Topic awaiting preservation: What does everyone think of Bush? (Page 2 of 2)

MW, shouldn't we be more concerned with the size of the middle class? What are the figures on that? I don't care if the rich are getting richer, good for them! But if the poor are also getting less poor in the process, good for them too! Didn't John F. Kennedy say that a rising tide raises all boats? Or something like that anyways.

And just for the record (as if you all didn't know) I think Bush is doing an infinitely better job than Gore would/could have done. And the prospect of a return to failed foreign policy under 8 years of C*****n with Kerry puts me in a black mood.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-27-2004).]

quote:

---

MW, shouldn't we be more concerned with the size of the middle class? What are the figures on that?

---

AFAIK the middle class has actually been shrinking in most industrial nations for quite some time, while the poor are increasing in numbers; but once again, you´d probably say that´s because of too much socialism, while I think it´s too much neoliberalism... both theories are equally hard, if not impossible to (dis)prove...

quote:

---

I don't care if the rich are getting richer, good for them! But if the poor are also getting less poor in the process, good for them too! Didn't John F. Kennedy say that a rising tide raises all boats? Or something like that anyways.

---

But there is no "rising tide", not in Europe and not in the US - and it seems that in the process of a generally slow economy worldwide (with some exceptions), the rich are still getting richer but the poor are getting both poorer and more numerous, with especially the second being cause for concern.

My comment was also primarily aimed at Ramasax´s claim that "the socialists" punish people for working hard and being succesful. So at some point people won´t bother to do that, because it doesn´t pay off anymore, which would lead to stagnation. This theory sounds compelling.
Until you realize that the opposite is happening: The factor by which a manager earns more than his employees is continually growing, even under so-called "socialist governments" - So actually the reward for working harder than your peers to achieve a better position has continually grown for the last fifty years - so there´s room for a much more socialist policy without risking that the picture of everyone being forced into equality that the right likes so much to paint becomes reality. There are other ponts to consider as well, but this particular, and often-used argument is just wrong, IMO.

quote:

---

And just for the record (as if you all didn't know) I think Bush is doing an infinitely better job than Gore would/could have done. And the prospect of a return to failed foreign policy under 8 years of C*****n with Kerry puts me in a black mood.

---

Hmm, I don´t recall much spectacular (good or bad) about C*****n´s foreign policy, but calling Bush´s foreign policy a success? Well, we can agree to completely disagree here, as so often...

MW, I'm not current enough with the latest economic figures so I can't really argue the stats. I am going on what happened in the decades past and making judgements about economic policies from that.

I didn't call Bush's foreign policy a "success". I think that determination must be made after we see the longer term effects. I believe it is pointed in the right direction even if I don't agree with all of its details. What I do know for certain is that Gore would have taken an entirely different approach to the attacks that occurred on 9/11. I think he would have taken the same stance as the newly elected Spanish government.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

What do I think of Bush?

Well, he's not my president. But as far as I know him, all I can say is that I don't like him at all. If I were to define him in just one word, I'd say he's _false_.
The world was much better before him and will be much better after him, so I hope (fixing his mistakes may take some time, though).

I think too many people hate Bush because he dares to confront evil in this world. It is a curious tendency when people cannot fathom the acts of terrorists and then turn their scorn on those who oppose them. Remember that he was not the one who started the hostilities, he is trying to put an end to them.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugimus, your message reminded me of fairy tales, where there are the Good and the Evil. This simplicity of view hurts.

well...I was thinking today

there are many "evil" dictators nowdays...lost of them..

but why should he go to Iraq, when there are alot more dangerouse problems near home?

Seriously, Fidel Castro is way bigger threat to America than Saddam...

maybe its oil?

Ruski:

quote:

---

Maybe its oil ?

---

Maybe the American government have some doubts regarding Saudi Arabia ( some of the terrorists of the 911 came from there, so does Osama Ben Laden ) and wants a good reserve of oil dedicated to the USA ?

Maybe Bush wants to please daddy.
"Look Dad, I did it, I did it !!!

quote:

---

Seriously, Fidel Castro is way bigger threat to America than Saddam...

---

Seriously, that´s Bullshit.
What is Fidel gonna do? Invade Florida? Give me a break! Cuba is about as dangerous to the US as a fly on your windshield is to your car.

Ohh you already forgot about the missle crisis from the past?

I see..



[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 03-28-2004).]

Well, OK, so Russia is the biggest threat to the US, or did you forget about the cold war?

Tell me in what way Cuba is a danger to the US today, if you don´t mind. Again, do you think they are gonna invade florida, or that the Sowiets forgot some nuclear missiles there?

quote:

---

Cuba is about as dangerous to the US as a fly on your windshield is to your car.

---

Don't knock it... insects can be pretty lethal to your car's finish.

Actually Russia was never a threat to USA...Soviet Union was...communists were

yes they almost triggered the WW3, with the help of Fidel...

no they wont invade florida...stop talking like a child.

And dont forget we have north korea...who are communists as well...

Well if you look back just about every Republican that was president has tried/ succeed in creating a war. I mean I just see a bunch of power hungry men.
And speaking of Communists, I tend to sometimes believe America is some what a Communist country. I wrote a college paper about that (It was for my writing major) My teacher jumped down my throat so to speak about it. She thought it was provocative. Why would that be? Some people are just too touchy anymore.

BiGCaC

quote:

---

no they wont invade florida...stop talking like a child.

---

I´ll stop making fun of your claim that Cuba is a threat to the US as soon as you make the effort to write a coherent post explaining why.

BiGCaC, I think if you crack open a history book you will find a healthy mix of both parties in the wars we've fought over the years. Just take Vietnam as an example, Truman sent advisors ni 1950, Eisenhower continued the commitment, Kennedy increased it, Johnson went ape sh*t all over it, and Nixon finally got us out. By my count, that's 3 Dems to 2 Reps with a Dem getting us in and a Rep getting us out.

And I would love to hear more about how America is a communist country. What is that all about?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Well dont go ape sh!t on my post. I am just stating my own opinion. And I have opened many text books. I am not saying there werent any Dem. starting wars, I said most of them were Rep, because in the past what 10 years or so there were Rep, trying to start wars.
And about the Communist thing, well take a look, Ok in almost all Communist Countries there is a monopoly. Do we have a monopoly? Yes. Your local supermarket for example, you go and you find your "generic" brand a peas and your "name brand" peas. What is the difference? Nothing. They are made by the same company, the only difference is that the company making the peas found cans of peas that for some reason were not up to the companys standards, meaning that they may not be the right oz or what not. So your supermarket buys them for a cheap price, puts their label on it, then sells it to you for twice as much as they bought it for. But here is the catch, the company who sold the peas to the supermarket still get profit, meaning they are still in complete control.
Need another example?
How about someone going out to be a cop or run for president? You can't. If you want to be a cop you must first have no crimial record, ok, you must go to the police academy and be qualified, then in most states you must be 21 to apply for a job at your local police department. So you have to go through all that to do one thing forever. The president issue, well, not everyone can run. You must have experience in politics. And how are you to get true, good, qualification if you cant go out and experience it?
I dont expect you to agree with me, my teacher sure didnt, and it dont matter. I am just stating my opinion. You have yours and I have mine.

BiGCaC

I think this thread has evolved from a blame Bush campaign into something infinitely more interesting. That is great. I took some time over the weekend to further explain my position on Socialism, communism, Taxation as slavery and the ultimate outcome of stagnation.

Bug's, we are not a communist country, but we have the capacity of becoming one in a relatively short period of time if the current trends continue. The more the government gains control of us, the closer we become. I quoted this above and will quote it again:

quote:

---

Nikita Khrushchev:
We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.

---

Anyways, new thread here.

I know that this may piss some people off but I THINK BUSH is a complete DUMBASS.
Not only is the "war" in Iraq stupid,hypocritical,(Same goes for the war in Afghanistan) but this egotistical cry-baby we call a president has no sense when it comes to strategy (not to mention the fact that he's wasting our money on space exploration). His little Carpet-Bombing idea is a nice little show of power but that's all it is, a showboating of the U.S's ability to pick on a little country that can't hit us back.What he should have done is paradropped a Seal Team (or other elite covert ops team) into Iraq and Afghanistan and kidnapped Hussien and Osama. All the monkey (the name I use for G.W.) is has done in office (along with the help of some previous presidents) is destroyed the environment and turned a country whose goals and oblligations were once moral and just and turned it into the global version of a common playground bully/thug. If you want more of my oppinion on Bush or wish to discuss or DEBATE about politics with me e-mail me or request to do so on the Forums.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

quote:

---

paradropped a Seal Team

---

OK, that was funny.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

I happen to agree completely with Sangreal. Bush has a problem with finishing what he starts. Look at this war, he started it, but all that is going on now is our troops are dying. Why is that? Because he doesnt know when to pull out? Or maybe because he has moved on to a stupid little playground fight with Kerry.

BiGCaC

quote:

---

I happen to agree completely with Sangreal. Bush has a problem with finishing what he starts. Look at this war, he started it, but all that is going on now is our troops are dying. Why is that? Because he doesnt know when to pull out? Or maybe because he has moved on to a stupid little playground fight with Kerry.

---

Why is that? Umm....maybe because it is only a year old. How many years did it take to rebuild Japan? Only an idiot would pull out now. At least try and get a clue as to what you are talking about.

Saddam had it coming. He executed between 300k and 1M of his own people, these numbers are wholly inaccurate though as we are sure to find more graves. Torture, rape, and murder were national policies. During the war with Iran, Saddam killed 1.5M Iranians, even using poison gas with total disregard to the Geneva Convention. He invaded his neighbor Kuwait and siezed their oil fields. Saddam also supported terrorism by paying bounties to families of palestinean suicide bombers, by trying to assasinate former president Bush, and by sheltering known terrorists. He played the entire world for fools for over 12 years. Read more...

Now, a short one year later Saddam has been caught. About 240 hospitals and over 1200 health clinics have opened. More than 22 million vaccinations have been administered to the children of Iraq. Iraq's universities and colleges are now open, as well as most of the primary and secondary schools (this in itself is a very large step), Power generation is around 4500MW, already exceeding the pre-war average and still rising, Most of the court system is functional. Oh, and there is this thing with freeing 26million Iraqis held captive to a madman. Not bad for a years work, especially if you compare the timelines of other wars.

Freedom always comes at a cost, that cost is war. You don't have to like it, but accept it because that is how the world works. You think Bush started the war? Then what, I ask you, did Saddam do? You make it sound like he was a poor little dictator wholly innocent of any crimes.

And don't even pull that blood for oil or WMD crap. If we wanted to conquer nations for their oil, we could simply have kept the oil fields inKuwait back in 1991, and at that same time could have easily overthrown Iraq, whose army was virtually gone. Even better yet we could have simply invaded Mexico or Venezuela for their oil and saved tons of money. Why then did we, and do we, continue to pay market prices for oil?

WMD, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Saddam himself WAS the WMD. Even with that asie, do you really think that if Bush was as evil as the left would paint him to be, he wouldn't have had some evidence planted rather than deal with all these whining idiots? There is no dispute that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, the question we should be asking now is where did they go.

I realize freedom comes at a cost, and I do think that Saddam is a very bad person. Also I agree with Ramasax that we should not pull out of Iraq I just think that Bush could be doing a lot better job at things than he's doing and as far as Kerry and all the other monkey's that want to compete for chief monkey they should all either quit their smear campaigns or go home because they're just going to make a fool out themselves by doing just as bad a job as the Chief Monkey and not keep any of the promises that they make not that you can't expect that from a monkey.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

And as far as anti-french feelings: Being biased against the French or any other country just because it disagrees with you is completely moronic. THEY ARE FRENCH FRIES NOT FREEDOM FRIES OR FRIED POTATO STICKS GET OVER IT!

Also if Bush wants to keep up with these military campaigns he needs to make sure that they're being trained better since most of the casualities have been from friendly fire and screw ups.

You also need to realize a very simple fact. Bush is not the be all and end of of the US government. He has less power than a lot of people conclude. Those in congress & intelligence are just as much responsible as he is, (responsible for what is a matter of opinion, but one at a time ). Bush is not the liar, he was going on the inteligence provided him. Just as congress was. They voted on the intelligence provided. When things go bad of course... No politician is a total innocent, far from it in many cases (can you say Ted Kennedy, murderer), but I think the Liberals give far too much credit to Mr. Bush.

BTW, don't know if I mentioned before, but welcome to the Asylum Sangreal.

MW thereare a bunch of articles on the net...

just google it and you will find em...
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0731-09.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/5/163348.shtml

Ruski, didn't anyone tell you? News articles from right-wing media are disallowed in debates. You may only post links to liberal media sites. NewsMax is a definate no no because they are part of the right-wing conspiracy to take over the world.

Carry on.

Ramasax

Bad evil naughty nasty right wingers! tsk tsk tsk


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I know that Bush doesn't have as much power as most people think and that it's not all his fault I mainly just the chief monkey's name for most of the people of the government because in my oppinion he is the main 'face/figure head' for the government. He is doing an okay job and I probably couldn't do any better but i still think that he might not have been the best choice for president just the better out of two candidates that weren't good choices.