Has anything AT ALL good happened under Bush?

ORIGINAL: Chad477

If you don' t like it, move to another country.

If you don' t like it, move to the next thread. Seriously you are annoying as hell.

I find it funny to see the vehemence people show when accusing someone of being a " democrat" or " republican" . Maybe if those two parties were about considerably different policies, I' d understand. Compared with other parties, they seem like the left and right wings of a single party rather than two seperate parties to me. It' s a bit sad to see that together, they get the vast majority of votes in the US. It' s not too surprising that there' s been so little progress.

I was just thinking yesterday that it was about time for Bar69 to troll, errrrrr roll out of his bed and post some anti-Bush rehtoric.

Here' s one for starters - Lowest interest rates in 40+ years. If you' re going to blame him for the part of the economy that' s bad, you have to give him credit for what' s good. My house will be paid off in 15 years. Thank you GWB. I' m going to buy a second house at the beach soon. It would not be possible without low interest rates.

ORIGINAL: Kyo

I find it funny to see the vehemence people show when accusing someone of being a " democrat" or " republican" . Maybe if those two parties were about considerably different policies, I' d understand. Compared with other parties, they seem like the left and right wings of a single party rather than two seperate parties to me. It' s a bit sad to see that together, they get the vast majority of votes in the US. It' s not too surprising that there' s been so little progress.

Well said Oyk.

ORIGINAL: Chad477

Oh yeah...lol bar sayin' that George Bush is behind the 9/11 attacks is a decent topic? Stupid ass.

He said he regretted that remark. Maybe you should read the rest of his posts. And he didn' t say it. He merely suggested the possibility of it, that' s something completely different.

Economy woes?: The one thing the economy has proven to us is that it will not remain constant. Follow this easy chart for figuring out what will be said on your Nightly News program:

Ecomony Status: Party In Office : Last Pres. Party : Reason

Good : Republican : Democrat : Short-term economic improvements and tax-cuts used to reverse the negative effects of Democratic financial policy.

Good : Republican : Republican : Evidence that tax-cuts are an effective measure in long-term economic improvment.

Bad : Republican : Democrat : Short-term tax cuts unavailible to reverse the economic down-turn caused by Democratic financial policy.

Bad : Republican : Republican : After effects from previous Democratic economic policy

~~:~~

Good : Democrat : Democrat : Proof that taxes pay the bills. Government programs work and generate jobs and cash flow.

Good : Democrat : Republican : Short-term creation of government studies and programs designed to create jobs and cash-flow

Bad : Democrat : Democrat : We' re not getting enough taxes to support government programs needed to create jobs and financial stability

Bad : Democrat : Republican : After effects of the previous administration.


Then you can add to this that both parties say it takes X number of years for an economic policy to take effect. X = the number of years between when that parties last candidate was in office, and when the economy was improving/good.

ORIGINAL: justve

ORIGINAL: Toph

How American soldiers died in Vietnam? A hell of a lot more than on 9/11 that' s for sure. It' s damn hard to discount the fact that less than a week before he was killed, Kennedy had signed an executive order to pull all troops out of Vietnam before the en of 1964 and that about a week after his death, LBJ reversed that order. That war lasted into the 70s.

Have you ever heard of the Truman doctrine? I don' t agree with it, but I would say that would be why the Vietnam war was continued. Not for approval ratings.

Wasn' t the truman doctrine the document that dropped the a-bomb on japan?

You' re about 20 years too early bud.

The Truman Doctrine outlined a relief program for Greece and Turkey after WWII including about $400,000,000 - and that was is 1947. In other words, a hell of a lot of money.

Good morning folks, glad to continue this. Just remember that I' m only debating with you, some of you seem to be taking this a little too personally. There' s nothing to be angry about.

Wasn' t the truman doctrine the document that dropped the a-bomb on japan?

You' re about 20 years too early bud.

Check your history books. The Truman Doctrine aided specifically Greece and Turkey in the amount of $400,000,000. I believe that is what Jade is talking about when this comment was made.

What does the Truman Doctrine have to do with the Vietnam War??? I' d like to know because there is not one mention of Vietnam in it.

You' re right, there was no mention of Vietnam, but I don' t know if you fully understood the historical consequences of the Truman Doctrine. If you read the whole speech, you would read this:
" We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes."
Now, because of that short paragraph, as well as a few other sections, the Truman Doctrine was long held up as the banner against Communism. (Remember the domino comment made earlier?) That' s exactly what the United States was fighting for in Vietnam. So while Vietnam is not mentioned directly, the Truman Doctrine was the " justification" behind that war.

Back to subject:

My opinion, as well as that of many other Europeans, is that Bush' s administration has really hurt the international relations on a worldwide basis. Since Bush entered the Oval Office, they have turned their back to the UN and Nato numerous times. (refuting Kyoto, being the only country in the world to refuse death penalty on minors, refusing to send a proper delegation to South Afrika for the environmental debates)
To make things worse, the US seems to be to only country not to question the methods of Israel in their aggressive actions towards Palestinian civilians (Isreal has no proof that it is in fact the Palestinian government that is responsible for the terrorist acts, while Arafat claims to have proof that he' s trying to stop the terrorism).
The people of Saudi Arabia are (contrary to the official standing point of the state) supportive of Al Qaeda. On another note, the Saudi Arabian government seems to torture their prisoners, including 5 Englishmen in order to get them condemned for bombings they did not commit, in order to cover up a failing regime. (there is a very intresting and recent documentary by the BBC about this, showing proof of this torture).
Still, Saudi Arabia is, together with Great Britain and Israel, one of the greatest allies of the US.
Let me just say that the international opinion on the US was already very questionable to a lot of people, even before Bush brought up Iraq. Things have gotten much worse since than.

On another note, the economic situation is not as much due to 9/11. Try blaming companies like Enron instead.

On another note, the economic situation is not as much due to 9/11. Try blaming companies like Enron instead.

The economy was bad way before Enron. Enron may be one of the reasons it has continued to slump, but it is certainly not the cause.

Economic analists tend to agree that 9/11 had little or no long term effect. The real downfall came later, at the time the Enron scandal became public, and there were some other big companies that went bancruupt at the same time. Those were responsible for long term damage on the level of employment to say the obvious. All 9/11 did was make people fear the worst, while nothing really happened at a worldwide economic level. 9/11 has bad for consumer trust, but not much more.

I think very few people are actually informed or smart enough to understand the scope of how an entire country operates, and it demonstrates extreme ignorance and arrogance to equate everything that happens that is bad to a country to its president. Everybody has an opinion, and maybe 1 out of every 1000 are actually valuable as that' s about how many have any merit to them.

The economy: Things are bad, and is some places very bad. Sure 9-11 has helped create this and there is little any admin can do to help in the short term. But they can set the tone. But most of what we get is the same old supply side nonsense and tax cuts for the weathiest. It' s all about the rich guys and the corporations, not about the Average Joe.

Tax cuts only help people who have something to tax in the first place. If Average Joe doesn' t have a job and therefore didn' t have any income, then he didn' t pay any taxes, so any sort of tax cut won' t help him at all. 100% of zero is still zero. What Average Joe needs right now is a job, not a tax cut. Bush' s plan gives investment capital to the only people in this country who can and will create jobs - the rich guys and the corporations.

Without pointing any fingers....

I LOVE people who start their responses with ' Well I' m not a Republican or a Democrat, but.." -and then proceed with a completely right wing or left wing response. As if because they try to disclaim that they are unbiased, their opinion will matter more.

Not trying to be anal about this...it just kinda bugs me!

Carry on

Here is how I understand the " Reganomics" issue. When changes are made to the economy during a Presidency, you normally don' t see a large effect because not a lot of time has passed. However, 5+ years later, the effects of bills passed and all that good stuff are being seen. Assuming this timeframe is accurate, changes made during one' s Presidency are most apparent 2 Presidents later. I don' t know whether this is accurate or how it was actually explained to me, but this is how I remember it, and it makes sense if you think about it. An example that comes to mind is say you pay 1 penny everyday for something - it doesn' t seem like a big deal, but 10 years later that' s $365. C.Y.A. - if that isn' t a good example, I' m sorry... I don' t claim to be an economics expert.

Now, because of that short paragraph, as well as a few other sections, the Truman Doctrine was long held up as the banner against Communism. (Remember the domino comment made earlier?)

As for this, if you look at every war, while on the front side Communism and the protection of Democracy may be the excuse, but resources are always involved. Vietnam was rubber, Iraq was oil, etc, etc.

ORIGINAL: Rust

If you don' t like it, move to another country.

Typical conservative.

Look, some liberals like to try their hand at making this shit-hole country worthwhile. So they stick around this damn place and attpemt to make all the changes they can. This is what America is, last time I checked.

If you don' t like it? Get the fuck out??? Fuck that.

And there' s the typical liberal response. " This country SUCKS man...everything about it is shit."

Here' s something Ted Nugent wrote on Thanksgiving, published in various US newspapers, such as the Wall Street Journal: " America isn’t at a social or political crossroads as some will try to tell us. Those who believe that would have told you five hundred years ago that the earth was flat. Thirty years ago they would have been stoned on LSD, drooling and dancing naked at a Grateful Dead concert. My advice is to avoid these people. They will always gravitate towards the negative. Take it from an old, cocky rock and roll guitar player whose God-given senses remain finely tuned, America’s best days are in front of us."

People in this country complain about everything. THAT' S why they should fucking leave. Spend some time living in Ethiopia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya...then come back and tell me this country is a " shit-hole." Goddamn it...repsonses like yours are so ignorant...it bothers me to no end.

People in this country will never realize how much the government does for them. You can send a 1 pound package from Boston to San Francisco for $3.20. You can buy gas for $1.40 a gallon. Every prescription drug you take has hundreds of millions of dollars in research behind it to make sure YOU don' t die. You don' t have to fear eating red meat and acquiring Mad Cow disease because of the USDA.

The reason people think tax cuts favor the rich is the way the media reports it. Everyone is getting a proposed 2% cut. If you pay $1000 in taxes, you' ll save $20. if you pay $250 in taxes, you save $5. " But the rich save 4 times more than me!!" Damn right...they pay 4X more than you do.

Last time I checked, the last person to attack Iraq was one William J. Clinton in 1998. Why was it all right for him to drop bombs but when Bush wants to, people go nuts? Was there any real reason for him to bomb Iraq in 1998? Answer that. North Korea created their own problems by admitting that they possessed nuclear weapons, even though they SIGNED A TREATY NOT TO. It' s not even North Korea...it' s one fucking dictator and his favorites. The rest of the country lives in extreme poverty. Hey, while we' re on it, why don' t you go take a trip there too. Live under a communist dictatorship for a few years, then come back and slander the US.

Finally, if George W. Bush caused 9/11, Bill Clinton blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He too was a one-term president with almost no popular support until that day. Instead of focusing on the support Bush received after 9/11 and effectively giving up, why don' t Democrats find a strong challenger?

ORIGINAL: MakH

Here' s something Ted Nugent wrote on Thanksgiving, ...

If you base your political understanding on what Ted Nugent has to say, you have some serious problems.

People in this country complain about everything.

That is not a party/ideal-specific statement. You' re right! EVERYONE complains. It' s our right.

THAT' S why they should fucking leave. Spend some time living in Ethiopia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya...then come back and tell me this country is a " shit-hole." Goddamn it...repsonses like yours are so ignorant...it bothers me to no end.

Although I don' t condone Rust saying the country was a shit-hole, I think you are WAY over-reacting to WHAT he said as opposed to the real meaning of his post.

People in this country will never realize how much the government does for them. You can send a 1 pound package from Boston to San Francisco for $3.20. You can buy gas for $1.40 a gallon. Every prescription drug you take has hundreds of millions of dollars in research behind it to make sure YOU don' t die. You don' t have to fear eating red meat and acquiring Mad Cow disease because of the USDA.

The government does nothing for nobody. The government is the elected representation of the people. Therefore, it is the people who do things for themselves. As for the price things; Yeah, so? That' s capitalism. Has nothig to do with political leaning.

Sean knows everything.

ORIGINAL: Chad477

Spell my name right. It' s really not that hard.

I truly appreciated the personal e-mail attack you sent me. I especially love how you waited until the very end to even mention this thread as the impetus for the attack. The fact that you seemed to need to call me names that a child would use and attack my personal affinity for the game of hockey (which you so eloquently pointed out your opinion of and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject matter of the current discussion of which we disagree) really goes to show who the troublemaker of this thread REALLY is. Please make an effort to ignore anything I ever have to say in this Forum again unless you can muster the strength to be an intelligent participant in a debate. That' s all this is, it' s nothing personal until you make it that way.

ORIGINAL: Chad477

Sean knows everything.

The maturity level keeps on rising. Eh, Chad? Or should I call you down n' dirty nappy?

The government does nothing for nobody. The government is the elected representation of the people. Therefore, it is the people who do things for themselves.

I won' t even touch the misuse of grammar that completely changes the meaning of your post. But, that is the most liberal (not politically, I mean extremely broad) idea behind government I have ever heard. To say that the government is the people " [doing] things for themselves" is simply wrong. When a representative democracy is used, it is not the wishes of the people being carried out by representatives. Representative democracy is the the people electing those who they believe will act in their best intrests. I had little control over whether or not the House would pass a particular energy bill etc. I could only elect those who I felt would represent my intrests in the best way. If you can honestly say that there is a single canidate that you agreed with every single platform that he or she ran on, you' re lying to yourself. A representative democracy is just that, a representation of the people, not the people themselves.

ORIGINAL: InukSean

ORIGINAL: Chad477

Sean knows everything.

The maturity level keeps on rising. Eh, Chad? Or should I call you down n' dirty nappy?

LOL...your last post was about the dumbest thing I have ever read. The government does " nothing for nobody." Too funny.

Can we stop insulting eachother to make ourselves feel good and actually attempt to have a decent debate?

ORIGINAL: Toph


I won' t even touch the misuse of grammar that completely changes the meaning of your post.

Hey, yeah. Good point!!!

And don' t sweat Chad. He can insult me all he wants. I apologize to those interested in debate for that sad grammar mistake.

But, that is the most liberal (not politically, I mean extremely broad) idea behind government I have ever heard. To say that the government is the people " [doing] things for themselves" is simply wrong. When a representative democracy is used, it is not the wishes of the people being carried out by representatives. Representative democracy is the the people electing those who they believe will act in their best intrests. I had little control over whether or not the House would pass a particular energy bill etc. I could only elect those who I felt would represent my intrests in the best way. If you can honestly say that there is a single canidate that you agreed with every single platform that he or she ran on, you' re lying to yourself. A representative democracy is just that, a representation of the people, not the people themselves.

Maybe I' m getting the definitions mixed up, but aren' t Democracies a government " of the people" (kind of what I' m saying) where what you are stating (which I do realize is closer to the truth) is actually a Republic?

If I' m wrong, I' d like to know. And, no, I don' t think I' d ever find a candidate that could agree with 10% of what I think should be done.

Webster' s dictionary:
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-' mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: ri-' p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia

Now, what I was driving at is that the United States is a combination of these two forms of government. The point of my post was that it is not the people who make decisions for the country, directly, that power is given to those who they elect. I hope that clears it up.

ORIGINAL: Toph
I hope that clears it up.

It sure enough does. I guess what I was really trying to say--in few words that I ended up butchering--is that the government doesn' t really DO anything for the common man that they aren' t asked to do. But that they are elected to carry out the will of their constituents. Am I even saying that right? Does that make sense? They are representation of our will, not the genesis of what we want or need.

The United States is a Republic.

So why do its leaders constantly say they' re fighting for democracy?

I suppose for the same reason that the common American thinks we' re a Democracy or maybe the same reason that many people consider a Tomato a Vegetable.

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada

The United States is a Republic.

I would say that the United States has evolved from a Republic to a representative democracy, with a President. Also, for some reason, in the past 30 years the words republic and democracy have for some reason become interchangable.

The United States technically has elements of both a true Democracy and a true Republic. We elect lawmakers, but the law does also allow for direct voting on referendums by the people.

The single finest act of Bush' s adminstration was fixing that Pats-Raiders game.

HAHA, so I' m not the only one who thinks that, eh? Damn, it was just floating around in my mind, but I never gave it voice. Heh...guess I' m not so crazy, after all. And yes, I' ve been a fan of the Patriots, even before they won the Super Bowl.