Does anyone really think Bush is doing a good job? [Archive]

Guest

02-27-2008, 05:22 AM

Let's take a look at what you said.

"I don't think he's the worst President we've ever had." You're welcome to have that opinion, but not too many people, including most conservatives would agree with you. "I don't agree with his stance on illegal immigration" why? His stance is good for big business and if it's good for big business then it's good for big profits. "I don't agree with the prosecution of the war (not the war itself)." That means you believe there were WMD in Iraq. Oh, and yes you don't want any "spending money on social programs like a Democrat." Have you been returning your SS checks, or have you refused Medicare? You also said. "If you're not happy with Congress, remember the majority are Democrats." That may be true, but only for a short time. Look what Bush and his cronies did in eight long years. And you don't think, "The economy is not bad either. People who bought sub-prime mortgages they couldn't afford and didn't have the brains to read the contract they were signing should not be my problem. I have made fiscal mistakes that I didn't go and expect anyone else to bail me out." Maybe you're right, but then we should also not bail out our the failing banks as well. After all, shouldn't those dolts should have been smart enough to see what they were doing to the economy? And finally "If you want socialized medicine and socialized government running your lives, then you should try another country, like Russia." Well, I would then suggest that any of us getting SS and Medicare should lead the way out. Sorry in advance if I think you and the rest of the conservatives are out of step with reality. And as far you believing in the truth, I would ask whose truth is that. It's certainly not mine.

Guest

02-27-2008, 02:55 PM

I believe that Bush believes in his principles and I'll give him some credit there.

Some decisions have been wrong and I believe he is mediocre at best, but not the worst.

The economy is a mess, and our energy independence threatens us both militarily and economically, and there is no solution earnestly being pressed for by the govt.

Guest

02-27-2008, 05:52 PM

Actually, this wasn't a bash Bush question. I was genuinely curious to see how people in the Villages felt about Bush's record, compared to people in the rest of the country.

Guest

02-27-2008, 05:58 PM

English: According to you everything and everyone is uninformed but you! I find that amazing! Maybe you should run for office. I agree with fullrob, stop taking your social security checks and using medicare. Put your money where your mouth is. Just my humble opinion. Oh, and yes, I do think and history will tell, that Bush is indeed the worst president we've ever had. :)

Guest

02-27-2008, 06:22 PM

Let me see hmmmnnnn, he has been President for the last 7 years.....economy is a mess(?) if it is....and I repeat...if it is, hasn't it only been the last maybe 6 months!!!
The media and the political processing is what has talked y'all into a slowdown...if there is one.

Sorry folks my memory isn't good enough to compare past Presidents.
So all I can really say is under our current Presidents term, there have been no additional attacks here at home in the good old USA...along with all the security steps taken here at home, getting involved in Iraq has significantly contributed to that peace (of mind).

Bush is far, far, FAR from the worst President we have ever had. He is unfortunate to have been President during the time in our history where the 24/7 media influences everybody. If the past Presidents you can remember had to deal with the daily crap from the media and special interest groups of today....perhaps they would have fared differently too.

Most opinions from most people these days is nothing more than a one for one amplification of what the media peddles. A source that for the most part is partisan, biased and untrustworthy.

We all are currently suffering from the ongoing drum of the 2008 Presidential race that can only tell us what the other guy did, didn't do, etc., etc....exacerbated by the media.

BTH

Guest

02-27-2008, 06:28 PM

As a quick followup to my original posting, and whether or not the question is "relevant" or not, it always appears to me that the opinions posted seem for the most part very conservative. I'm just trying to satisfy my intellectual curiosity - is The Villages a microcosm of society at large, politically speaking, or is it in fact more far to the right than the country at large. That's relevant to me. English, if you don't find a topic relevant, its easy to deal with - just don't post.

Guest

02-27-2008, 06:57 PM

:joke:

I think all of you Bush bashers should keep this forum in mind and wait for a year from now when Obama or Hillary raise your taxes and put America in a state of socialism with there national healthcare programs where you will never get quality care from your physician anymore, raise your taxes, stop the medicare program and medicare drug coverage and eliminate the social security program for your children and grandchildren.

There will be at least 3 major attacks on our country as a result of leaving the war and allowing the terrorists to destroy our country. Up until now, Bush as prevented this from happening, not the worthless democrats in Congress and the Senate.

Let's take a look a year from now and we will all judge for ourselves how worthless his presidency has been.

PRAY FOR OUR COUNTRY AT A TIME WHEN IT NEEDS IT MOST. BUSH DOES THIS EVERY DAY OF HIS LIFE.

Guest

02-27-2008, 07:48 PM

Good grief! Why does everything have to be an attack? How hard is it to have a political opinion that disagrees with yours without basically going into the namecalling rhetoric?

Personally, I'm not a Bush fan (to put it mildly). Well, I've always liked and admired Barbara Bush but not the rest of the family. Do I think he's the worst president EVER? No. Is he one of the best? Nope. I'd put him below average -- some of it his own doing by having poor advisors, some of it just plain poor judgment, some of it media hype.

No matter what, he does not run this country alone. Congress has to take some responsibility. So does our judiciary. They all have a voice in what happens to America. We may not like that voice because it isn't our voice but we need to accept it.

To even try to predict the future of anyone running today is impossible. Many have said they will make changes while running for office. Few have had the power to do so. Our forefathers worked hard to make sure there were checks and balances. Most of the time, these work they way they should -- to prevent any one person or entity to have too much control. Sometimes they get in the way of having good things happen. Whoever is president will have to find a way to work with this Congress. Definitely not an easy thing to do.

When running for president, people really don't have the inside story -- much of it is too confidential to be told to wannabees. They find that when they're in office the things they wanted to do are just not possible, either because of economics, politics or whatever.

No one person should ever get all the credit nor all the blame when it comes to running this country. There are too many outside factors.

Guest

02-27-2008, 08:15 PM

>> snip <<
I'm just trying to satisfy my intellectual curiosity - is The Villages a microcosm of society at large, politically speaking, or is it in fact more far to the right than the country at large.
>>snip <<<

No, TV is not a microcosm of American society at large. Firstly, it does not have a permanent welfare class as has been created in this country. TV do not have welfare mothers breeding new generation of welfare mothers while contributing nothing to society. On the other end of the economic spectrum, TV does not have the super wealthy class. There may be some few exceptions among residents, but we really don't have the Fortune 500 CEOs, Westchester Country Club members, or Hollywood elite. But approaching either end economically, we do have representation. There are a number of people here who exist solely on Social Security, not an easy task. The Family (the developer ~~ owners and residents) are apparently quite well off and like so many people in similar situations in overall society, they use their wealth entrepreneurially to create a multitude of jobs. Some other residents are very, very comfortable and use their wealth for investments, again providing capital for growth and jobs. The vast majority of us, however, are blatantly middle class with enough money to get by and a bit of a nest egg for emergencies. Many, many TV residents are here only because they were able to sell their homes "up north" for a considerable profit to finance the move here.

Politically, TV is a bit more conservative than the rest of American society, but not that much more so than their socioeconomic peers in that society. Certainly TV has it's lunatic fringe on both wings, but they are here primarily for entertainment value. Occasionally they do succeed in imposing their idiotic ideas on the majority, but are for the most part pretty harmless. However, by eliminating a very large subclass, this allows TV in general to be slightly older, better educated, and wealthier than society. And as any study will demonstrate, the older, more intelligent, and more experienced one is, the more like he/she will be conservative.

Guest

02-27-2008, 08:40 PM

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/oct/01/ben_bova_how_long_will_our_democracy_continue_thri/

I was trying to remember that thing about a democracy lasting only 200 years. I found this column. It's a little something to think about.

Aaaaaugh!!!! I have got to stop giving people homework.

Guest

02-28-2008, 04:11 AM

Someone told me to try out Talk of the Villages. So I did. And the first thing I ran into was a Bush basher. What a bummer. I think that first in line for worst president is Jimmy Carter (really nice guy but totally incompetent in his job). Second in line would be Clinton who spent more time on extra-curricula stuff than he did running the country and nearly destroyed our military capability and our economy in the process. George Bush has some faults but he may just go down in history as the "gutsyest" president we have ever had. Just where do you think our country, and the world, might be if Al Core were elected? Did it ever occur to you that we have had no terrorist incidents in our country since 9/11?

Guest

02-28-2008, 04:20 AM

Without any negative remarks, if you track the times U.S. holdings, overseas bases or embassies have been attacked in a big way or what they would call successful, the period between is typically 7 to 9 years. It is my belief that, no matter who was President, we would not have been attacked anyway.

Guest

02-28-2008, 12:53 PM

:agree: :agree:

Guest

02-29-2008, 03:21 AM

Compared to Jimmy Carter?

Guest

02-29-2008, 03:47 AM

I agree that Jimmy Carter wasn't one of our most effective presidents, if at all. But, as the doctor's say "First, do no harm." I think Bush has done much harm. Traveling through Europe over the past 7 years, I can see an unsettling change in the way Americans are perceived. In Barcelona last summer, every lampost had F&#k Bush scratched into it. I'm sorry and saddened. But it is my opinion that his ego, his lack of planning, his poor strategies, his inability to see the big picture has brought us to where we are today. He didn't want to be President, he wanted to be King. And now that a lot of his cronies have backed out and some away, he's finally shut up. Yes, I think he has done much harm.

Guest

02-29-2008, 02:16 PM

Yes, I think most people will agree that Carter was not effective as president. He is a good man, however. Look at all the charity work he's done since retiring, especially with Habitat for Humanity. I do think that repairing America's image abroad will be a daunting task for our next president, whoever he or she will be. I guess that's one of the things that appeals to me about Obama. He's calm and measured, intellectually astute, and seems to be able to work across party lines for consensus. That, and the fact he would be the first black president, and has openly advertised his plan for "change" should play well internationally. I find McCain worriesome, with his obvious hardball attitude, and his well known temper tantrums.

Guest

02-29-2008, 03:35 PM

I too have traveled through Europe and I witnessed what the US media has spread throughout the world. Listen to CNN in Europe and you'll hear constant denigration of Bush and anything the administration or the US does. We have media people (movie stars) that beat up the US on foreign soil. Sharon Stone just did that in the middle east. Michael Moore that great sage of the left has said the people in the US are stupid, that's us folks. Bush was called names and made to look stupid by the media before he was even inaugurated. There is no president in the history of this country that could have maintained a decent image internationally with the rotten campaign to destroy him and his presidency that was and continues to be carried out by the media. The media will go to any length to destroy the man even at great cost to the country. Media with an agenda can be a dangerous thing.

Guest

02-29-2008, 07:35 PM

I spent time working in Australia in he 80's and many there had no love for Reagan, "The Cowboy".

All I can say about Europeans and the other's dislike for our country and our elected leaders is, @#&*- off. You guys loved Saddam, Putin and the jerk in Iran, so it is not hard to understand why you don't like us and our leaders. We know where your Anti-American feelings are coming from.

Guest

02-29-2008, 10:15 PM

Right on Hancle, my feelings exactly.

Guest

02-29-2008, 10:29 PM

Wow Hancle, can there be a more childish comment than that! Whoo, now that's one "Ugly American". And to those that have commented on the media: We, the people, think for ourselves. I'm also astonished that you can believe that our media is hell bent on making Bush look stupid. Why would they would they do that? That's one job he has managed to accomplish on his own. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Guest

02-29-2008, 11:21 PM

Right on C :bigthumbsup:helsea.

Guest

02-29-2008, 11:48 PM

I was born in Europe and have been there several times as an adult. Americans weren't well-liked when I was little. Yes, they were greatful to the GIs for shedding blood but resented the fact that Americans seem to think that they were the only ones who died in WWII. There was the added factor that the war was fought on their soil, not America's. This dislike has turned into hatred by many. It is partially fueled by the simple fact that many Americans go to a foreign country and are downright arrogant -- they really do yell at people for not speaking English; they want McDonald's over a five-star restaurant; they don't bother learning conversion rates, rather expecting others to know what "real" money is worth; when the dollar is strong they gloat, when the dollar is weak they whine. Cliches? Yes. The truth for enough to make people flinch when someone is American? Also yes. It doesn't help that we push our form of democracy down the throats of people who truly don't want it.

People may take our aid but that doesn't mean they don't resent needing that aid. Just a fact of human nature. It doesn't help that we frequently have a lot of strings attached to our aid (even if the cause is just such as the stopping of apartheid).

I was in England shortly after 9/11. The majority of Brits expressed sympathy or simply said nothing. There were two who told me flat out that America got what it deserved. There were a few, though, that said it was about time that terrorism hit the United States, not because America deserved it but because maybe now America would take off its blinders and help go after the bad guys.

To blame American media for people of other nations' hatred is not realistic. To state that Europeans loved Saddam, Putin and that "jerk in Iran" (which one, the Ayahtolleh or Shah Pahlavi?) is small-minded. At one time, we loved Saddam. We backed Shah Pahlavi even though he was a despot. Heck, we even gave financial aid to Idi Amin Dada.

If we want others to like us (and that is important to most Americans), we need to treat other nations and their politics and belief with some respect. We need to accept that English is not the only language in the world and that US dollar is not the only currency. Our politicians need to be willing to send aid to a country that needs it without interfering in internal politics. We need to quit being rude, arrogant bullies!

Sorry, Hancle, on this one I respectfully totally disagree with your comments other than Reagan was not well-liked in many corners of the world.

Guest

02-29-2008, 11:55 PM

To answer the original question. No I don't think Bush is, or has been doing a good job. My point was there have been critics of America and it's leaders for many years that pre-date W's Administration. I choose however, not to accept the criticism of those that don't live here, mainly because many have had and always will have a strong dislike of anything American.

Childish answer, maybe, but it is my Country and I swore to defend it, did you?

Guest

03-01-2008, 01:10 AM

I'm defending our country, sorry I won't defend George W. Bush.

Guest

03-01-2008, 05:32 AM

When I was 21 I too was called to protect my country, from the threat of communism from Vietnam. I responded and served, and by the grace of God, returned mostly unscathed. Only to find out 20-30 years later that it was all a lie. Hundreds of thousands of good men and women killed and injured. For what? MONEY, POWER, and GREED. We need the free press to ask even tougher questions of our leaders. I'm personally tired of the Halburton's of the world, controlling our government.

Guest

03-01-2008, 10:57 AM

I agree Fullrob. Many of us would do anything to protect our country, but its hard to determine what the truth is, we are fed so much bull from the government. Everything has a spin on it to promote whatever agenda they are pushing at the moment, doesn't matter which party it is. Many of us got a rude awakening during the VietNam conflict. We had always accepted what the government told us, never questioned it, then we found out otherwise. I've become very jaded as a result,and I appreciate the investigative reporting that the media does. At least there's some chance of learning the truth.

However, we're getting off topic here.

Guest

03-01-2008, 05:24 PM

I'll give President Bush credit for sticking to what he believes is the best for the country. Doing so even tho the public polls show little support for some of his policies. It is kinda refreshing to see a politician not be swayed by public opinion.
Has he been a good president? Well, only history will prove one way or the other. All I have to do is remember Jimmy Carter and I know that Bush certainly hasn't been the worst.

Guest

03-01-2008, 10:55 PM

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii199/The_Villages/Troops.jpg
Washington is doing a bad job. Vote them all out.

Guest

03-02-2008, 12:29 AM

And every other President in office during a war did a good or better job?? Yeah right.

If other periods in history had the 24/7 media, the outcomes would have been very different.
Like the days of old, if the military were allowed to go in and win....blow the enemy away....collatoral damage, permissive pacifists, special interest groups be damned!!!!

None of will know why the President does what he does.....and we sure as hell won't get a fair shake from the media.

I guess a populist President would do a better job eh? Like Jimmy Carter...eh?

Yeah right!!

BTK :edit:

Guest

03-02-2008, 12:35 AM

Some of you folks really sound like you're on the defensive. Bush is doing a crummy job, so let's attack Carter. Whatever.....

Guest

03-02-2008, 01:16 AM

Why do people keep bringing up Jimmy Carter didn't we have other presidents
This is about Bush not the other presidents

Guest

03-03-2008, 02:01 AM

Not a fair question.

How can anyone respond to that without holding their nose?

Then you can't type.
???

Tony

Guest

03-03-2008, 04:24 AM

;D ;D ;D 1rnfl Good one Toncat!

Guest

03-05-2008, 05:29 AM

Bush has been the worst President of my lifetime. He has been wrong on many issues and policies. Our country is in bad shape for the working and middle class.

Guest

03-08-2008, 12:01 AM

Is the Bush administration (and all of the folk within it) any better or worse than any other in the past how-many-years? I guess that would depend on what was the state of things when he took office, what happened during his term(s) and the result of his (and the rest of the administration's) actions.

We had a budget surplus, but that was due to prior extreme cuts in defense and intelligence-service spending. As a result, the national security was risked so the bank account could be more flush.

We had an unemployment rate of 5.6% with the prior administration, and the latest information shows a current 5.0% rate.

We had no war during the prior administration, but we also had no attacks on the homeland then as well.

We have 15+ million illegal aliens in the US now, and this number has grown steadily for the last 20 years. Has ANY administration in the last 20 years really cared?

The efficacy of public education during the past 7 years really won't be known for another 5-10 years at best, but could it get worse than it was? ((possibly!))

The housing market skyrocketed, and came down just as fast. Is any president at fault because people made risky financial decisions regarding mortgages or purchases?

Unless someone has gotten rich and nothing negative has ever happened to them during that time frame, I don't think anyone is ever really happy with the job any president is doing while in office. After the sitting president is replaced, it's amazing how many people selectively remember things that happened during an administration, and bother to measure how many things that occur in one administration that have serious effects on subsequent administrations.

Has Bush done a good job? History (as subjective as that can be) will provide a synopsis - positive or negative (or both). He hasn't been impeached, and if the current Congress wanted it and thought it had grounds, do you think they'd go after him?

I remember the same "good job" question about the Clinton years, and every other president prior (in my lifetime). It makes you wonder why anyone would want the job.

Is it time for a change - Yes, and thank the Founding Fathers for having the foresight to limit a term to 4 years, and the Truman administration (Democrat) for endorsing the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

After all of the negativity towards Presidents during the last few administrations, hooray to ANYONE willing to vie for the job!

Guest

03-29-2008, 06:49 AM

Well we haven't had a Federal Tax increase since Clinton gave us the biggest ever in 1993. I like that Mr. BUSH! Have you noticed the European countries are all on a flat tax. They saw what happend with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and they liked it too. To bad we can't have a flat tax, like them.

My state of Michigan is in the toilet, but I feel that too was the handy work of Clinton and his democrats with NAFTA. Thats why the economy and housing is so bad here in Michigan. Remember Ross Perot with his hand to his ear saying "Do you hear that sucking sound, it's your jobs going to Mexico". Democrats here laughed and said he was nuts! Now the UAW is encouraging their workers to vote for Obama because he's the man who will stop NAFTA and bring home all the jobs. The Miracle Man! Suddenly their telling all the union workers the Clintons aren't the answer anymore.
The democrats have tried every chance they get to increase the federal taxes and Bush veto's the bills every time. Obama and his Democrats have already promised to let Bush's tax cuts that expire in 2010 die in the wind. Get ready to get hosed if they win.

Guest

03-29-2008, 03:40 PM

I will wait until there is a new President to compare him to as the past is what ever it was at the time and we know not what any President could or couldn't do at the time.....just like we don't know all the issues, except what the media presents, about Bush or any other subject.

I want to see which candidate running their lips about the war...how long it takes for them to make everybody happy......in the mean time don't hold your breath.

I will give my opinion about Bush one year after January 1, 2009.....remember we could have done and could do worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTK

Guest

03-29-2008, 03:44 PM

Hmm, I can't imagine how we could have done worse. I guess it all depends on your perspective.

Guest

03-29-2008, 05:56 PM

.This is the President who took us into a foreign country to invade,lied to us about why, didn't believe in global warming, stopped stem cell research, put our country in so much debt that our grandchildren will be paying for his spending, gave the very very rich a great tax break off the backs of the middle and poor. I lost a newphew in this occupation and for what? Look at the spying on Americans,the state of the Veteran Hospitals, and how my newphew was brought home hidden from media as President Bush won't even honor his casket...4004 killed and many more terribly wounded but we are to just keep killing and maiming our poor soldiers for lies. In my lifetime, this President Bush is the WORST leader for the middle class and the poor. I was a Republican but switched because of this President. Better things to do than try to convince anyone on here .

Guest

03-29-2008, 06:14 PM

Many think Bush is doing a great job,but I can't figure out if its for us or on us.

Guest

03-29-2008, 06:23 PM

Hosed by taxes or hosed by war debt..your choice..either way we'll most likely be hosed.
There may be more of us alive to hose if one votes Dem.

ote author=billethkid link=topic=4996.msg45617#msg45617 date=1206823235]
I will wait until there is a new President to compare him to as the past is what ever it was at the time and we know not what any President could or couldn't do at the time.....just like we don't know all the issues, except what the media presents, about Bush or any other subject.

I want to see which candidate running their lips about the war...how long it takes for them to make everybody happy......in the mean time don't hold your breath.

I will give my opinion about Bush one year after January 1, 2009.....remember we could have done and could do worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTK
[/quote]

Guest

03-29-2008, 07:28 PM

Whoever the new President is, he or she will have 8 years of damage to start to clean up. I liked Hilary's comment on "It took one Clinton to clean up after a Bush administration and now it's time for another Clinton to clean after a Bush administration." It will be very hard to judge the new President for a couple of years. I'm with Hillary or Obama. I think McClain will give us the same old, same old, even though it may not appear that way. As for higher taxes, well get a grip. Someone has to pay for Bush's War. So far it's just been the middleclass. Let's get the deep pockets to chip in. And that $600 is laughable. One of his comments was that it would offset the decrease in home values and I love Jon Stewart's remark "yes, if your home is plastic and is located on Baltic Avenue!" Bush spends money like it's Monopoly money, so the comment was completely on point. Can't possibly get worse than Bush. Just my opinion. ;)

Guest

03-30-2008, 03:27 PM

I agree with Chels about the taxes. The whole point I believe of the tax cuts was to stimulate the economy, but look what has happened. The loss of tax dollars, plus the ridiculous amount we're spending on the war is driving the nation into the ground. I think raising the taxes is a case of tough love. No one wants to do it, but its a necessary thing especially if we're goint to rescue Social Security.

Guest

03-30-2008, 08:25 PM

This is not in praise or condemnation of President Bush or any member of his administration.

Now that the disclaimer is in place, let's take a look at the "8 years of damage..."

1. The last time before 9/11 there was an attack on US soil was in the 1940's. Prior to that time the US was neutral regarding the Axis initiatives in Europe and Asia. Once the attack on US soil the sitting president (a Democrat, no less) committed the military and Congress affirmed. The result in the eyes of some back then was only that there were 292,000 US killed-in-action and a staggering debt -to be paid by their grandchildren-. Was the Democratic president correct, and how infallible was the intelligence information given him, especially since the US did not have anything like the US Intelligence Community of today? And the Intelligence Community of today, now headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a far sight better funded and organized now compared to the semi-dismantled state prior to the Year 2000 - meaning that the next President will have a better picture of the world and its innerworkings than the current President had inherited.

2. The mortgage crisis centers around an overtly-inflated housing market of 2004 and the 99% 3- and 5-year balloon-payment mortgages people took on those homes. I bought-and-sold houses in 2004, and one of those houses has a 5-year balloon-payment mortgage (but not anywhere near that 99% then-value). That purchase was a personal financial decision knowing full-well that markets go up-and-down. Why should all of us, as we are the government, become the aftereffect insurer for those who made risky business deals? The Executive Branch does not have any authority to commit public funds for a post-act insurance payoff (that's Congress' sole domain).

3. NAFTA first got life during President G.H.W Bush, but was fought for by President Clinton and signed by him after passage by a Republican-majority Congress (the Democratic vote was split). For those who are anti-NAFTA, you can blame them all, Republican and Democrat of that era. The current administration has to live with NAFTA being the law of the land and insure it is being followed as written - not a very popular job to inherit.

The bottom line is - we have a President who heads the Executive Branch of the government. S/he does not head the Legislative or Judicial Branch. As a result, we do not have an ersatz king or dictator who "rules" the populace. Yet, it seems like there is a perception that the next President will be an economic, military and diplomatic Pied Piper, able to lead away the rats of the world by playing a pretty tune and making the town merry again.

Personally, I hope the next President is a tough, well-tested, mean SOB (or DOB?) able to alley-fight with the best of them, while at the same time having the managerial skill to keep a 2.5Million employee workforce running on-time and within-budget. Snappy catch-phrases are Pied Piper tunes, and end up sounding hollow in the end.

So, when I look at the three Senators who look to be on the ballot, I ask myself who's the meanest, smartest, toughest, most-experienced and least-naive. Luckily, I still have a few months to make up my mind.

Guest

04-02-2008, 12:00 AM

Steve, given your criteria, sounds like Hillary is your (wo)man. No question the woman is tough and can be downright mean. There's also no question she is smart and I doubt she has a naive bone in her body -- Bill made sure of that with his behavior through the years. Obama would have to be out of the picture given the fact he's not shown himself to be mean, just smart.

McCain was tough enough to survive a POW camp, but I'm not convinced he has the political toughness this job requires -- he seems to have won the Republican nomination more by default or the lesser of evil choices than by showing any real strength IMO. Could be wrong on that one. To me, he's kinda a nice guy who won't finish last but probably won't finish first. He's been a political creature too long to be naive. I think he's intelligent but I do believe Hillary has him seriously beat in the brains department. Guess he does win in the most experienced department, unless you count the years Hillary served as Bill's second-in-command.

And, no, I'm not advocating HRC as the next Prez. I'm still on the fence. I like Obama's words but I doubt he would get my vote -- just not enough experience to make me comfortable and I'm not convinced I would be thrilled with his choice of advisors.

For me, the deciding factor is who will be the advisors, the Cabinet and will the President listen to the advisors yet be strong enough to say, "No, this is my decision and it stands, right or wrong." after listening to all the facts and weighing them well and honestly. I would also expect the President to be able to say, "You're right, I hadn't considered that aspect. We'll either go your way or shelve the idea for now." I don't want a bully for President. I also don't want a milquetoast.

Guest

04-02-2008, 01:31 AM

While I have some definite ideas about who should be the next President of the U.S., I see little need to post a message here that can be categorized as "Bush-bashing".

On the other hand, I feel that I must respond when some post equally narrow and unbalanced opinion complementing the current administration for doing a good job while in office.

I think maybe a reasonable way to assess what is really correct is to simply answer a few questions. Following may not be the most complete list of questions one might ask about the political leadership of the last eight years, but it might offer a good start.

Does the American public feel good about their current situation and their future?
Is there a general feeling of confidence in the leadership being provided by the President and the Congress?
Is there broad support for remaining in the longest war in U.S. history?
Does it now appear that the loss of more than 4,000 American lives and what now appears to be more than $1 trillion in U.S. treasure will result in resolution of the unsettled political and religious situation in the Middle East? Or has our involvement there made the situation worse?
The current administration ran on a platform of high moral standards. Yet over 5% of the Congress--mostly from the President's own political party--have been indicted, convicted, or are currently under federal investigation. As recently as today, a member of the President's cabinet had to resign under the cloud of pending prosecution. That's the second member of the cabinet to join several other senior members of the executive branch in resigning in shame. Has the morality claimed as a platform by this President been upheld?
In only eight years our country has become the greatest debtor nation in world history. The annual federal deficit has gone from a positive $400 billion to a negative $700 billion with a total deficit now nearing $1 trillion. Has this administration governed with a responsible fiscal policy?
The number of Americans without access to healthcare has increased in eight years. Both the Social Security trust fund and particularly Medicare are now within a few years of insolvency. Has the administration lead responsibly on these subjects?
The negative imbalance of our international trade with other countries continues to increase in spite of the fact that we have permitted the value of the U.S. dollar decline to the lowest level in history. We no longer actually manufacture any of the important products that our economy was previously known for. Our gross domestic product is now comprised of profits from financial trading, software, retail sales of imported goods and services. Our largest single export item is scrap metal. Has the administration provided economic leadership in the least eight years?
Our children now rank below the top 25 countries in the world in standardized test scores at the high school level. U.S. employers regularly complain that they cannot find competent, trained people to fill their jobs. They move offshore to get competent employees at a reasonable price and are castigated for doing so. Who is really at fault for this problem?
There is repeated and clear evidence that our elected representatives are willingly and enthusiastically beholden to special interest lobbyists. Yet no particular leadership has been provided to reverse the influence of special interests. Should we expect more from both the President and members of Congress?
Anyone who has studied the operation of the U.S. government says that the polarity between the major political parties is worse than at any time in memory. Has any leadership been exhibited that would reduce this problem and permit governance to proceed under more statesmanlike conditions? Or have actions by this President actually made the problem worse?
Our economy is almost certainly now in recession. When this President took office, economic growth and stability and consumer confidence were at decade-long highs. The economic decline from where we were at the beginning of the first term of the current President and where we are today is unprecedented. Should the President be complemented for his economic leadership?
The reputation of the U.S. among the world of nations has declined to disappointing lows. Americans are so hated and disrespected in many parts of the world that it is unsafe for us to travel there. Almost all learned observers say that we have squandered our moral leadership in the world of nations. That was almost certainly not the case during the administration of the previous President. Can the situation be reversed with a new administration beginning in 2009?

---------------------------------------------

I hope this note isn't categorized as "Bush bashing". What I do hope is that people think about some of these issues--maybe even ALL of these issues--as they prepare to select the candidate they will support in the November Presidential Election.

Guest

04-02-2008, 01:55 AM

:bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup: Great post Kahuna!

Guest

04-02-2008, 02:44 AM

Kahuna,
Thank You!

Guest

04-02-2008, 03:12 AM

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Villages Kahuna!!!!
You said it all extremely well.

P.S. I wish we could clone you and vote your clone into office!

Guest

04-02-2008, 03:33 AM

Very well said, Kahuna. Add another thank you to the mix!

Guest

04-02-2008, 12:38 PM

KAHUNA I TOTALY AGREE And I Can't see how anybody can disagree
:hot: :beer3: :hot: :beer2: :hot:

Guest

04-02-2008, 02:25 PM

Kahuna,

While I may question a couple of the points, the bottom line is that you are "on the money" when it comes to the fact that Americans need to really review all of the issues important to them and vote in the same manner as if they were hiring an employee who will have "signature authority" for them on many financial and safety issues.

Your points were well articulated, and it would sure be nice if any of the candidates provide substance in how they would make life better, or solve specific problems, or resolve issues, as opposed to the finger-pointing, catch-phrasing BS that has predominated the campaigns so far.

The "I have a plan, but I can't tell you what it is..." tactic really turns me off. That's just a political tease. It sort of like someone offering to sell you a house, but you can't look inside it, count the number of rooms, or even flip a light switch until the papers have passed.

The dialogue on this board has been great - and my thanks to all on it, even if our opinions are different. That's what makes it great, and the sharing of thoughts helps us all to learn and understand more.

...and Red - Hillary's claim of being "experienced" rings hollow to me. A couple years as a Senator (no different than Sen. Obama) and 8 years of sideline-watching as First Lady (no different than other First Ladies who may have had influence, but no authority or responsibility) doesn't equate as 'experience' to be a Chief Executive. I will grant you that she is tough in a Margaret Thatcher way. Now, if she came forth with specifics instead of sound-bites on "solutions" rather than "complaints," I could still be swayed....

Guest

04-02-2008, 02:51 PM

Now I have to defend my girl Hillary ;D When she was First Lady, every single day in the media we heard that she was too involved with making White House Decisions. Now, it doesn't count as experience! You can't have it both ways. As for laying out plans, I don't know what everyone else is hearing because it baffles me that they keep saying no solutions are being given. In every debate and on every talk show, from both Hillary and Obama, I hear "This is my plan and this is how I plan to do it or pay for it." and then they proceed to lay it out. This "no solutions" BS has been buzzing around from both sides and I just simply don't understand it. Open your ears, open your minds and listen. Just my opinion. ;)

Guest

04-02-2008, 03:37 PM

...When she was First Lady, every single day in the media we heard that she was too involved with making White House Decisions. Now, it doesn't count as experience! You can't have it both ways.

Sorry, but "experience" happens when you have authority AND responsibility. She had neither as spouse of the President. I have yet to hear President Clinton say or admit that his spouse actually made any decision or was involved in any way other than as an "interested party."

As far as the press is concerned, the Fourth Estate's record for accuracy is not stellar by any stretch of the imagination.

My ears are open, as well as my mind, and I don't rely on the Fourth Estate as my sole body of information.

As far as 'plans' are concerned, the candidates (all three of them!) have been slim on specifics, and instead have at best stated 'goals' they would like to attain. Actual 'plans' on how to attain those 'goals' have been invisible. Again, that's true for all of them.

Perhaps, when it becomes a two-person race the specifics on some 'goals' will be presented if for no other reason than the competition for votes may demand it. Until then, it's still a beauty pageant.

Guest

04-03-2008, 01:54 AM

How can you even say he is the worst when you were alive for the worst president of all time - Jimmy Carter? Well, maybe Hoover was worse.
I think you guys are way to hard on Bush - never mind he inherited a recession and gave us 6 years of good times - now things are slowing down a bit and everybody jumps on the poor dude - none of you in TV seem to be suffering much.

Here are the presidents I lived through and my grades-
Kennedy - way overated, but had good vision - ended up NOT getting us all killed, last of the conservative tax cutting dems - B

Johnson - Civil rights gives him a boost, plus a pretty solid economy - C+

Nixon - man, talk about a guy who go a raw deal, if he would have been a dem, would never have left office - good on foreign policy, not great on economics - remember price controls?? yikes - C-

Jimmy Carter - when you invent a new economic term, you are really doing bad - and his foreign policy was horrid - remember the daily count of Iran and the prisoners - almost destroyed this country single handedly - F-

Ronald Reagan - Thank God you came along, rest in peace. Anybody that even tries to argue that Reagan and Volker did not save this country from the abyss has absolutely no economics training (I do by the way, and teach economics as an adjunct at the local college). 30 years of prosperity and kids who don't really know what a bad economy even looks like, and won the cold war for a sideshow. The only blemish is not standing up to congress and getting a balanced budget - still give him an A - look at the competition.

Bush 1 - Raised taxes - stupid and ended up with a mild recession which cost him a second term. Wimpy too, and should have gone on to Baghdad back then - C

Clinton - First term - Democrat - F, Second Term - turned into a conservitive - NAFTA and welfare reform - I think the Republicans should have backed off on the impeachment, it was a wast of time, although he SHOULD have been impeached for the felony of lying under oath - if he had an R behind his name, he would have resigned in his 6th year..oh well - I still give him a B in his second term despite being asleep at the switch on terrorism - a C overall

Bush 2 - another Democrat with an R behind his name - the guy is more liberal than Clinton is some ways - Medicare Drugs???? No Child left behind?? That is liberalism with a capital L. Offset with an overall good economy(have to judge 8 years guys), no attacks after 9/11, good judge picks and tax cuts. More negatives is how the war went for far too long, and immigration - why can't we seal the darn borders? I give him a C also.

Pretty bad that in 44 years we have only had one guy that was a standout - and we may not have another in my lifetime at the rate we are going. I hope Johnny M is elected and proves me wrong, but we don't have a great track record do we....

The worst part is that Congress is WORSE....

Guest

04-04-2008, 01:35 AM

Reagan took over the country with the economy in a shambles, growing federal deficits, high interest rates and lousy consumer confidence. He both dramatically cut federal spending and at the same time got limited tax cuts passed. He was the first President in decades who told both the politicians and the public that you can't spend what you don't have...and made it stick! He was a superb communicator and had enough ability as a statesman to bring the farthest left and right factions together. And even though he came to office with limited foreign policy experience, he was soon respected around the world (remember, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!")

It's too bad he didn't serve one six-year term instead of two fours, because some of his subordinates (one being the well-known Daily Sun columnist, Olliver North) got his legs chopped out from under even though he may not have been culpable.

Having said that I agree with you on Ronnie doesn't mean I necessarily agree on some of the others. Sticking with the current resident of the White House, he took over with a mild recession but with a federal surplus being generated to the tune of about $400 billion a year. He turned that into the largest deficit in history with our country being the largest debtor in world history. He was and is an idealogue of the first order, running the country (into the ground, some say) seeking the counsel of almost no one but himself. He presided over a political constituency who became increasingly emboldened in feeding at the trough of the federal treasury. He has dragged both our national reputation as well as our financial strength and independence into a rat hole. He selected and supported apointees to his administration who demonstrated ghastly flaws in chaacter. And then there's the war. No, I can't give Dubya a C...not even close. He's in a tight race with Jimmy Carter as far as I'm concerned, except Carter is a more worthwhile and respectable human being.

But enough Bush-bashing...and my tirade immediately above was a bash, although it wasn't planned and came from the heart. More important than the bash, who have we got running for the job beginning in 2009 and what might they do? Do any of them have the cajones to force the Congress and cajole the public that we must return to pay-as-you-go? Do any of them have the potential to quickly return our country to one which is respected thruout the world? Do any of them have to potential to re-direct the world towards peace? Do any of them communicate well enough to convince America that we can and must change our ways? Will any of them "throw the money changers" out of Washington so that true "government by the people" can return? Will any of them stop the spending on unnecessaries and begin to expend our tax dollars in a way that will improve the lot of both Americans as well as other citizens of the world?

There's a couple of the candidates who have that potential, I think. I have a favorite, but I would gladly vote for the other as well.

Guest

04-04-2008, 03:56 AM

http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/yaysmiles.gif (http://www.millan.net)Kahuna!

Guest

04-05-2008, 02:36 AM

Kahuna, I overall like your style - but I have to disagree on a few things -

1. The war - you will find I am not going to back down on speaking my mind. Although I am not going to stand up for how he "conducted" the war, I will not stand by and let people just act like he went in alone. The Dems and everyone else voted for the war, and now want to go back and whine that it is all Bushes fault. The reality is that he did not lie, and nobody whined until it got a little hard. It is not like he was over there collecting intelligence - he and all the members of congress believed the intelligence. The reality is, the thing that should really scare us the most is "WHERE IS ALL THAT STUFF NOW???". We know it existed, so where did it go? He gassed the kurds with it, killing thousands, and where is it now? I pray it does not end up in an American city someday.

Of course, this will not matter until the next attack - do me a favor - print out this post and tack it to a bullitin board somewhere so when the next attack occurs, you can check it out.

2. I think you are Bashing when you say that Carter was more respectable, yada yada yada. I think Jimmy Carter was a wonderful person and a lousy president. Letting the hostages in Iran for 444 days is inexcusable, and worse than what we did in Iraq, sorry. I would rather be disliked by some than be the laughingstock of the world for 444 days. Jimmy Carter was a good person no doubt, I don't think GWB has done anything to make us think any different of him. All the junk about lying about WMD and all that is a bunch of malarchy(keeping it clean here :#1:)

Clinton on the other hand - scumbag extraordinaire - interns in the office? The guy ranks with the dude dating the pages in the senate.

3. The economy - I have to tell you, I am actually IN the economy every day (ok, I envy all you retired guys, big time). The media is overhyping just about everything. Our biggest concerns should be INFLATION and not a recession. Yes, we may end up with a mild recession on paper - but the job market is still incredibly strong (it surprises me, that is for sure, lots of jobs, no qualified people to fill them). Everything is going up in price - everything from China is up 30%, Steel is up 40%, Aluminum is up 25%, paper is up, plastics are up - and this is all in the last year. Demand is decent, and for many items it is actually strong (you can't sustain price increases without demand). A lot of this is the weak dollar, and that had to happen due to the trade deficit(which Bush did not create by the way, Americans did). Imports are fading and Exports are climbing - John Deere, Caterpillar, Bucyrus, P&H, Manitowoc Crane, Harley Davidson are all running at capacity to satisfy the export markets - the only issues are that many companies need to build a foreign sales force to take care of their new competitiveness. If the dollars stays low(It almost has too), this will correct itself and exports will continue to climb.

Although Credit is tight due to the subprime mess, it seems to be loosening up lately and I am sure will be back to normal in 6 months to a year.

My message is not to overreact about the economy. The media will be screaming how bad it is in an attempt to get Obama elected, just like they did in 2004 - when we were in the middle of a boom! Some people will believe it and most of us will continue to go to work everyday, and in a year we will look up and the stock market will be up 15% from current levels, GDP will be at 3% and unemployement around 5% - my only concern is that price levels will be up 5-10% at the same time - and that should be the concern of all of you who are living on a fixed income, NOT a recession.

Bottom line for me is that Bush will go down as another in a line of Mediocre presidents, not great, not bad, about the same as Clinton.

We won't really know for about 20 or more years until we have a little more objectivity, and see the results longer term of Iraq, etc.

Carter was long enough ago to really Judge - I can't for the life of me think of one thing good that came out of his presidency, except the election of Ronald Reagan.

Ed

Guest

04-06-2008, 03:51 AM

The war. I'm not the least bit interested in how the war began, how bad the intelligence was, or who voted for it. I'm far more concerned with the fact that the war is now the longest in history and we're farther away from establishing democratic peace in Iraq than we were the day Saddam's statue came down. We continue to sacrifice American lives and spend gobs of money in a war that cannot be won and which increases the hatred against us and thereby increases rather than decreases the prospect of more terrorist attacks in our homeland.

Bush Bashing. Even though I wasted a paragraph in an earlier post, there's little value in whining about what this President accomplished or didn't accomplish in his eight years in office. We'd all be better served spending out time choosing the right person to succeed him.

The Economy. My comments on the economy are not at all short term. If the stock market and the rate of economic growth return to previous levels, that won't cause me to reduce my criticism of the fundamental structure and competitiveness of the U.S. in the world economy. We are failing to provide our business community with an educated workforce and under the guise of maintaining a "free market economy" we're encouraging market participants to operate with an extremely short-term perspective. I agree with you on the danger of inflation. But the fundamental underlayment of our economy has been damaged to an extent that we are becoming a second rate economic power in the world. Inflation is dangerous because it might be the issue that most quickly reveals the depth of our problems.

Rating Presidents. Again, I'm not too interested in which of our recent Presidents will be rated by historians as best, average or worst. I think we all might be better served by studying and understanding how they lead the country, how they governed, and how their governance addressed the most fundamental problems facing the country during their terms of office. Did they make America better or worse on their watch? Did they leave their successors with a firm foundation for continued improvements or a bushel of problems that must be cleaned up before any positive leadership can occur? The purpose for seeking such understanding is for Americans to exhibit more wisdom in choosing political leaders and to equip future political leaders with the lessons of history so they can do a better job of leading and governing.

Guest

04-06-2008, 02:09 PM

Kahuna,
You rock! :)

Guest

04-06-2008, 02:50 PM

One this is for sure - whoever becomes (is)(or was) President, that person is only as good as the cadre of advisors surrounding him/her. There has never been an 'all-wise, all-knowing' President, and the folk who are appointed to the various "Secretaries, counsels-to, advisors, etc. form that inner-circle at 1600 PA Ave and make the policies which direct how the Departments operate. If that herd of folk contains any clunkers, the ripple-effect back within the Departments and eventually back to the White House can be brutal.

Having seen a lot of this first-hand, the real impacts are not necessarily at the Secretary level, but instead occur at all of the "Under Secretary" and next-level positions that fill the operating arms of each Department. Yet, the public never seems to notice or care whether the person filling these appointed positions has any technical qualifications or is simply being rewarded with title for having been loyal to the party. If both political parties have anything in common, it has been historically to use the "Plum Book" as a party employment guide where past party service always seems to be the ultimate deciding factor (when was the last time an administration appointed persons not of their party to key positions???)

So, we're back at the beginning. No matter what the campaign rhetoric, we the voters are betting on a blind race. While we can see the horse, we have little information on the jockey, no information on the trainer(s), don't know who "owns" the horse (now and in the future) and have no idea who the grooms will be when the race is over and the horse needs brushing down. Yet, the horse is only as good as the "support cast" and by itself is just so much meat-on-the-hoof.

A suggestion - pay a LOT of attention as to who surrounds each candidate, who endorses, who appears at campaign stops, who the lead-off speakers at each campaign appearance, and who attends the fund-raisers (especially the big ticket ones). Those will be the folk who will REALLY run the government and make the day-to-day decisions and provide the top-level advice the sitting President listens to - and in many cases directly TELL the President what the decision will be that will be made public from the White House. That's the reality of the situation - past, present, and future.

Guest

04-16-2008, 03:16 AM

Sorry...I really do apologize...

But thought this post could use a little humor...

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh96/renielarson/image001.jpg

Guest

04-16-2008, 01:43 PM

:bigthumbsup: Good bit of humor Brightspot and in my opinion right on the money! ;)

Guest

04-18-2008, 08:55 PM

History will be the judge of President Bush, not current events. Truman, for instance, has only been appreciated after he left office. He was quite unpopular while in office.
As far as the economy is concerned, we are in a cyclical downturn. We have had them before and we will again. The price of energy is due to 30+ years of failed energy policy, both Dems and GOP. In a historic sense, inflation is low as is unemployment. Lord knows where the eocnomy would be without the Bush tax cuts, especially on capital gains.
So, I think given the cards he has been delt, President Bush is doing a pretty good job.

Guest

04-19-2008, 10:30 AM

Sorry...I really do apologize...

But thought this post could use a little humor...

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh96/renielarson/image001.jpg
Thanks Brightspot - that was perfect!

Guest

05-06-2008, 06:38 PM

Guest

05-07-2008, 12:10 AM

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history.

By the way, the media is mainly controlled by Rupert Murdoch. The Liberal media is a myth promoted by Fox noise.

Guest

05-07-2008, 12:34 AM

Pretty much hits the nail on the head! Too bad he's not running for president!

Lee Iacocca Says:

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course" Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned " Titanic". I'll give you a sound bite: "Throw all the bums out!" The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom -poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the " America " my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you? I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest "C" is Crisis! Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell of a Mess So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while health care costs are slaughtering our once-great companies. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way These are times that cry out for leader ship. But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point. Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened. Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down , fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time. Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "The Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it? Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry. I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of, that some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Guest

05-07-2008, 03:10 AM

:bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup: Great post Junglejim!

Guest

05-07-2008, 03:41 AM

It was adequate. Of course, it was adequate 3 weeks ago when it was posted the first time.

Guest

05-25-2008, 12:55 AM

A BIG NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guest

05-27-2008, 09:37 PM

Let me share with you a quote I found in Winklopedia-

He overcame the low expectations of many political observers who compared him unfavorably with his highly regarded predecessor. At one point in his second term, near the end of the ... War, ...(his) public opinion ratings reached the lowest of any United States president. Despite negative public opinion during his term in office, popular and scholarly assessments of his presidency became more positive after his retirement from politics and the publication of his memoirs.

Oh, I forgot to mention that this was about President Truman. Hmmm.

Guest

05-28-2008, 03:19 AM

Bush did not and will not overcome my low expectations of him. I'd say "Mission Accomplished!" :o

Guest

05-28-2008, 12:28 PM

I am with you Chelsea.( and millions of others). Include in those millions-his old press secretary!! Scott has written a book and he still considers himself a friend of Bush! When your press secretary puts your job down-- you....you are no Truman!

Guest

05-28-2008, 12:29 PM

Time heals all wounds.

It made Pres's Truman, Kennedy, Roosevelt (both), Johnson (both), Hoover, Adams (both) Reagan and Eisenhower more tolerable to their critics and venerated in some circles, especially since they aren't around to make public appearances and commentary. All had their quirks, failures, image problems and other negativities.

It's too early for Pres's Carter, Bush (both) and Clinton, as they still have some limelight being shined upon them.

Pres. Nixon, by virtue of his resignation, will probably always have a shadow over his administration.

Guest

05-28-2008, 02:41 PM

To the question asked on the topic of this thread...
President Bush's old press secretary doesn't think he is doing a good job. Scott's book just came out.

Guest

05-28-2008, 02:53 PM

I don't understand why this question can't be answered is HE doing a good job
Yes because he's done this and that Or no because he's done this and that Why is it being answered by comparing him to other Presidents Isn't there anything good or bad that can be said about him directly :dontknow:

Guest

05-28-2008, 03:25 PM

Thanks, I agree. :) I have said bad job many times and in many ways.
So have others on this blog. Then someone changes it to past Presidents. :dontknow:
Well now Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (A Republican and friend of Bush) is coming out with a book saying bad job!!!!
Too bad so many have been killed and hurting because of a bad Job... >:(

Guest

05-28-2008, 03:37 PM

I always think there are 535 people in Washington DC who could change things by the weekend if they really wanted to.

Guest

05-28-2008, 06:00 PM

Guest

05-28-2008, 06:37 PM

mcelheny, please check out your reference to Scott McClellan.* I believe I heard he was a registered Democrat and was originally hired by Bill Clinton.* When he went to work for Bush he probably changed parties.* Probably just makes us question Bush's judgement of people, but it does make more sense why he would write a book bashing him now.*

Guest

05-28-2008, 07:11 PM

I2ridehd,
I checked 3 sources and your info was not there. He worked for his Mom and they said he worked for President Bush as Governor of Texas. He was a loyal supporter of Bush for a long time. He was assistant to the press secretary and took over as one of 4 press secretaries for President Bush.
You might be right as people change their parties all the time. Hillary was a Republican.
By the way, I have been Republican all my life until now. The county I grew up in had no Democrats. :)

Guest

05-28-2008, 08:09 PM

I just searched for it as well and couldn't find it. I heard that on the radio the other day, but I must have missed something from the discussion. Looks like he has always worked for Bush. Again bad judgement of people by Bush.

I consider myself a conservative so I have voted for both parties depending on where I lived. In the late 70's in the South, you had to vote democrat to get a conservative and when I lived in Mass, it went back and forth as to who was the most conservative. King vs Volpe, King the democrat was far more conservative. This upcoming election I will stay home or just vote for the local elections as both candidates are way to liberal for me to support.

Guest

05-28-2008, 08:15 PM

You are such a gentleman to admit your last post is wrong. :)
Well you would of loved where I grew up In Allegany Co. in NY.
Rather than hijack this thread anymore....

Guest

05-28-2008, 09:34 PM

What I am trying to say, and I think I have been clear, is that it is foolish to judge history while it is happening. I thought the Truman reference might bring some perspective to this argument. Foolish me. And it would be equally wrong to note that Winston Churchill got voted out of office at the end of WWII. Yes, that would be just wrong.
As for the McClellan book, well a loving portrait doesn�t sell as well as a hit job. Just ask George Stephanopoulos what the Clintons think of his book.

Just because it isn't a loving portrait doesn't mean it isn't true. I don't know if anyone read the book "Fiasco" about the military adventure in Iraq, but the book had made the case for much of what Mcclellan has written i.e. Mcclellan isn't the only one saying these things. So it just might be true......

Guest

05-29-2008, 02:21 PM

Look, I'm not saying that it isn't true. I was not there. I can only question the motives of the author. I am waiting for him to be asked why he published it this year and not aftter the President was out of office. Any answer other than, "Becuase I will sell more books in an election year", is disingenuous.

Guest

05-29-2008, 04:02 PM

Are you a mind reader??? Maybe you are all about making money but....for all the crap Scott is going to take for writing this book-no amount of money would be worth the bashing and character assisination to me. >:( Plus he is very bright with great career choices and a strong Republican family that are very rich in a Republican state. He is not hurting for money. Yes, I have pro Bush, oil rich friends in Texas. !!!
The pro Bush machine has tons and tons of very rich people. Many authors that are the far right and pro Bush--Why do they publish???? I just wish someone had taken on this adminstrartion before my newphew and thousands others lost their lives. ( Basically from the lower class)
You say many true things. I think we agree on this book.
Let the political spin continue but I doubt Scott did this for money. Don't worry- he will be pulled apart!!

Guest

05-29-2008, 05:10 PM

Interesting that publishing company that did his book is owned by George Soros.

The Soros-McClellan Connection
Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:28:40 pm PST

The hat tip for this post goes to LGF reader John Williams in Texas.

The company that published Scott McClellan�s new Bush-bashing book is Public Affairs Books, and their Editor at Large is a guy named Peter Osnos: About The Century Foundation.

The owner of Public Affairs Books is a company called Perseus Book Group. Here�s their ownership tree: Perseus Books Home.

The firm is owned by Perseus Funds Group (holding company Perseus LLC), a capital management firm that grew from about $20 million in 1995 to over $2 billion now. Big infusions of cash seemed to help it grow exponentially, and it closed funds almost as fast as it opened them. The board has tons of liberals from the Clinton and Carter Administrations, with far-left credentials that almost put Osnos� to shame. Their web site is here: PERSEUS - merchant bank and private equity fund management.

If you go to the New York Department of State web site and enter �Perseus� in the �Business Organization� search, you get this on page 2 of the results:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_Connection

Guest

05-29-2008, 06:48 PM

Plus, what talk show is he going on next? Keith Oberman, for gosh shakes. That will be a love fest. Now if he has the guts to go on The Factor, I will give him some credit. As it is he is just (in my opinon) a disgruntled former employee who sees this as a way to cash in.
All right, if he is not in this for the quick buck, why didn't he do the right thing by publishing this book after the President is out of office?

Guest

05-29-2008, 08:47 PM

Of course the political spin has both sides... :agree:Gone on in politics forever! So what :dontknow:
You show what side your on. Scott showed what side he is on now!!!
The topic of this thread is-" Does anyone really think Bush is doing a good job?"- That argument could go on and on. You are entitled to what you think. I Don't Think Bush is Doing a Good Job in many many areas.
Scott McClellan had an inside connection and was once very loyal to Bush. He has seen things that have made him change his mind. The pro Bush people like you will attack him, attack him, attack him. I know your position and you know mine. :)
So have a nice day. :)

Guest

05-30-2008, 02:11 AM

How about Scott McClellan wrote the book to help keep us from making the same mistakes again. If we invade Iran because they are such a grave threat just to keep the money making war machine for oil & profit in high gear, when will we learn? Now is the time for making this country something we and the whole world can be proud of. America is tired of these corporate criminals.

Guest

05-30-2008, 02:47 AM

Junglejim,
Good post! :agree: :agree: :agree:

Guest

05-30-2008, 03:19 AM

i see this is an old topic but i agree with billiethekidd's most recent contribution.

Guest

05-30-2008, 02:25 PM

Mcelheny and Jungle Jim, great posts. I agree that McClellan's conscience is bothering him, and he wants the public to know what really goes on behind closed doors. Having worked in a state communications office, I can vouch for a lot of the salesmanship that goes on trying to put a positive spin on things so the public will be more likely to accept it.

Guest

05-31-2008, 06:40 PM

Does anyone think we would be better off if Al Gore would have won??? How scary is that thought?

Guest

05-31-2008, 06:46 PM

Yes, I for one think we would have been better off if Al Gore won. And by the way, he did win. :o

Guest

05-31-2008, 07:24 PM

Rab you think it would be scary if Al Gore won
Give me a break you maen where doing good with busch Oil going thru the roof Inflation And where in a war we can't possibly win We have over 3000 soldiers killed over 30000
Coming home with either menatel problems or no arms or legs or both
This is going to be another Vietnam thousands of men and women killed and wouded
and then where going to end the war a war we never should have started and then what

Guest

05-31-2008, 07:37 PM

Sad, but freedom is not free. Fight them there or fight them here.....You choose. Remember 9/11?

Guest

05-31-2008, 09:09 PM

Rab,
Please tell me you are joking!
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
We should of kept our focus on going after Bin Laden. He is behind 9/11.
Please tell me you are joking in your post! I know the White House tried that spin but I though everybody knew by now it was a lie. Iraq has no airforce .. :o so they can't get here to fight!!! ;)

Guest

05-31-2008, 09:19 PM

I agree with Mcelheny we can send aman to the moon but we can't get Bin Laden Thats where all our efforts should be
I've read many articles that said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Guest

06-01-2008, 03:11 AM

speaking of mcclellan, i saw him speaking to anderson cooper last evening and expected him to say something terrible like the old excuse for going into iraq was to avenge his dad, etc, but surprisingly, he said the spin was put on wmd while the president really wanted to go into iraq because he has a vision of democracy in the middle east to which he is very commited and he really believes in the importance of iraq to this vision. personally, i don't think this is such a terrible quality in a leader. even though my beautiful grandson is deploying to iraq next week, i do believe that freedom for people in the middle east will overcome the seething hatred of these young men who have had no hope but radicalization in their closed-off society. i guess "vision" can never be proved until it has resulted in its goal.....let's hope he is right.

Guest

06-01-2008, 04:31 AM

chachacha,
We have lost many,many, beautiful young people(my newphew) for what???
You can't impose by war a Democracy! We are in a mess.I wish Bush had never started this war. There is so much suffering going on... :'(
I don't think Bush is doing a good job but he may or may not be a good person. :dontknow:

I will pray very hard that your beautiful grandson comes home safe.

Guest

06-01-2008, 05:33 PM

thank you so much for your prayers for my grandson....i know you lost your nephew because i have been reading the discussions. i certainly do not minimize the loss of so many young lives.

i did not mean that we should go to war to enforce democracy all over the world. of course there were compelling reasons (or so we all thought) at the time this war began, and if we are honest both parties were supporting the invasion of iraq. at the time i was in the minority who thought it was not necessary and defended the french (i'm a francophile) for suggesting we were being hasty while the whole country was refusing to say "french fries". do you remember all that? the point is that now that we are there, we must see it through or it will all have been for nought. we cannot leave the iraqi people in chaos. our efforts are slowly showing progress and we must stay the course.

Guest

06-01-2008, 08:51 PM

Chacharcha,
I think we agree. I was against the war from the begining too.

I would love to see peace in the world. :bigthumbsup:

I know you are right that we can't just pull out of Iraq. I also know that both parties have a part in getting into this war. But I pray it will end soon and God Bless all our soldiers.
I wish the people of wealth and power and governments(Bush) would think very hard before sending anybody's child into war. Some wars have been worth fighting...but I sure don't think this one was! >:(

Guest

06-02-2008, 01:23 AM

>
>
>
> BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH
>
> The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maineiac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.
>
> The speech George W. Bush might give:
> []
> Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
> I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
> []
> The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
> Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.
> []
> Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.
> We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.
> []
> Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Now some of you morons are considering another and more evil Clinton for president !!!! Go figure that one!! She wants to take your kids away and let the 'Whole Village' raise them! i.e. governmental indoctrination .. Look this one up you dumb asses!
> The rest of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan, a nucular ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to reelect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nucular weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?
> You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
> []
> That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.
> You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'
> []
> Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
> Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.
> In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.
> I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.
> []
> I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
> So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
> []
> Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
> So that's it. God bless what's left of America.
> Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.
>
> PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.
>

Any one who votes or even talks about the election should read this.

Guest

06-02-2008, 02:06 AM

ldj1938, that was one great post. Now that was Bush bashing with a twist :bigthumbsup:

Guest

06-02-2008, 03:19 PM

the resignation speech was a great post. i wish i knew how to cut and paste. it brought tears to my eyes because it is so right on....i fear most of us WOULD rather watch american idol than think about the important issues before us. please, please, please let us pray and meditate carefully before pulling that lever in the voting booth!

Guest

06-02-2008, 08:19 PM

That is a great post. Also about the 2000 election, Geroge W. Bush won. When you count the undervotes (hanging chad) and overvotes (a punch and a write in) most media looking at it since 2000 have concluded that Bush won.

Guest

06-02-2008, 08:49 PM

You're wrong. I can guarantee you that.

Guest

06-03-2008, 09:24 PM

Let's see, Does anyone really think Bush is doing a good job?

In the end, as good as we got from Pres. Kennedy, Johnson, Roosevelt and Carter.

This always seems to boil down to a debate as to which party provides the better Executive Branch leadership. For my money, it's a coin-flip.

If we use military killed/wounded in action as a yardstick (a darned lousy one to me, but it keeps coming up), the Democratic presidents have an insurmountable lead in this category, by a ratio too obscene to publish.

If we use national debt accumulated/terminated, the Republican presidents don't score well at all.

If we look at who robs from the middle class and distributes it to everyone else, both parties are fairly equal, even though they go about it in different ways.

So, let's see what the next herd of appointees hiding behind the vote-getter's britches provide us.

Guest

06-03-2008, 10:36 PM

Oh, please don't use President Kennedy and George Bush in the same breath.

Guest

06-04-2008, 05:32 PM

Oh, please don't use President Kennedy and George Bush in the same breath.

In the 34 months John F. Kennedy was president:

1) we entered Vietnam in force;
2) relations with the USSR dipped, and the Berlin Wall was built;
3) covert actions to depose of Fidel Castro backfired, and the Bay of Pigs disaster occurred;
4) the number of nuclear ICBMs was increased from 63 to 424 (the "Bomb" era was now on us);
5) his Secretary of Defense (Robert McNamara) agreed to various defense sweetheart deals, one of which being the infamous M-16 rifle (fielded too early, resulting in battlefield deaths);
6) created the Food Stamp program (which is still a mess); and
7) brought nepotism to new heights with the appointment of his brother as Attorney General.

Yep, he did "accomplish" more in his 34 months than Pres. Bush did in eight years...

Guest

06-04-2008, 07:40 PM

In the 34 months John F. Kennedy was president:

Steve, how dare you criticize St. John of Hyannis Port :yikes:.

Like so many in the mid 60's, I was taught that only Oswald kept JFK from being one of the greats of all time, the logical addition to Mt. Rushmore. It wasn't until much later when one could see so many of his actions in retrospect and in perspective that one could accurately take a measure of the man, and for Kennedy that is still dangerous business. An interesting aspect of the JFK regime was the election of 1962. Kennedy and Co had decided that they'd go after Democrats they considered soft and build a Congress that would rubber stamp anything the administration wanted. They sent Bobby and other member of the Irish Mafia out during primary season to nail specific Senators and Congressman. Kennedy overestimated his reach, his "enemies" won, and basically he couldn't pass gas in the new Congress. It took LBJ's carrot and stick approach to get all the "Kennedy" bills passed in the early days of his administration. Yes, JFK brought in a new tone to government, and might have done some great things, though there's little evidence, but factually he didn't do Diddley (RIP, Bo.).

But, you still can't treat JFK or any of the Kennedys as even human. From Lloyd Bentsen to the myriad hosannas piled on Teddy during his recent illness, from the near canonization of JFK Jr. to the ultra forgiving and adulatory attitude toward other 2nd generation members of the clan, the Kennedys are above and beyond objective analysis.

Of the presidents of the 60's, only JFK is admired, even adored today. LBJ, who actually carried out so many of Kennedy's wishes and built his Great Society (for which he likely should be condemned but which was and is the dream of liberal Democrats) is blamed by the 60's liberals for Vietnam and belittled and condemned. Milhous opened relations with China and established detente with the USSR, attempted to create national health care, did created the EPA and OSHA, and initiated SALT yet will always be condemned to his own circle of hell because of Watergate. Sometimes objectivity and balance take a long time to reach.

Guest

06-05-2008, 06:08 PM

Ironically, all of the latest rhetoric regarding Sen. Obama possibly having Sen. Clinton as the #2 on the Democratic ticket reminds me of the Kennedy-Johnson ticket - two guys who had a great distaste for each other, but the DNC made this political marriage so that Northern and Southern votes could be gotten. It did not matter that the two of them never did work together on anything - and VP Johnson was exiled from all of the inner sanctum activities.

It clearly demonstrated that getting the party's puppets elected is more important to the Party's National Committees than anything being accomplished by the "winners" for the nation post-election.

Guest

06-05-2008, 06:30 PM

Yes i think Bush is doing a good job But more rides are needed Oh i thought you were talking about Bush Gardens Sorry i take it back

Guest

06-05-2008, 11:55 PM

LOL
Good BSLINY
;D ;D ;D

Guest

06-07-2008, 11:50 PM

NEW BOOK PUBLISHED MAY 26, 2008
Famed Charles Manson prosecutor and three time #1 New York Times bestselling author Vincent Bugliosi has written the most powerful, explosive, and thought-provoking book of his storied career.
In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bugliosi presents a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq. Bugliosi sets forth the legal architecture and incontrovertible evidence that President Bush took this nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses�a war that has not only caused the deaths of American soldiers but also over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children; cost the United States over one trillion dollars thus far with no end in sight; and alienated many American allies in the Western world.

As a prosecutor who is dedicated to seeking justice, Bugliosi, in his inimitable style, delivers a non-partisan argument, free from party lines and instead based upon hard facts and pure objectivity.

A searing indictment of the President and his administration, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder also outlines a legally credible pathway to holding our highest government officials accountable for their actions, thereby creating a framework for future occupants of the oval office.

Vincent Bugliosi calls for the United States of America to return to the great nation it once was and can be again. He believes the first step to achieving this goal is to bring those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice.

Guest

06-08-2008, 12:33 AM

junglejim you should be ashamed for posting that.

Guest

06-08-2008, 02:27 AM

75% of Americans believe the Iraq war is wrong and we should get out ASAP. The same feel that we were lied in to this war. They also believe Bush and his band of cronies should be held accountable for their misdeeds. The Bush family has been long time friends with the Saud and Bin Laden Families. The Bush clan has also befriended the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. They have received quite a bit of wealth from these sources over the years. George's grandfather almost got in trouble for helping finance Hitler's war machine. His father almost got in trouble for the increased CIA involvement in the drug trade while under his command. This family makes the Sopranos look like chiorboys. The Bushs and their friends from Arabia have brought this country to its knees. We will survive.....you can count on that!

Guest

06-08-2008, 03:16 AM

Guest

06-08-2008, 04:24 AM

:agree: Johnny

What happened to patriotism Jim? Regardless of your personal opinion of our President, patriotism should be first and foremost. GWB has the passion which inspires one to serve one's country. He is doing it to the best of his ability whether we agree with him or not.

I AM NOT A GWB SUPPORTER...so don't get me wrong. However, I, as an American...would never ever refer to our President as a murderer.

You need to thank God you live in a country where there is freedom of speech. Many other places, you would be executed.

Guest

06-08-2008, 09:15 AM

Sigh. I vowed I was staying out of political. That I would keep my mouth shut and my hands still but I just can't do it.

To me, patriorism is loving this country regardless of its warts. Patriorism is not blind or at least it shouldn't be. It seems like the Vietnam protests would have taught us that. LBJ was constantly called a murderer ("Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today?")and those protesting felt justified in using those words. GWB can't be called a murderer but the wars can be compared -- neither of which had any justification for being fought other than idiotic politics. Sorry, but I don't agree.

I was taught to honor the office, not necessarily the man (the joys of military brathood and asking why you saluted someone you knew was a jerk).

I do not like GWB. I don't consider him a murderer but many do. They have that right. Just because the man is in office doesn't change his shortcomings, doesn't alter that lies were told to the American people and the governments of the world about Iraq and Saddam, that Iraq became a target and our fight agaisnt bin Laden and his ilk was put on a back burner.

The day we are stopped from saying what we think of those we've elected into a position of power is the day we have lost the right to call this nation a democracy.

Guest

06-08-2008, 12:13 PM

Well then, go right out and burn a flag. You might as well go the whole nine yards. Think of how the enemy feels when they read some American fool calling a sitting President of the United States of America, a murderer. It makes them feel powerful and right against our men. They feel even the American people hate our troops if they are calling their leader a murderer. Wake up, berate him and call into question his actions concerning the war (liberation), but murderer is sinful. A big mistake was made, but Congress and The Senate made it, too. This man is not a sole assassin. Chavez called him "El Diablo" The Devil, and that broke my heart to hear our President who represents America, called a Devil by some left wing loon starving his people. God Bless America, whether you like the President or not.

Guest

06-08-2008, 01:26 PM

Johnny, if one book written by one author is going to make that much of an impact on the rest of the world, I sincerely hope it is the Bible and not something written by Bugliosi. As I said, I don't think he is a murderer. I actively dislike GWB and I think we have no business in Iraq but that's an entirely different issue.

Our enemies feel right and powerful regardless what is said here about our President, especially in the Middle East. So long as we exist, so long as we have troops in the Middle East and so long as we support Israel, many of them will feel they have the right to kill our troops.

I want our troops out of Iraq. I want them searching for Bin Laden and his cronies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I hurt every time I hear of one of boys or girls being injured or killed in Iraq. I will say thank you to each and every one that has served, no matter what war it was. Our troops deserve our love and respect. That doesn't mean our leaders do.

If someone chooses to write a book stating that our President and, yes, our Congress, is committing murder each and every time an American is killed in Iraq, that is that person's right. To get angry about it is your right. To basically threaten another, which was the basic tone of your post to jim, is beneath you.

To tell me to go burn a flag is beneath contempt. It goes more to the "how dare you!" You served in the military for this country. My father gave his entire life for this country -- it was a military injury that ultimately killed him at age 36. My brother went to Nam three times. Not because he believed in that war -- he didn't -- but because he felt he could save American GIs by being there. I've lost several friends in Nam, including the boy I thought I was going marry. I've held friends' hands as they got word their son and then their daughter were killed and injured in Iraq. Don't you dare tell me to go burn a flag because I defend someone's right to write a book and quote it here.

And, yes, God bless America. But I'll be damned if I'll bless our leaders who lied to us, who cheat us on a daily basis, who use their position to get rich on our backs. And I will fight for the right of anyone in this country to say what they think even if I totally disagree with it. That's what makes America so great -- our willingness to allow others to speak their mind, to fight for that right, to be there to help another have that right.

Guest

06-08-2008, 03:37 PM

George W. Bush is President of the United States, not St. George of the United States. Jim has every right to his post. I, personally, would not call Bush "The Devil" or a murderer. I would however call him a dimwit. I don't think he ever had the intelligence to be President and that is why I NEVER voted for him. The mistakes made by this presidency are overwhelming and cost many American lives. I alway liked the song "God Bless The Child that Got His Own." Bush rode in on his Daddy's coattails and now McCain is trying to do the same. Also, to blindly follow anyone, including the President of the United States, is simply ridiculous. The only one I blindly follow is Jesus.

I agree that the people of the Middle East are not pumped up by what we think. They have their own agenda. I find that the people that voted for Bush always say "History will tell." It's my belief that history will only validate this putrid presidency.

Guest

06-08-2008, 03:55 PM

Guest

06-08-2008, 04:20 PM

Why anyone would want to be President sometimes baffles me. All you get is folk Monday-morning quarterbacking everything, and there's a LOT of everything to jab.

Occasionally we should all take a look at the "org chart" of the US Government - just that section within the Executive Branch - 15 Departments and 93 Independent Agencies/Government Corporations. Within the Departments are another few dozen agencies as well. That's what the Chief Executive is responsible to oversee.

Time management, reliance on staff and experts, and sheer will is necessary to keep from losing control - and they all do at some point. Superman hasn't been on the ballot yet (and can't - he's an alien(lol)) No where else on this planet is a Chief Executive's decisions (certainly not in the corporate world) under so much scrutiny.

This is not necessarily the job for a purely "smart" person. I know many folk with multiple Ph.D.s who would crack after the first fortnight under the pressure. A "strong" person with hard-core management skills, willing to take on the sheer size of the Executive Branch and the myriad of competing interests - all demanding extensive face-time - is mandatory.

Information management, time management, skilled staff and experts, and a strong gut is what keeps the Executive Branch functional. Expecting a president to be expert at most of the functional areas, and fully cognizant of "everything that is going on" is ludicrous.

While its easy to horse-whip the captain of a ship for everything that happens within it, it's unrealistic as well. So, expecting a political Messiah to "make everything better" is naivete at its highest.

If you think it can be done, just look at the org chart(s) involving the Executive Branch, and come up with how you would time-manage it all so that you "knew everything going on..."

Guest

06-08-2008, 04:33 PM

Guest

06-09-2008, 12:41 AM

You obviously didn't lose a son or daughter. Well over 5 thousand have!!I know this gov't doesn't care or even count civilians or private contractors...
What do you call a leader who lies, lies lies to put a country into a war that has taken fathers, sons, daughters, mothers ...????
I lost a nephew . Tom was 19. Who should die at 19....?????
What do you call someone who sends thousands to die....????

I don't want to hear anymore :edit:.
I am MAD!

Guest

06-09-2008, 01:25 AM

Steve you are being to easy on them. They don't understand rationale. One more time. I'm not blindly following anyone. I respect the Office of the President. Is that easier for you to understand. You keep bringing up "talking points" and diatribes about GWB and his family and then you slip in McCain. All I said was don't call the President a murderer, it is offensive in many ways to decent Americans who DO respect the office.

Respecting the office has nothing to do with it. Respect is earned and you mean to say that no matter how many horrendous mistakes the president makes with such autraucities, you still repsect the office? Sounds somewhat like the 3rd reich with blind faith. How could you accept the fact that worst of all the innocent lives he has taken and for what? How about homeland security? That's where we should be with our military forces, protecting our homeland and certainly not getting our military killed and maimed where countries have been at war for hundreds of years.

The respect throughout the world for GWB, his office and our country tells it all; listen to the polls and the people. He's a loser and should be impeached for his actions. The role of his office brings all of the horrors of it all onto his shoulders; he's the sole one who must pay for the unethical, amorale autracities that exist. That is the sole responsibility of the office of the president. You respect the office, then you respect GWB; how could you and honestly say that you support the blunders? Office and President is one in the same; you want to just respect the office, not possible when you have such a loser sitting in that office.

Sorry Johnny, with all due respect to you, I just can not understand your rationale. My heart is so heavy with sadness over the loss and horrendous impairment of our innocent military serving their country.

barb1191

Guest

06-09-2008, 02:52 AM

Guest

06-09-2008, 04:06 AM

This was my original post:
"Listen I am going to try and keep a level head here. You do not call a sitting President a murderer. I don't care how much you hate him and his family. You can shout to the high heavens about how bad you think this Administration is, but I am telling you for your own good, do not call the President of the United states a murderer. 'nuff said."

Okay, this is it for me. One last try. Red said she wouldn't call the President a murderer in her reply, Chelsea said she wouldn't call the President a murderer in her reply. Barb are you calling the President a murderer, because if you check my original post above that was my only objection to junglejims post. If you think he is a murderer than go ahead and say it, here and now. That goes for mcelheny also.

Would you call Hitler a murderer?

You support the position, then you also support the person sitting in that seat.
I think I made my feelings clear enough without you having to put words in my mouth. There are so very many grieving with not only loss of loved ones, but those who returned as maimed and lifeless. They are entitled to call this leader whatever they choose. They most certainly are entitled to vent as they have surely earned it and paid the price one way or another.

When someone is responsible for the many casualties and deaths of innocent people in this war, in my book you can call him anything you want to and I certainly have no respect for the lame duck or his seat. When we elect a real leader, he/she will get my full respect and support. .....b

Guest

06-09-2008, 04:09 AM

Simple question Barb, no spin.

Guest

06-09-2008, 04:46 AM

Barb

It isn't going to be a SHE...where have you been?

Guest

06-09-2008, 10:42 AM

Respecting the office has nothing to do with it. Respect is earned and you mean to say that no matter how many horrendous mistakes the president makes with such autraucities, you still repsect the office? Sounds somewhat like the 3rd reich with blind faith. How could you accept the fact that worst of all the innocent lives he has taken and for what? How about homeland security? That's where we should be with our military forces, protecting our homeland and certainly not getting our military killed and maimed where countries have been at war for hundreds of years.

The respect throughout the world for GWB, his office and our country tells it all; listen to the polls and the people. He's a loser and should be impeached for his actions. The role of his office brings all of the horrors of it all onto his shoulders; he's the sole one who must pay for the unethical, amorale autracities that exist. That is the sole responsibility of the office of the president. You respect the office, then you respect GWB; how could you and honestly say that you support the blunders? Office and President is one in the same; you want to just respect the office, not possible when you have such a loser sitting in that office.

Sorry Johnny, with all due respect to you, I just can not understand your rationale. My heart is so heavy with sadness over the loss and horrendous impairment of our innocent military serving their country.

barb1191

Barb, great post. G. Bush may not have meant for all our soldiers to die in this unjust war, but he bears responsibility. His administration pushed the war, and he still won't back down.

Guest

06-09-2008, 01:21 PM

Barb

It isn't going to be a SHE...where have you been?

Hey gal; I've been right here and was not speaking specifically in the present. Don't you believe that there will be a "she" in the future? I do. .....b

Guest

06-09-2008, 01:39 PM

It seems to me no one will answer the question that started all of this. Everyone just wants to wail away at GWB. At least you prove my point. No one has put their money where their mouth is and charged George Bush as a murderer. If that is the case then my original objection to junglejims post holds true and all this back and forth was not necessary. You don't call a sitting President a murderer. It does not help our troops in the field and emboldens our enemies.

Guest

06-09-2008, 01:42 PM

Listen I am going to try and keep a level head here. You do not call a sitting President a murderer. I don't care how much you hate him and his family. You can shout to the high heavens about how bad you think this Administration is, but I am telling you for your own good, do not call the President of the United states a murderer. 'nuff said.

Johnny: Please validate what gives you the authority to tell anybody what they can and can not say?

Furthermore, my issue with you is not about calling the President a murderer. My issue with you is strictly not understanding your ability to respect the position of a person who has ruined that position. GWB has without a doubt not earned any respect and it happened while in the position of President. Thus, my friend, he's ruined both, i.e., his own reputation along with the position of President.

As for your insistance that I proclaim to you my feelings regarding the opinion of somebody else who called GWB a murderer, that, my man, is none of your business what my opinion is, and may I suggest that you get down off your high horse and refrain from telling people what they can say and not say.

barb

Guest

06-09-2008, 02:27 PM

bump

Guest

06-09-2008, 02:35 PM

Barb I was nineteen when my President and Commander in Chief was assassinated. That had quite an impact on me and I will always remember waking to the news the President had been assassinated. I respected the office as a young serviceman and I respect the office now. I'm sure I am not alone on this, however I said my piece and made my point to my satisfaction.

Guest

06-09-2008, 03:49 PM

Thank you Barb... well put.
Please pray for the families that are suffering so because this man does not care how many of them die. :'( It is not his daughters.

Guest

06-10-2008, 01:14 AM

There have been a lot of hard posts here. What the heck, here�s mine.

I have a lot of empathy for anyone who has lost a loved one due to military action. Grief is difficult on the best of days, and wanting to lash out and lay blame is human. Getting the notice that someone you have watched grow has died or been seriously wounded is horrific. What�s also horrific is to witness it happening around you to friends who have become closer than family (yes, that is possible) and carry those sights, sounds, smells and contact forever � you never shake it.

Wars are not popular, except to those who have no idea what is involved. During the Vietnam conflict (to me, �war� is the correct word, but �war� was never declared) the entire 15-year, 58,000+ killed, 300,000+ wounded involvement was the result solely of orders from the sitting Commander-in-Chief (first, Pres. Kennedy, then Pres. Johnson, then closed out by Pres. Nixon).

Sitting presidents are not impervious to the law. �High crimes and misdemeanors,� and ultra vires use of authority which results in death can qualify as such, still provides Congress with the reason to impeach a sitting president. It�s happened in our recent history, and the hue and cry when it last happened was that there was a Republican-led Congress out to lynch a Democratic President.

Throughout the Vietnam War, despite all of the protestors and activists, neither Pres. Kennedy nor President Johnson was impeached. I would like to think that if there was evidence of wrongdoing, that Congress would have stepped in. For the Iraq/Afghanistan War, especially with a Democratic-led Congress and a Republican President � and an election coming up � if there was ANY evidence of wrongdoing by the President, then Congress would be going through the impeachment process at breakneck speed, coupled with the press turning the event into a three-ring circus.

Since the Democrats chair and have the majority on all of the Congressional oversight committees, one would think that if a case could be made against Pres. Bush in any way, shape or manner, it would be done by now. Since Congress has deferred to pass judgment � as is their job to do since Congress has ALL of the information on the subject � then history will get the job to assess the Bush presidency.

I�m not a basher or fan of this administration. It�s time for a change, and the law of the land demands it after two terms.

I still grieve for several who were very close to me, and working in the DC area has been a blessing and curse, because I find too many times to be near The Wall. I just can�t pass it without stopping at certain panels and the combination of loss, rage and sorrow really tests my faith sometimes. It would be simple to just blame Pres. Kennedy (he got us into Vietnam) and Pres. Johnson (he kept us there) as heartless swine, but that's too easy and convenient and just wrong.

Guest

06-12-2008, 01:29 AM

Principle can cut both ways on any given issue. The principle inherent in the concept of the moral responsibility of the American people to question their leadership at all times, but especially when matters of war are at stake, is as valid for the pro as it is the con.

The validity of this principle is not judged on the level of militancy of the presidential action in question, but rather its viability as judged by the values and ideals of the American people. While the diversity of the United States dictates that there will be a divergence of consensus when it comes to individual values and ideals, the collective ought to agree that the foundation upon which all American values and ideals should be judged is the U.S. Constitution, setting forth as it does a framework of law which unites us all. To hold the Constitution up as a basis upon which to criticize the actions of any given president is perhaps the most patriotic act an American can engage in. As Theodore Roosevelt himself noted, �No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man�s permission when we ask him to obey it. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.�

Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley says there are numerous crimes for which Bush could easily be impeached, the President�s greatest ally has been the Democratic Congress who have skirted their constitutional duties and consistently given him a pass rather than practice any oversight. The fact is, that this is not supposed to happen the way it�s happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity, if not the collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof, and God knows we�ve put that to the test in the past few years, but I don�t think they anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes.�

Guest

06-12-2008, 01:59 AM

Guest

06-12-2008, 04:27 PM

....... I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof, and God knows we�ve put that to the test in the past few years, but I don�t think they anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes.�

I agree that if thre is one area of "progress" over the past 2 1/2 centuries, we seem to be making "better idiots."

You pose great questions to the members of the opposition, and their answers - or ability to evade answering - is of interest to us all. The norm is for any Article of Impeachment presented by a House member to be first reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee.

The current chair of the Judiciary Committee is the Hon. John Conyers, Jr. (D) Michigan, 14th. The remaining Democratics members (22 out of 38 total) are: Hon. Berman, (D) California, 28th; Hon. Boucher, (D) Virginia, 9th; Hon. Nadler, (D) New York, 8th; Hon. Scott,
(D) Virginia, 3rd; Hon. Watt, (D) North Carolina, 12th; Hon. Lofgren, (D) California, 16th; Hon. Jackson Lee, (D) Texas, 18th; Hon. Waters, (D) California, 35th; Hon. Delahunt, (D) Massachusetts, 10th; Hon. Wexler, (D) Florida, 19th; Hon. S�nchez, (D) California, 39th; Hon. Cohen, (D) Tennessee, 9th; Hon. Johnson, (D) Georgia, 4th; Hon. Sutton, (D) Ohio, 13th; Hon. Gutierrez, (D) Illinois, 4th; Hon. Sherman, (D) California, 27; Hon. Baldwin, (D) Wisconsin, 2nd; Hon. Weiner, (D) New York, 9th; Hon. Schiff, (D) California, 29th; Hon. Davis, (D) Alabama , 7th; Hon. Wasserman Schultz, (D) Florida, 20th; and Hon. Ellison, (D) Minnesota, 5th.

So, is this another of the "great conspiracies" or just political rhetoric? If I was still a Democrat (chased away by the DNC after the FL primary debacle), I'd want to know why all the talk from the Dems and yet no action to back it up????