Good Question...Why Wouldn't You Hate Bush?

[chefmike]

What Fresh Hell Is This?
Jane Smiley

One thing you have to say for the Bush right wing. They know how to ask a question and then answer it themselves. The question, over the week-end, was "why do the Bush-haters hate Bush so much?" After these six years, after the escape of Osama Bin Laden, after the Iraq War and all the injuries and deaths owing to it, after tax cuts for the wealthy, after exposure of the corruption highway that runs between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House, after the attempted (and often perpetrated) rape of the environment, after the debacle of FEMA and Katrina, after all the stone-walling and time-wasting on Global Warming (and these are just the high spots), they still don't get it?


Well, look at this, I say. First, a quote from a piece by Elizabeth Holtzman about the Bush attempt to insert into the military tribunal legislation a retroactive immunity against prosecution of Bush and Cheney for war crimes in having violated not only international law but U.S. law: "Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability." And we do know how "knowingly" Bush has broken the law because he and Gonzalez admit it and have been admitting it for years.

This, I would say, constitutes the insult. Personally, I think everyone in the world will be better off if Bush is tried for war crimes, thrown in jail for a while, and then made to mop floors at a VA hospital for the rest of his life. Cheney, too, Rumsfeld, too.

But the Bushies have to add the injury to the insult. Bush is to be made immune, but hey, legal immigrants are to have their legal protections tossed away. Here is a quote from a piece in the Guardian today by Stephen O'Shea: "What Congress is currently debating, in the context of its "war on terror", is a proposal to strip foreign nationals, including those legally resident in the United States, of habeas corpus. If the measure passes, they can be picked up and jailed indefinitely without charges being brought against them."

The blind arrogance of this proposal is breathtaking. How chickenshit are these rightwingers? Even armed to the teeth with shotguns, assault rifles, and other domestic weapons, they still are so terrified of a potential terrorist that they want to take away a legal protection that is hundreds of years old? Are the moderate Republicans going to march like robots into this outrage? Are the Democrats in Congress going to humiliate themselves even further by allowing this? Who do these people think they are?

Excuse me. I was talking about Bush-hating.

For which there are fresh reasons every day. In the context of these two attacks on the law, what are we to make of the article in the Washington Post yesterday showing us that, yes, Bush is sympathetic with parents who have lost children in his war? He's met with 300-odd of these parents. He's been nice to them. Am I such a Bush-hater that I am not touched by his evident concern?

You bet I am. He MADE this war. He SENT these kids into it, knowingly not sending his own kids. Are his tears crocodile tears? And why is the Post running this article now, in the middle of an election? Just to show that the man is human? No one ever doubted that the man is human--his wish for immunity from the consequences of his crimes is all too human. His fear of immigrants, even legal immigrants, is human, too.

But really, my question is, how is it possible not to hate Bush? At this late date, when all of his policies have failed and all of his ideas have been exposed, and most people in the world and in the nation disagree with him, he continues to subvert the constitution (that "God-damned piece of paper") that he took an oath to uphold. What is wrong with you people who don't hate Bush? What do you think that he has done to deserve something other than hatred? Come on, be explicit. I really would like to know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/what-fresh-hell-is-this_b_30470.html

[bucatini70]

live abroad first or at least have extensive experience abroad before you can begin to form any real intelligent informed opinion of world politics. As a citizen of usa my eyes were opened once i left we are really an illiterate society in terms of world news Bush is not my favorite president man or person but sitting in usa and being spoon fed information and then make judgements on him is reckless to say the least. As a Chef you have many opportunities to travel any place in the world. At the very least you should read a few international news papers you might be suprised what you read. Remember our most hated president ever during his term was Lincoln and possibly number 2 was Truman. Lack of popularity and percieved lack of intelligence in Trumans case does not necessarily equal failure quite the contary in the 2 cases above. Not to say that Bush will achieve the same historical greatness but we should reserve judgment

[chefmike]

Not to say that Bush will achieve the same historical greatness but we should reserve judgment.


You're kidding, right? And are you trying to say that shrubya isn't for the most part despised everywhere on the planet earth?

[eggbert]

Oh where to start. I could ramble on & on about this one but I'll keep it short & simple. First, comparing our country with any other country is moot. Second, I'd like you to show me the poll you were reading to make the statement that Truman was our 2nd most hated president. I think not. And third, this administration came into office with a clear agenda of what they wanted to accomplish. They have been carrying it out ever since and have been unable to make any "on field adjustments" as time goes on. They are remarkable inept at reacting to unfolding events in any other way than to go back and look at their original "game plan" which is now 6 plus years old and proven a failure. This administration may go down in history as the worst ever. But like you said let's reserve judgement, it's possible it's only the 2nd worst.

[bucatini70]

First things first....no i am not kidding he may well be the most hated in usa or in the media but i have lived in China 1 year, Malayasia 1.5, Holland 1, France 1.5 and now Thailand for the last 2 years vacationed in Dubai, Jordan, Beruit, Germany and Philippines and the public of nationals do not hate him in each country absolutely there are ppl who don't like (hate) but the vast majority are indifferent toward him.
During the Truman terms there is very little information coming from polls rather you should read some historical text even better read media editorials during his term and election rhetoric if not second he was very well a hated president. Yes Bush administration has had and continues to have an agenda if you can name a past president i can name an agenda if you can name a country and present leader i can name an agenda for this it is difficult to find fault with a polititian nature of the beast as they say....i do whole heartedly agree that his policy has for the most part failed in the middle east i agree we should have stayed out of the conflict altogether and just let things continue on the same way as they had for the last 16 years why even try?

[Kurdy M]

I don't know why i should hate the guy. He seems nice, smiles a lot, helping other people and it is not his fault that 9-11 happened.
It is easy to bash him.

[guyone]

The communists will continue to lose because they offer no solutions to our current problems. They are the party of hate & high taxes.

[chefmike]

I don't know why i should hate the guy. He seems nice, smiles a lot, helping other people and it is not his fault that 9-11 happened.
It is easy to bash him.

Are you for fucking real? Do really believe that shit? Get a fucking clue...

[Kurdy M]

I don't know why i should hate the guy. He seems nice, smiles a lot, helping other people and it is not his fault that 9-11 happened.
It is easy to bash him.

Are you for fucking real? Do really believe that shit? Get a fucking clue...

Yeah i am for fucking real. The guy has been elected twice so someone must think he is good. And all that talk about stealing the elections in Florida is lot of crap. Plus he has been re-elected after the invasion of Iraq. So the American voters knew what they were getting. Smart voters by the way. Bush saved the Kurds who would be wiped out otherwise, Bush got rid of a brutal dictator, Bush kicked the Taliban's butts wich was a terrible and brutal regime. Probaly Bush will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, i can go on for a FUCKING long time.
So wake up chefmike.

[chefmike]

Let's just look at one sentence of the ridiculous lies and propoganda you just spewed-

"Bush kicked the Taliban's butts wich was a terrible and brutal regime"

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with matters in Afghanistan...or the US and Iraq ... :roll:

[specialk]

I don't know why i should hate the guy. He seems nice, smiles a lot, helping other people and it is not his fault that 9-11 happened.
It is easy to bash him.

Are you for fucking real? Do really believe that shit? Get a fucking clue...

Yeah i am for fucking real. The guy has been elected twice so someone must think he is good. And all that talk about stealing the elections in Florida is lot of crap. Plus he has been re-elected after the invasion of Iraq. So the American voters knew what they were getting. Smart voters by the way. Bush saved the Kurds who would be wiped out otherwise, Bush got rid of a brutal dictator, Bush kicked the Taliban's butts wich was a terrible and brutal regime. Probaly Bush will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, i can go on for a FUCKING long time.
So wake up chefmike.

Go ahead........I'd love to hear more, give me all you got.

[Kurdy M]

Let's just look at one sentence of the ridiculous lies and propoganda you just spewed-

"Bush kicked the Taliban's butts wich was a terrible and brutal regime"

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with matters in Afghanistan...or the US and Iraq ... :roll:

He wasn't elected twice?? I missed something??
Bush didn't removed the Taliban goverment in Afghanistan?? Are they still in power??
You think it is better Saddam was still in power??

In 1936 Hitler wanted the Rijnland, they gave it to him.
He wanted a part of Checkozoslavika, they gave it to him, then he wanted all of it and they gave it to him. Peace in our time is wat Chamberlain shouted. They let Hitler build an army, they let him participate in the Spanish Civil war were the Condor Legion could practice for the blitzkrieg.
If they acted earlier against Hitler then there would be no WWII en no 6 millions jews murdered. They admitted that after the war.
So and then there was Saddam doing the same thing. Killing Kurds and others, trying to get Kuwait, trying to get Iran.
What should we do?? Let him go?? He supported suicidbombers in Israel.
So what should we do?? Would you like to make that decision???
No you critize Bush and bash him. That is the easy and ooo so very popular way!!!!
Maybe you should get out of your seat and do something instead of doing nothing. But i think it is easier to bash someone, call him a liar etc etc then to really act.

[chefmike]

Go ahead........I'd love to hear more, give me all you got.

LMAO...he is a clueless schmuck, isn't he?

Apparently there are even people in the Netherlands gullible enough to believe FAUX aka FOX news...

[Kurdy M]

Go ahead........I'd love to hear more, give me all you got.

LMAO...he is a clueless schmuck, isn't he?

Apparently there are even people in the Netherlands gullible enough to believe FAUX aka FOX news...

Better a schmuck then a complaining whining fool.
Bush was elected twice my old friend. And guess what in life you have losers and winners, sometime you win and sometime you loose.
Bush won twice so don't be a sore loser.
Maybe if want to change something get of your lazy whining ass and do something.
I support Bush because he got rid of Saddam, got rid of the Taliban regime, probaly prevents Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.
Bush strongly supports Israel wich is good.
Or are you against the support of Israel chefmike??? Are you against that??
Maybe you could answer that question for a change since you avoid all others carefully.

[chefmike]

Bush never won the election, it was given to him by his daddy's supreme court. The Taliban are as strong now as they ever were, with a better opium crop than ever to support them. And Bush has created a bigger threat than there ever was before in the Middle East by invading a country under false pretenses and in the process creating civil war in Iraq. Bush is the best recruiting officer that terrorism has ever had, schmuck.

Get a clue, jackass.

[bucatini70]

must you make you happy since it sounds like you are on heroin with the incorherent babble you spew at anyone who has a different opinion than you if you are a really a chef i think the only you cook is crack!

[chefmike]

The only incorherent(sic) babble around here is coming from deluded sheep like yourself futilely attempting to defend the worst president ever.

[specialk]

Go ahead........I'd love to hear more, give me all you got.

LMAO...he is a clueless schmuck, isn't he?

Apparently there are even people in the Netherlands gullible enough to believe FAUX aka FOX news...

Quite possibly you've outed another one her Chef.......the opperative word here being schmuck

[Kurdy M]

Bush never won the election, it was given to him by his daddy's supreme court. The Taliban are as strong now as they ever were, with a better opium crop than ever to support them. And Bush has created a bigger threat than there ever was before in the Middle East by invading a country under false pretenses and in the process creating civil war in Iraq. Bush is the best recruiting officer that terrorism has ever had, schmuck.

Get a clue, jackass.

There we go again!! Still the same old song from a very sore loser.
No he didn't won the election. He won the election twice. Twice!!! Twice given by his daddy supreme court?? Yeah right!!!
And then this bullshit about creating a bigger threat, more crap. That cowardly behaving didn't work with Hitler either. Stupid thinking also as if these people won't bother us. What childish thinking. They always find a reason to attack us wheter the US is in Iraq or not.
What do you think? If Saddam were still in power there would be no civil war there?? Ofcourse he wasn't go live forever and then hell would break loose anyway.
The Taliban strong as ever?? Sure sure. That is why THEY ARE NOT IN POWER because they are so strong.
When mr Bush asked us to join him in Afghanistan these so called Taliban warriors warned us: they promised us a hot spring, well nothing happened, then they promised us a even hotter summer and still nothing happened. Our special forces fought with them and they had substancial losses and we didn't loose one. The only who were killed were 2 in a helicopter crash ad one killed himself.
2 years ago a dutchfilmmaker who everybody hated and he made lousy movies was killed my a muslim extremist. The police got him even he tried to shoot them. After that all hell broke loose. Muslim schools got burned etc Muslims were molested hell even children and all this for a guy whom nobody liked.
So these muslim extremists know now not to fuck with us because they get their butt kicked.
O and that murderer of that filmmaker?? He is rotting in jail for the rest of his life, no tv, no internet, 23 hours between 4 walls, almost no contact with other inmates, that is the way to care off business.


And still avoiding the issues he chefmike?? What about mr Bush supporting Israel wich is good. What about that?? Are you against that??
Are you against Israel?? Is mr Bush wrong about supporting that country??

[bucatini70]

As you have failed to understand what i have said in response to your earlier posts...maybe it was me and i was not clear. I will outline it for you in simple terms:

1. Bush is not the most hated President nor the stupidest
2. Bush had and has reasons for his middle east policy
3. His policies have been effective for some groups of middle easterners such as Kurds and other Muslim ethnic minorities
4. Some people(you are included in some) have a very mioptic view of world politics.
5. Shocking as it seems other people may have an other opinion than you(the other 1/2 of america that voted for him)
6. I did not vote for him nor his democratic counterpart
I hope that you can learn to listen to someone sometime without anger

[chefmike]

1. Bush is the worst president and one of the
the most hated.
2. Bush's middle east policy has been a total
fiasco, caused thousands of needless
deaths, and sparked a civil war in Iraq. It has
also wasted billions of tax dollars and turned a
blind eye to war profiteering.
3. Some people(you are included in some) paint
a ridiculously rosy picture of the world and
the havoc wrought by Bush and his
gang of neo-con war profiteers, crooks,
and liars.
4. Shocking as it seems, there are still Bush
voters who have not recognized the error
of their ways.
5. I don't care who you voted for, the fact is that
you continue to be an apologist for the worst
president ever.

I hope that one day you will recognize how wrong you are.

[eggbert]

As a registered republican & professed Libertarian, it pains me to tell you guys that essentially Chefmike is right! Wake up and do some reading and stop listening to only Fox News & the other propaganda you're hearing on right wing talk radio. Try reading some books from journalists who have spent time in Iraq. Listen to NPR (and don't believe that it's all left wing garbage). We've managed to turn a country which was under the thumb of a cruel dictator (but of no danger to us) into a breeding ground for tens of thousands of new terrorists. AND WE STILL HAVE NO WAY OUT!! Face it, the admistration that we've elected is at best incompetent, fairly stupid, and extremely dangerous.

[eggbert]

Watch this short clip for a little more insight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gSiy1MfDsU

[bucatini70]

i did fall to your level of name calling and for that i am wrong and sorry for that other than that you wrong about almost everything that you write. but i can can agree to disagree with you and for the other poster i do not have access to Fox News for more than a few years i read or watch ITV(Thai), TVMonde(French) or Astro (Malayasian) anyway take care and good luck

[Kurdy M]

Me neither and here the press is very anti-Bush.
But chefmike shows what he really is since he refuses to answer my questions about mr Bush supporting Israel.
Well you think they are gone but their not....

[chefmike]

Me neither and here the press is very anti-Bush.
But chefmike shows what he really is since he refuses to answer my questions about mr Bush supporting Israel.
Well you think they are gone but their not....

Are you saying that being against the invasion of Iraq and supporting Israel are incompatible? Of course Bush supports Israel, as he should, how many US presidents haven't? Bush supporting Israel doesn't change the fact that he has been both a failure and a fraud in foreign and domestic policy.

:sleep next...

[Quinn]

Here's an aritcle that relates to the debate at hand:

Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion

A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.

"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."

The higher $2 trillion amount takes a 'moderate' approach. Both figures are based on the projection that US troops will remain in Iraq until 2010, with steadily decreasing numbers each year. The economists also used government data from past wars, and included such costs as the rise in the price of oil, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war, the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured, and the increased costs of recruiting to replenish a military drained by repeated tours of duty in Iraq. These are items which are almost never included by the US government when determining the cost of the war.

Before the war started, Mitch Daniels, then the White House budget director, had said the war would be an "affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as "very, very high."

The Office of Management and Budget "does not comment on this type of speculation," said spokesman Rich Walker. Reuters also reports that a Marine Corps spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Roseann Lynch, said Monday that the war is costing the US about $4.5 billion a month in military "operating costs," not including procurement of new weapons and equipment. Colonel Lynch said the war in Iraq had cost $173 billion to date.

Stiglitz has been an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq. He was an adviser to President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank. Bilmes was a former assistant secretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration. The BBC reports that Stiglitz himself says that there will be some people who will dismiss his estimates as based on his opposition to the war.

The Boston Globe reports, however, that despite his view, Stiglitz is not considered to be outside the mainstream.

"Stiglitz rants against globalization, and generally barks louder than he bites," said Timothy Kane, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "That is, he is a champion to the lefties, but never really says that free trade is bad."

Martin Wolf of the Financial Times writes that while its true that critics will dismiss the two Clinton-era economists work, that would be a mistake. In fact, Wolfe argues, the Stiglitz-Bilmes study ignores some other critical data.

"Among these are: costs borne by other countries, including those created by higher oil prices; costs consequent upon creating a link between Iraq and the jihadi movement that did not, on the evidence, previously exist; costs of increasing the income of some of the world's least desirable regimes, above all, Iran's; costs of throwing away the option to fight ground wars elsewhere or to fight in Iraq later on, under better conditions, better information and a better state of preparedness; costs of enraging many Muslims; costs to the effectiveness of the US military; costs of fragmenting the western alliance; the loss of Iraqi lives; the cost to US credibility of going to war on a false premise; and the cost to the US reputation of the torture scandals."

An editorial in the Brattleboro Reformer of Vermont argues that even if the Stiglitz-Bilmes estimates are exaggerated, it obvious that the war in Iraq is going to cost the American taxpayer far more than the Bush administration first said it would.

"Conservatives are already pooh-poohing these figures, and the Bush White House will not comment on them. But it is more than clear that even if a plan was put on the table right now for a phased withdrawal from Iraq over the next 12 months, Americans will still be paying the heavy human and economic costs of this war, the largest and most expensive military engagement since Vietnam. We can't undo the mistake of invading Iraq. But we can confront the cost of doing so and have a realistic plan for paying for it."

Time magazine notes that "even as the economic toll worsens, there is some good news on the human front." According to Army data obtained by the magazine that have not yet been officially released, there were 8,367 divorces in 2005, down from 10,477 in 2004. It's still higher than before the war, but the lower figure shows that the programs, put into place by the military to help spouses deal with the pressures of long deployments and then reentry into the country, are showing signs of making a difference.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html

-Quinn

[chefmike]

:lol: :P

[guyone]

Whatever you think of Bush's foreign policy his domestic policy is working quite well. Dow 12000, uneployment below 4.4%, inflation is in check domestically speaking we're doing great.

[chefmike]

Whatever you think of Bush's foreign policy his domestic policy is working quite well. Dow 12000, uneployment below 4.4%, inflation is in check domestically speaking we're doing great.

Domestic policy involves more than today's market quotes...without getting into shrubya's fondness for wiping his ass with the Bill Of Rights, his veto of stem-cell research, and his pandering to the religious right with so-called faith-based initiatives, here's a few other "achievements" made by Bush in the domestic policy area...

DNC: No Credibility Left Behind; The Bush Administration's Record of Failed Policies

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following release was issued today by the Democratic National Committee:


President Bush will make remarks today in Greensboro, North Carolina, on one of his most well-known policy failures, the No Child Left Behind Act. Less than three weeks before Election Day, the President's poll numbers remain low and his Administration's misleading statements about its record on education and a host of other issues do nothing to repair his lost credibility. From the economy to the war in Iraq to education, the Bush White House is floundering after years of broken promises and failed initiatives.


"After underfunding his signature education initiative by $40 billion, President Bush has no credibility left in North Carolina or anywhere else," said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton. "The American people no longer trust President Bush and Republicans in Washington to keep them safe, effectively fight the war on terror, manage the economy or handle the education of our nation's children. Democrats remain committed to a new direction for America."


Bush Has Lost All Credibility On Education


Since 2001, Bush Has Underfunded No Child Left Behind by $40 Billion; Denies Extra Academic Help to 3.7 Million Students in 2007 Budget. Republicans have underfunded No Child Left Behind by over $40 billion over the past five years nationwide. In his budget for 2007, Bush has proposed to provide only half of the promised funding promised for our most disadvantaged students. As a result, 3.7 million disadvantaged children will go without promised help in reading and math. (House Democrats Education and Workforce Committee, 2/6/06)


North Carolina Loses Millions For Education In Bush's 2007 Budget.


In President Bush's 2007 budget, "North Carolina will lose $90.7 million for several No Child Left Behind (NCLB) programs that help improve schools. This includes funding for teacher quality state grants, educational technology grants, funding for school assessments and funding for small and rural schools. Special Education: North Carolina schools will lose $146.4 million for special education over the next five years. Vocational and Adult Education: North Carolina will lose $223.9 million over five years, including a cut of $41.7 million next year for programs that prepare North Carolina's high school and community college students for high-skill, high-demand careers." (The Honorable George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, Committee On Education And The Workforce, March 2006)


Republicans Not Keeping America Safe


Bush Proposed Slashing Funding for COPS Program.


Bush proposed cutting COPS funding by 79 percent, or $412 million, in his 2007 budget. (House Democrats, 3/27/06)


Emergency Preparedness Still Inadequate.


The President's budget for 2007 proposed to cut $612 million from first responder grants and training programs. The budget cuts funding levels for programs designed to assist state and local law enforcement agencies by more than $1 billion compared to FY 2006, the Firefighters Grant Program was cut by 50 percent, and the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, which trains first responders, was cut by 66 percent. In addition, the President's 2007 budget requested no funding to enhance interoperable communications. ("The State of Homeland Security, 2006" prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Homeland Security; 2/06)


2006: Bush And Republican Congress Given Failing Grades By 9/11 Commission For Refusal To Implement Recommendations.


"The federal government received failing and mediocre grades yesterday from the former Sept. 11 commission, whose members said in a final report that the Bush administration and Congress have balked at enacting numerous reforms that could save American lives and prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The 10- member bipartisan panel -- whose book-length report about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks became a surprise bestseller -- issued a 'report card' that included 5 F's, 12 D's and two 'incompletes' in categories including airline passenger screening and improving first responders' communication system." (Washington Post, 12/6/05)


Bush Has Lost Credibility On The Economy

The Bush Record: Record Surpluses to Record Deficits. Republicans have turned President Clinton's projected 10-year $5.6 trillion surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit. When this Administration took office, it inherited a projected ten- year surplus (2002-2011) of $5.6 trillion. Based on a realistic estimate of the President's policies, that surplus has now become a $3.3 trillion deficit over the same period of time, a dramatic fiscal reversal of $8.9 trillion. (House Budget Committee, 2/2006)

Senate GOP Blocked Minimum Wage Vote For 9th Time; Congressional Pay Up $30,000 During Same Period.

"The Republican-controlled Senate smothered a proposed election-year increase in the minimum wage Wednesday, rejecting Democratic claims it was past time to boost the $5.15 hourly pay floor that has been in effect for nearly a decade. ... The Senate vote marked the ninth time since 1997 that Democrats there have proposed -- and Republicans have blocked -- an increase in the minimum wage. ... Kennedy also said lawmakers' annual pay has risen by roughly $30,000 since the last increase in the minimum wage." (AP, 6/22/06)


http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20061018/pl_usnw/dnc__no_credibility_left_behind__the_bush_administ ration_s_record_of_failed_policies150_xml

[Quinn]

Whatever you think of Bush's foreign policy his domestic policy is working quite well. Dow 12000, uneployment below 4.4%, inflation is in check domestically speaking we're doing great.

With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. Our economy gives only the superficial appearance of being healthy. Many underlying fundamentals are actually quite bad.

1. Real wages have been falling for some time now. The only reason this hasn’t really come out to bite us in the ass is because the housing boom has – temporarily – offset the deleterious effects we would otherwise be suffering (reduced consumer spending resulting in a recession/depression, etc.).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/business/12wages.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=7d13f041a2f6af52&ex=1270958400&partner=rssnyt

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_10292004

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f269a8f4-c173-11d9-943f-00000e2511c8.html

2. Inflation is actually much higher than reported. In the 70s and, again, in the 90s, the way our government records inflation was modified to disregard a number of important factors impacting the cost of living, thus allowing presidential administrations from both parties to report numbers far lower than that warranted by an objective analysis of inflation. Rather than measuring headline inflation, which takes into account the cost of things like fuel and food, we use core indicators - which undervalue inflation by anywhere form ½ to 1 percent. If you talk to any serious economist, you will quickly find that our inflationary reporting is largely smoke and mirrors – something long taken into account by institutional investors and foreign governments when they analyze our economy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aJbLUturF3NQ&refer=home

3. Do I even need to address the yawning budget deficits and what has become a crippling national debt? This administration is – by far – the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of this nation. Many nations and financial institutions are so worried about our long-term prospects that they are rapidly diversifying away from the US. The London stock exchange now attracts three times the number of new listings than the New York Stock Exchange. Furthermore, many nations are now starting to diversify away from dollar denominated reserves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901042_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901042_pf.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/07/business/gfbrief.php

For short-term economic incompetence, one can always look to the truly stupendous ineptitude of the Carter Administration (double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, very high unemployment, etc.), but for the worst long-term effects – it’s Bush by a landslide. Any nation, no matter how underwhelming its economic fundamentals, can experience a period of growth if it is willing to incur large enough debts. Think Latin America during the 70s.

Our economic policy is merely Keynesian economics gone awry. Rather than rely upon deficit spending to take us out of a recession, we are relying upon continuous deficits to prevent a recession. Why is this a problem? Well…..recessions are a natural and necessary part of free-market economics (i.e. Kondratieff Cycles). They correct the disequilibriums that can develop during a period of growth. The greater the disequilibriums, the greater the recession – or depression – necessary to correct them. Still, you ask, why is this important? Put simply, the austerity measures this nation will have to enact to service our debt, combined with growing liabilities resulting from the retirement of the Baby Boom Generation, will aggravate the serious recession (actually a depression) that will be required to correct the sizable disequilibriums that have been created, largely by this administration. The parallels between now and the 1920s are striking.

-Quinn

[specialk]

Nicely done Quinn.....triple co-sign.

[guyone]

I realize facts and figures can be manipulated to represent that the moon is made of green cheese and the sources you quoted are about as unbiased as Fox News. They will also report that if the democrats win in November the economy had magically turned around and everything is now fine. I'm sorry but the best indicator, my wallet tells me that the economy is currently very healthy. If you are referring to lower wages for some; yes those gym teachers that suddenly became dot com CFO's are now back to being gym teachers because they lacked the expertise and knowledge to run a company in the first place. Personally my income has increased 125% in the last six years. Then again I am a pretty motivated individual. Certain friends of mine haven't been as motivated so they blame Bush. Many will sit home Saturday's drinking beers then curse Bush when they get their paycheck. And quite honestly Dow 12,000 is very impressive. When the Dow hit 10,000 under Clinton everyone was jumping for joy and the economy was the strongest on Earth. Now for some reason it's no longer an accurate indicator...please.

[Quinn]

I realize facts and figures can be manipulated to represent that the moon is made of green cheese and the sources you quoted are about as unbiased as Fox News. They will also report that if the democrats win in November the economy had magically turned around and everything is now fine.

Actually, I made a point of posting links to articles from periodicals with a range of political affiliations – to preempt this type of under informed response – clearly to no avail. Seriously, if you want to argue that the NY Times and Economic Policy Institute are liberal, while the Washington Post and International Herald Tribune are moderately Left leaning, I would agree. However, calling the Financial Times and Bloomberg Financial’s Bloomberg.com liberal is just ridiculous. Similarly, the article I posted on the previous page – the one detailing what an unbridled economic fiasco Iraq is – was published by the Christian Science Monitor, one of the most conservative periodicals anywhere.

If you’re going to take part in a reasoned debate, please take the time to properly educate yourself on the rudiments of said debate first.


I'm sorry but the best indicator, my wallet tells me that the economy is currently very healthy. . . . my income has increased 125% in the last six years. Then again I am a pretty motivated individual. Certain friends of mine haven't been as motivated so they blame Bush. Many will sit home Saturday's drinking beers then curse Bush when they get their paycheck.

First off, in all seriousness, congratulations on your success, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? During the last six years I’ve started both a successful hedge fund and a successful real estate investment company (in addition to completing two advanced degrees). So What?

Society at large – and the measurement of its health – cannot depend upon everyone being like me (or you). Futhermore, to solely base my assessment of the economy’s health upon what has transpired in my own life – as you have done – shows a myopic disregard for both the objective facts and the wellbeing of those around you.


If you are referring to lower wages for some; yes those gym teachers that suddenly became dot com CFO's are now back to being gym teachers because they lacked the expertise and knowledge to run a company in the first place.

Actually, it’s not lower wages for some; it’s lower wages for most. The lower class getting squeezed is nothing new, but what’s happening to the middle class is. Moreover, it’s not just blue collar jobs getting the squeeze, it’s many traditionally safe white collar jobs as well. You might want to ask yourself just which economic policies are exacerbating this problem.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/28/news/economy/middle_class.reut/index.htm

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060622_middleclass.htm


And quite honestly Dow 12,000 is very impressive. When the Dow hit 10,000 under Clinton everyone was jumping for joy and the economy was the strongest on Earth. Now for some reason it's no longer an accurate indicator...please.

I agree that the Dow hitting 12,000 is impressive; however, the fundamentals driving the rise in the Dow are not. Once again, the increase in the Dow is largely driven by deficit spending, both on the part of our government and the American consumer (who does so because of declining earnings). To compare, the Dow’s performance during the Clinton era was not driven by deficit spending, but rather by solid fundamentals (something that goes to both the credit of the Clinton Administration and a Clinton era Republican controlled Congress).

Once again, the reality of how weak our economic fundamentals truly are is understood by nearly everyone in the know (foreign governments, institutional investors, and even many small investors), which is why so many are diversifying away from the US.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a69caee2-0db0-11da-aa67-00000e2511c8.html

http://www.ameinfo.com/82263.html

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/summers_foreign.html

-Quinn

P.S. Thanks, Specialk.

[guyone]

When I debate I use common sense not liberal totalitarian propaganda. If you so desperately want someone else to tell you how much you can make and spend vote democrat. If you approve of a party which undermines the very spirit of ingenuity and enterprise by oppressing and hoarding their voting base in tenements then trotting them out to vote once a year for their pittance of an allowance vote democrat. If you believe in a party which spews such vitriolic hatred and touts it as a leadership quality then vote democrat.

You link to sites which either are very opinionated or you don't finish reading the rest of the article. e.g(Financial Times):

US investors bought $146bn of overseas bonds and equities in the past 12 months more than at any time since 1994.

But despite anxieties about the still-growing US current account deficit, overseas investors poured a net $71.2bn into US assets, up from a revised $55.8bn in May, according to the Treasury.

The capital flows, which more than covered the $58.5bn trade deficit for June, suggest that confidence in the strength of the US economy will be sufficient to sustain the external deficits.

The dollar rose to $1.236 from $1.239 against the euro on the news.

-Institutional investors invest in world wide markets. The previous excerpt doesn't signify the end of the US economy as a matter of fact it says investors are pretty confident.

-The dow hitting 10,000 was due to the internet rally, which was a bubble not solid fundamentals.

-The chinese will threaten to cash in their bonds whenever we(and the rest of the world) point out that their currency is seriously undervalued. The chinese will never cash in. They're economy would go right into the toilet right after ours.

-Those middle class americans who are struggling are in that shape because they haven't learned to live within their means. It doesn't mean that our economy is in the toilet.

-I wouldn't included Bloomberg OpEd pieces as facts. She is a Stalinist who would like nothing better than to bring down the entire western civilization


If you want to quote something go to the source:


http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2006/20061012/default.htm

And this is the real point about being American we can disagree on almost anything yet no one will end up in the gulag.

You're a pretty spirited debater!

[chefmike]

If you so desperately want someone else to tell you how much you can make and spend vote democrat. If you approve of a party which undermines the very spirit of ingenuity and enterprise by oppressing and hoarding their voting base in tenements then trotting them out to vote once a year for their pittance of an allowance vote democrat. If you believe in a party which spews such vitriolic hatred and touts it as a leadership quality then vote democrat.

And what will the republicans be voting for, I wonder?

The "Fiscally Conservative" Republicans will be voting for record budget deficits and a national debt of some $8 trillion.

The "Libertarian" Republicans will be voting for run away government power over individual rights in the form of NSA wiretaps, secret prisons, and the suspension of habeas corpus.

The "Small Government" Republicans will be voting in favor of a greatly expanded federal bureaucracy. (The 2003 changes in Medicare alone will add over $720 billion in government spending; and the "No Child Left Behind" law has infused the federal government into areas that had been previously left to the states.)

The "Ross Perot" Republicans -- who warned us about the "great sucking sound" that "free trade" agreements would create by vacuuming up good American jobs and exporting them to Mexico or China -- will be voting in favor of tax credits to corporations to encourage such outsourcing.

The "Law and Order" Republicans will be endorsing disgraced GOP officials such as "Duke" Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Ralph Reed, David Safavian, Michael Scanlon, Curt Weldon, and many others.

The "Strong on National Defense" Republicans will be voting for a party that dragged us into a nearly four-year occupation of Iraq that has weakened the Army and the Reserves, cost the lives of 2,800 American soldiers, (with 20,000 wounded), and has tied down U.S. forces while other crises are developing in the Middle East and Northeast Asia.

The "Personal Responsibility" Republicans will be giving a vote of confidence to an administration and a party that refuse to accept any responsibility for their many missteps or to hold anyone accountable.

The "Family Values" Republicans will be voting for the political party that allowed a pedophile, Representative Mark Foley of Florida, to prey freely on underage male Congressional pages for over a decade.

The "Private Sector" Republicans who seek to bring business "efficiency" to government will be supporting one of the most inefficient and wasteful administrations in U.S. history, illustrated by its dismal response to Hurricane Katrina.

The "Log Cabin" Republicans will be endorsing a party that has consistently singled out gays and lesbians for open attacks on their civil rights.

The "Soccer Mom" Republicans who value education will be voting for under-funded, dilapidated schools. And the "Nascar Dad" Republicans will be voting for a more polluted environment for their hunting and fishing.

Finally, the Republicans who honor decency and fairness in our political discourse will be voting in favor of Karl Rove's smear tactics, and his underhanded techniques to fool voters and suppress their democratic right to vote.

[Quinn]

When I debate I use common sense not liberal totalitarian propaganda.
Once again, you’ve failed to comprehend that the range of articles presented represents more than a liberal perspective of this nation’s macroeconomic health – or decided lack thereof. Both the Christian Science Monitor and the Brookings Institute are regarded as extremely conservative, while Bloomberg.com and the Financial times are seen as moderately Right leaning.


You link to sites which either are very opinionated or you don't finish reading the rest of the article. e.g(Financial Times).
Yes, these articles are almost as opinionated as you and I are. As for your attempt to selectively reinterpret minute parts of articles that are overwhelmingly negative in the picture that they paint of this nation’s economic fundamentals, I’ll be more than happy to address them. Let’s begin:


US investors bought $146bn of overseas bonds and equities in the past 12 months more than at any time since 1994
Why do you think the article cited this data to begin with? Allow me to spell it out for you: US investors are buying $146bn in overseas bonds and equities – more than any time since 1994 – because they don’t have faith in the domestic economy and are looking for an overseas shelter. To clarify, that’s a very bad thing.


But despite anxieties about the still-growing US current account deficit, overseas investors poured a net $71.2bn into US assets, up from a revised $55.8bn in May, according to the Treasury.


The capital flows, which more than covered the $58.5bn trade deficit for June, suggest that confidence in the strength of the US economy will be sufficient to sustain the external deficits.
So let me get this straight, you’re saying that covering our “still-growing US current account deficit,” which set a new record in August of 2006 at $69.9bn by the way, is a good thing???? What you don’t understand is that much of that overseas investment is entering this country to finance our government’s spiraling debt (yes, we have to pay it back). Furthermore, that article was written in August 2005. The prediction that foreign investment will continue to allow us to run huge current account deficits has since come into question, particularly now that so many are suddenly diversifying away from dollar denominated assets (clearly addressed in the articles you were given links to).
To help you understand why this is a bad thing, here’s a nice conservative source:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11293/why_deficits_matter.html?breadcrumb=default


The dollar rose to $1.236 from $1.239 against the euro on the news.
To begin with, that’s a mere thirty pip jump, which is quite insignificant. Futhermore, in the year plus since that article’s publication, the dollar has slid to 1.2548 vs. the Euro (as of this minute). I’m sure you can see just how significant that is compared to the relatively minor uptick you cited. To understand why, see my previous points. See how that all fits together.


Institutional investors invest in world wide markets. The previous excerpt doesn't signify the end of the US economy as a matter of fact it says investors are pretty confident.
Institutional investors are diversifying away from the US to increase their focus on foreign markets, period. What part of the previously cited articles, etc. do you not understand:

1. American investors move away from US assets
2. China Set To Reduce Exposure To Dollar
3. Funds in brief: Swiss pension fund shifting away from U.S
4. Should GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] states diversify reserves away from the US dollar?
5. Summers: Foreign Central Banks Should Diversify Away from U.S. Debt


The dow hitting 10,000 was due to the internet rally, which was a bubble not solid fundamentals.
The Dow hit 10K because of a cut in the capital gains tax and because balanced budgets inspired investor confidence, particularly among foreign investors.


The chinese will threaten to cash in their bonds whenever we(and the rest of the world) point out that their currency is seriously undervalued. The chinese will never cash in. They're economy would go right into the toilet right after ours.
Read Tomorrow’s Gold by Dr. Marc Faber and you’ll have a different perspective on this whole thing. The Chinese would absolutely “cash in their bonds,” but not in a dispute over currency valuation. They would do it over Taiwan or something similar. They know that they can’t confront us in the conventional military sense, but they can in the economic sense. Yes, such an act would hurt their economy, but it would trigger a global sell-off that would devastate ours. Think about it, if you were facing a vastly superior opponent and the only way you could beat him is to cut off your own hand, wouldn’t you do it? The Chinese would. At least that’s the assessment in the intelligence community.


Those middle class americans who are struggling are in that shape because they haven't learned to live within their means. It doesn't mean that our economy is in the toilet.
Middle class Americans are struggling primarily because their earnings haven’t kept apace with the increase in the cost of living. While I do agree that more do need to learn how to live within their means, the biggest problem is that their means are shrinking.

So far as your link to the Federal Reserve is concerned, I’m a bit surprised. The Federal Reserve relies upon precisely the type of manipulated facts and figures you decried earlier. The Federal Reserve’s contribution to the Great Depression is well known.

In short, Bush's economic policies – which involve significant financial legerdemain – are hurting the long-term prospects of this nation in a way never before seen in this nation's history.

-Quinn

[guyone]

Well those are your beliefs. That's why you vote democrat and I vote republican. People generally will subscribe to a certain view and hold onto those values regardless of the truth. Good luck on November 7th.

[Quinn]

Well those are your beliefs.
Actually, I’ve approached this discussion using well supported data from reputable sources representing a broad spectrum of political affiliations. You, by contrast, have chosen to cling to preconceived notions that show a complete disregard of widely known and accepted facts.


That's why you vote democrat and I vote republican.
From the beginning of this discussion, you have operated under a range of erroneous assumptions – only one of which is that I am a Democrat or a liberal. You couldn’t be more wrong. I’m a committed Independent and moderate, otherwise known as a dying breed.

I think we are done at this point. Best of luck.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Well those are your beliefs. That's why you vote democrat and I vote republican. People generally will subscribe to a certain view and hold onto those values regardless of the truth. Good luck on November 7th.

Glutton for punishment? Why suffer the banal. The sock puppets religiously regurgitate what they are told.

Investor`s Business Daily took a look at the media`s coverage and just how skewed it is.Back in 1992 which James Carville coined the phrase "It's the economy, stupid," the media failed to report that the recession of 1990-1 -- touched off in part by a tax increase -- had ended and that the economy had begun to expand. IBD notes that 90% of the economic coverage in October 1992 were negative, but that decreased to 14% in November ... after the election had concluded, and Bill Clinton won.

In 2000, however, the media completely missed the economic slowdown that eventually turned into a recession in the first quarter of 2001. George Bush pointed it out in his campaign, but it received scant media coverage. In 2004, however, the opposite happened: the media mostly missed the 2003 recovery, fueled by the Bush tax cuts. Remember the "jobless recovery"? Recall how the media echoed the John Kerry campaign that the recovery was an illusion that would burst shortly after the 2004 election? Two years later, it's created over 6 million jobs and generated enough revenue, even with the tax cuts, to cut the projected deficit in half. (Imagine where it would be if we could quit spending money.)

Have the media learned anything? Apparently not. Despite 36 straight months of expansion, an unemployment rate of 4.6%, and inflation at an annual projected rate of 2.4%, the media still can't bring themselves to report on a Republican economy honestly. Business & Media Institute found that TV networks gave twice as much airtime to negative stories as positive ones (62% - 31%). Bad news was twice as likely to get full-length treatment as well. The people interviewed by the network were three times more likely to relate negative anecdotes. To no one's surprise, CBS took the lead in negative coverage, committing 80% of its economic coverage to bad news in the middle of a huge economic expansion.

No industry can be that incompetent by accident. There has been a deliberate attempt to deceive people through anecdotal coverage in a period where all of the economic indicators have shown remarkable and broad growth. IBD warns its readers that the TV networks, at the least, have conducted a propaganda operation, one with a years-old pedigree, and that investors should disregard the economic "journalism" of their news divisions. Voters would be well advised to heed that warning as well.

No sense trying to talk sense to those who want to believe in opnion, and try hard to make opinion reality via propaganda.

[Quinn]

No sense trying to talk sense to those who want to believe in opnion, and try hard to make opinion reality via propaganda.

I’ve been as polite as I care to be. That fact is that trying to explain macroeconomics to a bunch of economically illiterate, armchair analysts is a lost cause. The fact is that you just don’t have the education or the experience necessary to take part in this type of discussion. Frankly, even if you did possess so much as a passing knowledge of the necessary rudiments, your myopic disregard for facts, many of which were supplied from conservative sources, is noting less than stupefying.

If you think that out of control budget deficits and a spiraling national debt are signs of a healthy economy then you’re also the type of idiot who thinks that living off of your credit cards is good financial planning because it’s virtually the same thing (actually it’s worse for governments because they can’t walk away from their debt the way individuals can).

Sheep………………..

[guyone]

...Still the economy is doing very well.

[chefmike]

LMAO...I guess you're going to have to put it in simpler terms, Quinn. These schmucks would obviously use Enron and WorldCom as business models.

[Quinn]

You're right, Chef. Maybe I need to use a pic with stick figures in it or something. Once again, for all of the slow people who don't comprehend economics:


If you think that out of control budget deficits and a spiraling national debt are signs of a healthy economy then you’re also the type of idiot who thinks that living off of your credit cards is good financial planning because it’s virtually the same thing (actually it’s worse for governments because they can’t walk away from their debt the way individuals can).

[specialk]

You're right, Chef. Maybe I need to use a somethng with stick figures in it or something. Once again, for all of the slow people who don't comprehend economics:


If you think that out of control budget deficits and a spiraling national debt are signs of a healthy economy then you’re also the type of idiot who thinks that living off of your credit cards is good financial planning because it’s virtually the same thing (actually it’s worse for governments because they can’t walk away from their debt the way individuals can).

Not only does Quinn have a sound command on economics. As an investor, I suspect who is doing quite well. But, what else impresses me about him is the fact that he consistently is thinking about some of the other less fortunate fellow Americans who, weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths, or were able to go to fine schools, or who are clever enough to get over on the system, with loopholes, or tax cuts for the rich etc. .....And for that I applaud our friend Quinn :claps

[Quinn]

Thanks, K. I'm truly honored by your assessment.

-Quinn

[guyone]

...and still the economy is doing quite well.

Many, many, many of todays economists admit they do not understand, the collective industry does not understand how the "new market" is changing.

I believe A Greenspan himself has said the economic market is changing in ways "we do not fully understand".

As is the case about much in life, simply opening a book and looking for model similarities is academic and naive.

[Quinn]

The usual uninformed drivel....

If you think that out of control budget deficits and a spiraling national debt are signs of a healthy economy then you’re also the type of idiot who thinks that living off of your credit cards is good financial planning because it’s virtually the same thing (actually it’s worse for governments because they can’t walk away from their debt the way individuals can).

[Quinn]

Many, many, many of todays economists admit they do not understand, the collective industry does not understand how the "new market" is changing.
This is just plain nonsense. How about you supply links to the many, many, many articles that would have been written by these many, many, many economists...... Seriously, if you're going to take part in a debate, try to avoid simply making shit up.

As for talk of the “new market” or “new economy,” few successful institutional investors take it very seriously. These terms have been used throughout history to justify ignoring the importance of long standing fundamental indicators. For example, during the late 90s, a number of media personalities and analysts started to tell investors that – in the new economy – P/E ratios were no longer important when choosing equities to invest in??????? Not surprisingly, they turned out to be completely wrong. Men like Buffett continued to make money, while those talking about the new economy (such talk, being nothing “new,” was heard during the late 1800s, the 1920s, and at other points during this nation’s history) took a beating.


As is the case about much in life, simply opening a book and looking for model similarities is academic and naive.
I agree. Operating from a perspective driven solely by academic knowledge is naïve. However, it’s even more naïve to enter into a debate without having the knowledge necessary to comprehend its basic rudiments. For example, guyone cited the following line from a Financial Times article as part of an assertion that the economy is doing well:

US investors bought $146bn of overseas bonds and equities in the past 12 months more than at any time since 1994.

This is the equivalent of going to an auto mechanic and arguing that your car runs well because when you put your key in the ignition and turn it – the car doesn’t start????????????????

If you're going to come here and pontificate about something as complex as economics, you need the proper background. For example, my chosen vocation depends upon my doing this sort of analysis every day, so I know what the fuck I’m talking about. If I sound confident in my assessment, it's because my track record merits that confidence.

-Quinn

[guyone]

I don't think calling me an idiot adds anything to the debate.

[thombergeron]

...and still the economy is doing quite well.

This is pretty inconvenient to your argument:

Economic growth totters to 1.6 pct. pace (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061027/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy)

Do you suppose the Commerce Department has joined the Clinton/Kerry/Saddam/Bin Laden conspiracy? Does the timing of this report strike anyone else as curious, a mere 11 days before the elections?

[bucatini70]

let's see economy in healthy, wages increasing, benefits increasing, and looking like he is trying to think of way out of iraq......good god what will you do with your lifes once he is out of office let me see maybe you can think about a social life lol good luck guys

[chefmike]

let's see economy in healthy, wages increasing, benefits increasing, and looking like he is trying to think of way out of iraq......

LMAO....yeah....right.....

good god what will you do with your lifes once he is out of office let me see maybe you can think about a social life lol good luck guys


LOL! I'm breaking out LMAOTSE on this one!

[jp3711nc]

The one reason to that we went to Iraq was to get rid of Sadam so they can be free from the dicator there.

Second was to protect the isreal from threats from other terroiest who want to destory them.

Third to make sure they can govern there own country with there own jury system.

and for this to happen we need a storng president not a push over what do you tink if the terroist would do on Bush watch just make idel threats there scared of Bush thats why they want a liberal president in there. Kerry would just be a push over same with Hillary right know I say we don't need her a president or the speacker of the house they will cut and run its been like that since the war. Think about it on the news all we get is the death tole and notheing like scools and rodes being build it sickiens me that the news is doing that.

[chefmike]

LMAO....you really are that stupid, aren't you?

[guyone]

All we have to do is wait and see.

[Ratbutt]

The communists will continue to lose because they offer no solutions to our current problems. They are the party of hate & high taxes.

Thats funny, when Global Warming puts your home in Florida under water in 5 years I wonder whether you will feel that that bitch Bush "offered a solution to your current problems!"

[guyone]

It's sooooo hot!!!!!

[olite71]

The communists will continue to lose because they offer no solutions to our current problems. They are the party of hate & high taxes.

The red on the U.S. Map depicts the "Denny's Belt."

[guyone]

:frustrated

[muhmuh]

wait so the republicans offer solutions to everything and everybody who is remotely left wing is a communist without a clue about anything going on in the world? and being liberal is left wing nowerdays as well? id wish european politics would be that simple

[guyone]

Bolshevism by any other name.

[chefmike]

Worst.

President.

Ever.

[specialk]

:arrow:

[chefmike]

8) :P

[Quinn]

Approval/disapproval numbers put him right down there with Nixon and Carter. Seems about right to me. However, I have no doubt his numbers will surpass both by a clear margin before his presidency is over.

Late January 2007, just for shits and giggles:

According to a CBS News poll conducted Thursday through Sunday, 28 percent of Americans approve of the way the president is handling his job, and more than twice as many, 64 percent, disapprove. It is the lowest approval rating the president has received in a CBS News poll, though it is statistically little different from the rating of 30 percent he received earlier this month.

Only Jimmy Carter has received a lower approval rating, 26 percent, in 1979, in surveys conducted by CBS News or its polling partner, The New York Times. In a Gallup poll conducted in August 1974, just before his resignation, Richard M. Nixon had a 24 percent approval rating.

In a new ABC News/Washington Post poll made public on Monday, only 33 percent approved of Mr. Bush's job performance, and 65 disapproved, tying the record for his worst marks in that poll.

-Quinn

[specialk]

:arrow:

[guyone]

:screwy

[chefmike]

:lol: 8)

[chefmike]

BREAKING NEWS...

THE NIGHTMARE IS OVER!

OUR NATION REJOICES!

[guyone]

You're always so negative. Don't you have anything nice to say about George Bush?

[chefmike]

You're always so negative. Don't you have anything nice to say about George Bush?

Hell yeah, pilgram!

If they ever do an Andy Griffith redux, he would make one helluva Barney Fife! :lol:

[trish]

I don't know chefmike, Andy allowed Barney to carry one bullet in his pocket for his gun. Would you really trust bush with a bullet. I KNOW you wouldn't trust Cheney with one.

[chefmike]

Well those are your beliefs. That's why you vote democrat and I vote republican. People generally will subscribe to a certain view and hold onto those values regardless of the truth. Good luck on November 7th.

And how did that whole election thing work out for you, comrade?


That's what I thought... :wink:

[guyone]

Worked out OK. Now the world will get to see how the bulsheviks fuck things up!