economic stability is unwise. Remember the story about the farmer who killed the goose to get the golden eggs? America is that goose. The eggs will keep coming at their own pace, you can't rip them out all at once.

Your analogy is a little confused at best...how does the pursuit of "maximum profits" alter economic stability? Do you mean the corporation's stability or are you referring to the US economy, or do you have any idea what you're talking about? Do you think we would have a stronger national economy with more govt restriction? Is the farmer supposed to be US industry? So, US industry is supposed to have killed America in some metaphorical way, trying to grab more than its fair share of golden eggs? So you want to provide subsidies to these murderers? What about non-US businesses, are they stealing any of our eggs? What if the non-US business builds a better product, should we be stuck subsidizing inferior US goods? Should we roll back the clock to 1978 to see how that worked out for the US auto industry? Should all competition be stopped at the border? Does the concept of supply and demand in a worldwide econonmy mean anything to you?

How would you feel about McDonald / Douglas if they had opened an aircraft factory in Japan in 1942? You dance with the one that brung ya'.

Your arguement loses a lot of credibility when you throw spurious statements like this into the discussion. I have no idea what point you're attempting to make here, in 1941, the US govt placed an embargo against Japan on steel and oil, that would take care of my Japanese aircraft factory. Are you talking about placing govt restrictions upon Corporations doing business with countries with whom we fighting a war? I don't think you'll get much arguement there, but how does this have anything to do with the assertions that you made above?

Corporations have a long history of being helpful to US intelligence. Or is that just another example of Big Brother?

"When they are spying on American citizens, yes."

Most US corporations do the majority of their business and receive that majority of their profits, from outside of the US. I suspect that those contacts that are made by US business abroad are much more valuable to US intel than lists of phone calls made from US lines to those in Pakistan, just using it as one example. If it means spying on US traitors, I'm ok with that too.

Us corps donate millions to non-profits and charities in this country.

"And receive tax deductions for those contributions."

So because US corporations get a $ 0.35 tax deduction on each $1.00 they pay out for charitable purposes, you think that's a self serving act on their part? I guess even if they try to do something decent, for some people they're still damned if they do and they're damned if they don't

Steve I don't mean to pick on you, or to take a stick to a laboring horse, but this is exactly the kind of thinking that has led to our current economic problems.

We have heard everyone from Roach, to Schiff, to Kudlow, all the way up to Bernanke (as of yesterday) decry the fall of the dollar. We have rampant inflation on the necessities and people are starting to feel like the Fed needs to woe things up a bit and get this free fall under control.

At the same time we hear some of these same geniuses, usually from a right of center position, telling us that trade deficits don't matter. That America needs to grow past the point of being an industrial power. We'll do the thinking, they do the sweating.

I'm a scientist, not an Ivy League economist, but it seems to me like simple logic tells you that these two positions cannot be maintained at the same time.

As the years have passed and we continued to run a huge trade deficit without economic collapse I watched as some very smart and very educated men started to wonder if maybe it didn't matter. Maybe we could do the impossible and make it work. I think now these guys are starting to wake up to reality.

When you run the kind of huge trade deficits that we have the past couple decades you, by necessity, have to create additional money. If you do not you will watch the monetary base stagnate or even shrink. But as time goes by you start to export your inflation to the countries who now sit on huge piles of what used to be your money.

So far they have used the money different ways: financing our national debt (better for them as it makes debt slaves out of the very nation), buying up American industries and infrastructure, building up their military might, etc. In other words these counties are financing America into debtor's prison through the money we are sending them via our trade deficit.

Kind of ironic, no?

We would have never gotten away with it had it not been for the fact that the dollar is used as the reserve currency around the world. But the really ironic part is that because of having this status we were allowed to run very unhealthy levels of debt. And wake up 25 years later in a position similar to that of Brazil a decade or so back. Maybe even as bad as Argentina. Remember what the IMF made them do to get their fiscal house in order? Very painful medicine.

I look around after a couple decades of sending our production overseas and I see lots of other countries sitting on, literally, piles of money that reach to the sky. I see my own country in a hole that I really don't know if we can dig out of. I see these foreign companies buying up blue chip American companies, allowing America's government to go head over heels in debt to them, and I see the same Supply Side ideologues telling me that everything is just fine.

It boggles the mind.

Will

Sure:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/18/business/airbus.php

Another article about Regional Jets. Long so just go down to where it talks about government subsidies. Not a problem since we don't really need to build airplanes in this country :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer

Piper

For all those who would vote for GWB a third term.....

Difference of opinion makes poor land sell and ugly girls get married........

nah I was already an azzhole before I took those IQ enhancement tests that bumped me into the 50's



you keep getting insulted on the "innanet" and you liable to take up drinkin vodka and shine and riding motorcicles and corrupting Canadian girls..........oops, nevermind

I can't really speak for Steve but my opinion on the subject, in answer to your two questions are, in order: No. Yes.



As with the above, I can't really speak for somebody else but I think we all know the answers are, in sequence...Yes. No.