The Bush Administration Really Does Make me LaughFollow

If a crisis is being handled poorly or not at all, that is when you change leadership. Historicly presidents have been known to change generals heading the armies during wars, because of poor results.

Churchill took over during a time of crises, when Chamberline (I belive) was not effective, and Churchill managed to hold England together long enough to survive the *****.

Most companies that are facing record losses will tend to change the CEO in an attempt to turn the company.



Hide in his plane. Push the people that were gathering intelligence about the situation into making claims he wanted to hear. Send our boys off after WMD's that many people belived either didn't exist or were not in useable state. Pick a fight with the world body politic after there was the largest outpouring of goodwill to the United States in decades.

If you notice, the world pretty much supported an invasion of the Taliban led Afghaninistan, because they refused to turn over the people involved in that WTC attacks, and so the world felt we were in the right to invade Afghanistan.



So did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao, and many other evil men. Also many good men have stood by their decisons and watched as the decision turned out to be a horrible mistake. JFK, Chamberlin, Grant with those he picked to work in his adminstration.

Unwillingness to reanyalyze a situation and change one's mind does not make for a good leader.



I'm glad for you on this. I hope you do well, but I don't think you would have done poorly under anyone else if you were deteremined and had a good business plan.

Rarely do business's fail because of taxes.



Didn't know he had one. He would have teachers teach only to what is on standardized tests if his plan was truly functional.

Teachers for years now have been able to find ways in the classroom to get different types of children to learn in different ways. His ideas have created an inflexiable school room, where there is no way for a teacher to create individual plans for children and make them work.

It is not the teachers that are failing the children. It is two things. One is of course the fact that there are so many standardized tests that teacher performance is based on that teachers feel the need to only teach to what the kids need to know to do well on these tests. The other is that families have abidicated thier role in a childs education.

As far as admission to college goes, I don't have an opinion on his opinion on this.



Good luck to you on that. But please don't take my or anyone elses money to turn your account into something that could disappear overnight in a stock market fiasco.

you ******** i edited that last part in. Your stupid, did you not see the "Edit:" thing. Congrats on being a jackass. Now go run into on comming traffic so we can rid the world of idiots like you. would you stop being a ******* abc spell checker and get on with your life. What i ******* said was a ******* point of view you asshat. Holy hell, is there anything else you'd like to comment on?

Edited, Sat Jan 15 18:55:44 2005 by Sogoro

Edited, Sat Jan 15 18:56:37 2005 by Sogoro

Well, I see the Dumocrats once again believe they can get the lackluster fools in America to believe anything.

Kerry had no plan at all, unless you consider variations on the 'I would do exactly what is being done, only I'd do it smarter and in a more sensitive manner' (anyone else remember his comment on how he'd conduct a more 'sensitive' war on terror?).

Agree or disagree (and, yeah, I know how most of you feel on this), you know exactly where Bush stands on a given issue. He doesn't give a crap about Governing By The Poll (a staple of the Clinton Administration). World opinion doesn't (and shouldn't) factor into his opinions (if they did, why in the world would he repay the antipathy of Muslim Indonesia with what will be around $1 billion in total aid to the region?). His primary goals are to ensure the safety and security of the United States of America ("Preserve, Protect and Defend...") and he has succeeded brilliantly- yes, brilliantly- in that duty.

You have the Leftists here who post a thread that comes from a totally flawed premise- in this case, that these alternative weapons were researched under Bushes' watch- and have that premise totally shattered (they were, in fact, developed to the extent they were under the CLINTON Administration), yet they continue to bash Bush as if the facts have no bearing on their views. Judging by the vast majority of their mindless posts, maybe the truth really doesn't matter to them. Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

Reminds me of the episode from South Park where Kyle's dad and the rest of the men decide to go **** to stop the future people from coming in to TAKE THER' JOBS. THEY TOOK YER JOB!!

Interesting plan, all men go ****, no more people being born. Although just huge *** doses of radiation would do the same and make some cool mutants. >_>

"This is gayer than the pile...BACK TO THE PILE!!"



The Bush administration has not proved to me that Iraq was a threat to the United States. Saddam was a threat to his own people, but the Israel/Palestine situation threatens many more people. If we care nothing for the opinions of others, that would have been a better area to invade, if we are attempting to save lives.



Somebody got there first:

Under most circumstances I'd agree with you.

Under this particular circumstance, I do not.

We're dealing with a culture that sees weakness in changing one's mind.

When the US cut and run in Somalia and Haiti and when the US did essentially nothing in response to the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and when we again did essentially nothing in response to the bombing of the USS Cole, the Muslim extremists took that to mean that we would not react strongly under any provocation. I'm certain that factored in heavily in Bin Laden's decision to undertake the 9/11 attacks. If we cut and run again, no Terrorist organization would ever truly fear the US again, not because of the lack of will of our troops, but due to the lack of will of our leaders.

Yep...and we did by choosing Bush over Kerry.



And liberated 50 million people, establishing one Democracy and about to establish a second.

,

Inherited a recession from Clinton and suffered the most devastating attack on US soil and the nation's economy in it's history.




>YAWN< Old Europe still squawking? They need to find anotehr Dictator to support and soak for more cash.




The only way to know for sure was to go there. The UN wasn't going to be honest, as it was being paid off. Same for the French, the Germans, the Russians, etc.




So the SS system was just fine under Clinton and suddenly has crashed because of Bush? Yeah, right. go back and look at the quotes from Kennedy, Boxer and otehrs while Clinton was President. the problem existed long before January, 2001.

And your buddy Clinton actually raised SS taxes on the elderly recipients. So much for caring about their needs.



Increased Federal Revenues, as they always do. JFK knew it, Reagan knew it, Bush knows it.




Yet.

Yeah, it was a shame that he was pffered Osama three times by the Sudanese government, only to turn them down all three times.

Oh wait...that was Clinton. But let's still hold Bush responsible.



And "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." is a political gem?



The President does not spend a dime that Congress does not approve. Fault Congress.



I'd remind you that, of the two candidates for President, only one has a litmus test for appointing federal Judges. It was NOT George Bush, by the way.

Roe v. Wade should never have been decided by the courts anyway. Should've been a State's Rights issue.

In which post exactly did someone bash Bush for making a gay bomb?

Wee, more Adiemus.



So we've had elections in Afghanistan and we're about to have one in Iraq. Big deal. Democracy (or, more specifically, liberal [small "l"] democracy) is more than just process. Did we give them the same constitutional rights that we enjoy? Did we set up a self-sustaining armed force such that we *don't* need to have a military presence there? Did we set up a free-market system? (No, the widespread opium trade in Afghanistan does not count.)

You could say that the "democracies" established by the Bush administration are all form and little substance. The substance of a liberal democracy cannot be implanted on foreign soil. It requires a tradition of human rights, free trade, and self-determination. Few, if any, Mideast countries possess this tradition.



I'll say it again: The President has little, if any, influence on the United States economy. End of story.



In that case, I suppose the only way to know whether *you* don't have WMD's is for the US government to kick down your door, search through all of your possessions, strip-search you and all of the members of your family, and keep several armed members of the military there indefinitely just to make sure. Oh, and if your wife or kids get injured or worse in the process, don't worry; it's just "collateral damage."



I suppose that's why we have the biggest deficit in history? I thought history has already shown us that supply-side economics don't work. Give money to the rich, and it won't "trickle down;" they'll just keep it.



Hmm. If I'm President, and I promise to catch a guy who organized the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens, and I send tens of thousands of troops to invade a country and catch him... and years go by, and I *don't* catch him... well... I think you would have a right to be at least a little pissed at me.

Rognar-

Good to hear from you, too, ya pinko-commie.



One step at a time.

We've given the Afghanis the right of self-determination that comes with free and fair elections. We're keeping a military presence there to support their security forces until they are capable of handling the situation themselves. While I'd love for all that to be done overnight, I'm afraid that would be wishful thinking.

Let me ask this, as relates to your second paragraph above: Did blacks in the US South circa 1950 deserve democracy? Were they 'ready' for it?

Let's see...your criteria is that they have a tradition of human rights (negative- more blacks voted during reconstruction than voted in the '40s), free trade (negative- the poorest have little to exchange for the goods they need) and self-determination (negative- racists roadblocks stood in the way of even the most mundane actions such as education). Zero for three! Yet over the next 15 years, culminating with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such criteria were satisfied by Legislative fiat.

My point is that landmark change very rarely takes place overnight. If we're out of Iraq in five years, I'd say that was a success. Remember, we're still in the Balkans after, what, going on eight years? Or does that example not count because it was a democrat that got us into it?



So you'll agree with me that bhod was totally wrong when he blamed the 'flaccid' economy' on Bush?

I probably shouldn't have responded to that particular charge by bhod. Lord knows very little was 'flaccid' when Clinton was in office.



If I had a track record of using WMDs against my neighbors and even my own family, you're damn right I'd have no problem with it. Past behavior is a perfectly valid method to judge possible future behavior.



Wait...I thought you said the President has very little effect on the economy. Now you say he does have an effect. Which is it?

Again, the President does not spend a single dime without Congress approving it. You should join me in blaming Congress (regardless of the fact that Republicans control both Houses) for, as usual, matching every new dollar taken in with $1.30 in new spending.

Supply-side economincs do, in fact, work. It's the rich people who, in good times, spend and/or invest the money that create jobs. No poor person has ever created substantial numbers of jobs. Personal income is up, interest rates are low, home ownership is at an all-time high (especially true of minority home ownership), the stock market has almost totally recovered from it's post-9/11 low, inflation is almost nonexistant and roughly 2 million jobs have been created in the past two years. All are very encouraging signs of an economic turnaround. If we can get Congress to not overspend, we'll have the last piece to the puzzle.



As opposed to a President who was offerred the guy on a silver platter not once but THREE TIMES, each time with the investment not of thousands of troops and a war effort but a single cargo plane and a few Special Forces people? As opposed to a President who, had he taken the Sudanese up on their offer, might have prevented the attack that killed thousands of innocent civilians? As opposed to a guy that had 7 years to catch the guy (dating back to the first WTC bombing in 1993) and chose not to? Yep...you're right...you do have a right to be pissed at Bill Clinton.

You're on the wrong side of that one, Rognar.

Adiemus, the isolationist part of my post was in reference to part of your post where you said world opinion hasn't and shouldn't matter. So I said, what are we, isolationists?

As far as the rest of it goes, all politicians are poll driven, it's their very nature.....some take it to a higher level (ummm, Kerry anyone?), and some only respond to it when it suits them and it's election year (Bush anyone? anyone? Buehler?). As far as you don't like the attacks getting personal, I'd say having a member of your election team also on the not-so-swift vets team pretty damn personal. And c'mon....the attacks are always going to get personal. We spent 75 million dollars to prove Slick Willie lied about getting head....a whopping 11 million dollars (and that's a generous estimate) to try to find out why 9/11 happened, who, if anyone, had dropped the ball, and how to keep it from happening again. Both sides figured out a LONG time ago, if you can find dirt, you can bury them with it....we love our heroes, but we love it a whole lot more when we can watch them fall. Yar, yar, we are an odd bunch.

p.s.-I still refuse to learn how to use the quote tool, and will pay only lip service to the occasional paragraph.
p.p.s.-Adiemus, on another thread, you gave your reasons for why you believe the UN to be 'almost universally anti-Israel'...when I have more time this week at work (can't afford internet access at home...damn cable company), I'm seriously going to try to dissuade you of that notion. Wish me luck, eh?