Reason One: He does what he believes is right and doesn't run his entire life by the polls unlike our last president.
Reason Two: He actually has guts, thats a very rare thing in politics these days. Neither Gore, nor any of the current candidates have even a shred of spine, except Lieberman. Can you imagine what this world would be like if Dashal had been in command during 9-11? "Em... em... shame on you Al Qaeda.... em.... em.... that was quite un called for.... em..... We will be forming a comitee to look into this insident..... em.... and we find some of the language in your videos offenceive, would you mind changing it please?.... em...... em......... Shame on you."
Reason Three: He is finally paying attention to our national defence. During the Clinton-Gore years, the nations military was reduced to a tithe of what it once was, and the result? Our enemies became less afraid of us, we did no have the manpower to handle situations, IE Somalia, and because of that lack of fear, 9-11. But now we are at least gaining back some of our old strength.
Reason Four: Hes not a sleezebag. You can trust him to do what is right, and to stand by his beliefs.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
you're talking about George W. Bush here right?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I Second That, Rhaeger.
I was pondering drafting my own thread like this.
[ December 11, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Thank you odouls. He's not Reagan, but hes good.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Guts? How does he have guts? He was just saying what people wanted to hear, which was exactly the wrong thing because it leads to this kind of crap again! As for the war, to me it was a huge folly. Never mind the WMD, I don't care about those, what I care about is the fact that they didn't even catch Saddam! That is what gets under my skin, turning the whole country upside down and letting a madman like him just slip through their fingers. I also hate his economic policies. It's the same backwards stuff that people have already been trying which has been proven NOT TO WORK.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dashal? The tenth reindeer?
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Then explain why the economy is on the biggest rise since world war two if his policies are so bad.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
quote:Dashal? The tenth reindeer?
Nice, very nice.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Thank you odouls. He's not Reagan, but hes good.
Well, some people didn't think Reagan was so good. I didn't think he was a bad president at all, but some people on this forum now have more ammunition to shoot at you. They will use "bad things" that Reagan had done in conjunction with what "bad things" Bush has done in order to discredit your post.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Reagan was the best president we ever had. Its that simple. I will admit though that Bush's environental policies are terrible.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Reason One: He does what he believes is right and doesn't run his entire life by the polls unlike our last president.
Wait, wait, wait. Did I miss something, or are we still a democracy?
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
The election of the senate, and himself is democracy, they voted, now it is up to him to do what is right.
[ December 11, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
What I'm saying is, he doesnt run his life by what is popular like Clinton did. He does what needs to be done.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
*claps for GW Bush* *claps for Rhaegar for starting this thread*
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
All hail King Bush!
*shoots fist into the air*
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
Well, I think Bush USED to be that way until the whole turkey and medicare incidences. (Incidents?)
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
*Bows* Somebody had too. The endless liberal sniping was pi$$ing me off.
[ December 11, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets discuss, oh, say, AmeriCorps, that admirable organization GWB so praised in that state of the union. But wait! His promise to expand its ranks went unhonored! In fact, he proposed cuts in its funding. Now, as far as I can tell this leaves two possibilities:
AmeriCorps was never a priority of his and he lied about supporting it.
AmeriCorps is no longer a priority of his.
Given his track record, I'm inclined to choose the first possibility myself. GWB has a consistent record of voicing support for something, and even getting a bill passed, and then not requesting adequate funding for it. A very successful political strategy, but not a very morally upstanding one. And even the second possibility doesn't make me think very highly of him; AmeriCorps is a quite admirable organization, and its budget pales in comparison to even the smallest of military line items.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Then lets talk about the economy. He claims to be conservative economically, and his advocacy for tax cuts centers around stimulating the economy -- and then he goes and supports ridiculously high steel tariffs! Tariffs are an economic depressant, as any freshman macro econ student and certainly anybody with an MBA should be able to tell you.
If GWB is as economically conservative as he claims to be, then I'm a Platonic form!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Reason One: He does what he believes is right and doesn't run his entire life by the polls unlike our last president.
I believe a leader needs to make decisions and be willing to accept the consequences, especially if they are wrong. I believe that President Bush stands firmly by his decisions and his commitments--even if they are proven inconvient or incorrect as times change. (He promised Tax Breaks when we had a surplus. Those exact same tax breaks were deliverd, "Because of the deficit". I think they were delivered because he promised them, and he won't back down from his promise no matter who it hurts.)
The problem with President Bush is not that he sticks to his ideals. Its that his Ideals are, Business First--people second. I disagree with them.
quote:Reason Two: He actually has guts, thats a very rare thing in politics these days...
This is your opinion. I have not seen these guts you are talking about. His trip to Iraq and his landing on an aircraft carrier struck me more as posing than bravery. His military record is average.
Or do you refer to his willingness to take tough, do-or-die, with me or against me stances on things.
In other words, this is the same as #1.
quote:Reason Three: He is finally paying attention to our national defence. During the Clinton-Gore years, the nations military was reduced to a tithe of what it once was, and the result? Our enemies became less afraid of us, we did no have the manpower to handle situations, IE Somalia, and because of that lack of fear, 9-11. But now we are at least gaining back some of our old strength.
What? Where have we rebuilt our military? Where have we added anything to our military? Rumsfeld was in the midst of planning further cuts and further reductions, turning most of the military into rapid strike forces.
The only growth that has come to our military in President Bush's term has been an increase in recruitment, mostly due to the patriotism followin 9/11. Much of that is wearing thin as our friends in the reserves face the realities of war and vow not to reenlist.
President Bush is using more of our military, a thing he ridiculed President Clinton for. He is not building it.
quote:Reason Four: Hes not a sleezebag. You can trust him to do what is right, and to stand by his beliefs.
There are billions of people out there who are "not a sleezebag." You may think CLinton was. Fine. But you will need a better reason than that for me to believe President Bush should remain my President.
As far as the rest of the quote, that is just a rehashing of #1.
Lets look at who else fits your criteria.
1) Stands by what he believes no matter what other people say or do. No matter what the rest of the world says or does. 2) Brave enough to stand by what he believes. Personally brave and willing to sacrafice his way of life for those beliefs. 3) Supports a strong defence. Responsible for an increase in the recruitment of US forces or basically built up the military. 4) Not a sleazebag. See #1, but also, strong family man with a deep commitment to his religion.
Is that: A) President Bush B) Osama Bin Ladin C) Sadaam Hussein
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
What?!? No funding for AmeriCorps?!? The bastard! I say we impeach his ass NOW!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What I'm saying is, he doesnt run his life by what is popular like Clinton did."
Which aspects of the steel tariffs and recent Medicare bill do you think most appealed to Bush on an ideological level, Rhaegar?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Then lets talk about your bashing of people such as Gore -- the same Gore who insisted on serving in the military, the same Gore who voted for attacking Iraq in the first Gulf War despite his party's general opposition, the same Gore whose proposed budgets during the campaign allocated far more for the military (not counting GWB's proposed missile defense program), particularly military pay, than GWB's, and considerably more than GWB's actual budgets before 9/11, which were smaller than his campaign budgets.
Gore has long been a staunch supporter of the United States military and the use of the United States military against oppressive regimes, and you are doing yourself a disservice by implying he is a quisling.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
Yeah, and Gore also "invented the internet". Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
C'mon DB, if you want to debate, debate, if you want to be snide, shut up. I have never even suggested impeaching GWB, because I don't think it is warranted. I have strongly (and I believe correctly) argued that his politics are not as moral as he wishes us to believe.
However, I have also been willing to say when I think he has done something right. I have specifically praised several of his actions, and will continue to do so when he takes actions I consider worth praising.
Your implication that I'm just out to bash Bush is insulting and uncalled for.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What's great, Eruve, is that we can always dependably count on people who don't know the history behind that often misused quote to bring it up whenever Gore is discussed. Way to be manipulated by the media.
------
Seriously, who here thinks Bush's Medicare bill and steel tariffs were motivated by anything but a desire to be re-elected? Anyone?
[ December 11, 2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Sorry, fugu, I just think your example wasn't enough to make me angry at Bush, given all the much more signficant IDEOLOGICALLY CONTRADICTORY moronic things he's done.
I support the man, I think he's handling the war and the economy well, but his expansion of government is like a slap in the face.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I agree with reasons 1, 2, and 4 (although they're pretty much the same reason). Unfortunately, though, all the good intentions in the world won't make you a good leader if you are wrong about what the right thing to do is. And Bush is wrong.
Also, at least three of the Democratic candiates also have those three qualities. One of those is Howard Dean, who is often called "unelectable" precisely because DOES have guts, DOES stand by his beliefs, and DOESN'T let polls run his campaign. Dean is very much like Bush in this extent. Al Sharpton and Kucinich also seem to have these qualities. Unfortunately, they're also both a little bit "out there".
(SIDENOTE: This is also why the other Democratic candidates will not be able to win. This is no time for another Clinton and the general public seems to recognize it.)
As for military spending, it's fairly ridiculous to say our enemies became less afraid of us during the Clinton years. The events of 9/11 illustrate that exactly the opposite occurred - our military size during the Clinton years generated so much fear and anger among certain regions that terrorists felt the need to rise up and give up their lives to drive us out.
[ December 11, 2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's the thing, I wasn't trying to make you angry. Talking on the higher level things that you find unsettling would be dismissed by Rhaegar as generalities. I was using a specific and well documented point to illustrate how GWB has NOT always done what he says he believes.
While I understand now that you did not mean your comment to be as insulting as it came out, I think you did a very poor job of expressing it.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Yeah, well, sorry again, dude.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I apologize, in my haste to reply I had read your sorry in the first post as a colloquialism rather than an apology.
*offers hand to shake*
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
But Tresopax, It's physically impossible to be scared of Clinton. The reason we messed up Somalia is because of the fact that we did not have the neccesary resources to back our men up, no Ah-64s, not light armor, nothing but Little Birds, and Blacjhawks. They dstruck at 9-11 because he did NOTHING to stop them after the Beirut and Yemen bombings. He did NOTHING. He gave no reason for them to be scared of us, he gave them courage, when he should have crushed them like bugs!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have no problem with George W. Bush the man. He's got a sense of humor, he's smarter than anyone gave him credit for, he has a sense of family and integrity and devotion. I would probably have a better time having dinner with him than with, say, Al Gore.
I just flatly disagree with most of what he's done in office, and I think that his ideology and his actions will cause severe problems in our country and the world very soon.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I understand your argument Rhaegar, but I believe you are confusing Sufficient Use of the Military with Expansion of the Military.
You argue that Clinton reduced the size of the military and that was why terrorists attacked us. Then you argue Clinton didn't use it correctly (not strongly enough), and that's why the terrorists were enboldened to attack.
There is a difference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rhaegar, you still haven't told me if you believe that Bush had motives behind his steel tariffs and Medicare bill other than the desire to be "popular."
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
The one thing I love about Bush is the thing he may be about to do:
Spend a whole bunch of money on NASA, trying to get us to a different rock than the one we live on.
There's been rampant speculation that Bush will announce some sort of major space initiative in the coming weeks. The two big rumors are "back to the Moon" and "let's go to Mars". Either one, or even an announcement of major progress on the Shuttle situation would do wonders for our country. I've been really, really worried that without a Space Race, and with all the disasters and accidents involving space technology lately, our nation's interest in (and funding of) space projects might entirely die off.
Now, spending a whole bunch more money on NASA isn't going to ruin the budget much more than it's already been ruined . . . but at a time like this? Bush is already being criticized in conservative circled for pushing and signing big spending bills, do you think he'd go to the mat for space? Here's the thing: he's proven time and time again that he's brazen and foolish enough to do damn near anything. Dubya may just be bullheaded enough to do what has to be done, regardless of political climate or ulterior motives . . .
I hope he does it. I hope we go to Mars.
Peace policy
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Unfortunately, I fear this will be another example of AmeriCorps or No Child Left Behind if Bush expresses support for it.
Personally, I doubt the veracity of reports that he will say it at all, though.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
quote:Spend a whole bunch of money on NASA, trying to get us to a different rock than the one we live on.
During a time where we are driving this country into a very very serious deficit, where most states are floundering in debt, and most people are having personal economic difficulties you really think that we should spend billions on a project like this??
I think this is yet another example of Bush having his priorities in the wrong place. I love the idea of space exploration and am a large advocate of NASA; however, these types of programs are something that should be reserved for when the country has a surplus.
This just seems like a publicity stunt to me. I'm willing to bet that, like Americorp, this program will never see the money. However, I bet the media will eat it up and make Bush sound like a 'visionary' or something and then in a few years a few people who actually have attention spans will say, "whatever happened to that Mars program?"
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I've looked at No Child Left Behind, and have seen the under-funded schools.
I've looked at the "Forest Protection Plan" and seen the logging to come from it.
I've seen the "War on Terrorism" strike terror and fear throughout the Mid-East.
I've looked at the Clear Skies plan, and cough from the prepaid pollutants.
I've seen the "Patriot Act" inspire unpatriotic actions on our behalf.
I look forward to President Bush's "New Heights for Nasa" plan, and figure I'll pick up a good deal on a used shuttle during Nasa's "Going Out Of Business Sale."
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
fugu . . . you from the [H]? Have I asked you that before? I can't remember.
Anyway, yeah, I know it's too good to be true, but even the national meta-discussion about space because of this rumor is helpful. I think any time the nation thinks or talks about space funding, it's a good thing. So, if there's a big announcement and nothing happens, there will still be national discussion about space and that's cool. If there's no announcement, people will be talking about how there was no announcement and wondering why that was and that's cool.
But I'm still hoping against hope for the announcement AND the follow-through.
Peace policy
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
quote:During a time where we are driving this country into a very very serious deficit, where most states are floundering in debt, and most people are having personal economic difficulties you really think that we should spend billions on a project like this??
Do I think we SHOULD? Heavens, no! That's exactly my point. If Clinton were still in office, he'd probably bump NASA's funding a little and tell them to spend it on Shuttle maintenance and that'd be the end of it. It would be a small, politicized step in the right direction--without spending any real money during this time of budgetary woe. However, Bush is stupid enough to rationalize it by saying the money's all going into the Aerospace industry. Hell, he's probably call it the Economic Recovery of Tomorrow Initiative or something.
My point is he's short-sighted and foolhardy enough to make that mistake. And, even though it WOULD be economically moronic at a very sensitive time for the economy, it'd be the first major confirmation that space exploration will continue, with or without an obvious military benefit.
Peace policy
[ December 11, 2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: policyvote ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The fact that Bush actually encouraged the ability to have secret government trials of Americans and is fighting even now to deprive Americans of their right to counsel, should be enough reason for anyone to get that guy out of office.
If you support those measures, please move to China where that kind of thing is welcome.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*wonders what/where the [H] is*
So I'm pretty sure the answer is no . I'm originally from Bloomington, Indiana, and currently reside in Saint Louis.
Posted by Frameshifter (Member # 2967) on :
Here's the thing, I think Bush has done some things that needed doing, but I certainly haven't liked how he went about them. He's also worked to make a mess of certain things like Medicare, the budget deficit debacle, Social Security is still waiting on the mortician's doorstep, the environment is at a pre-rape stage, the steel tarrifs and I'm still not seeing any of the larcenous CEOs walking up to the headsman's axe.
Earlier, someone mentioned how Reagan was the greatest president we'd ever had. I'm sorry to disagree here, but he couldn't hold a candle to FDR.
You might want to look into the Iran-Contra affair and the possibility that he traded arms to Iran in exchange for the hostages. You might also want to speak to an air traffic controller who was fired by executive order. Perhaps you remember the "ketchup is a vegetable" ordeal. Perhaps the soaring deficits he rang up. Or maybe you should check out how high the prime lending rate was back in the mid to late 1980s. Psychic advisors in the White House anyone?
How about that foreign policy? Reagan did help put the final nails in the Soviet coffin, but he didn't do it alone. The Soviets had more to do with it than anyone, especially the pre-Gorbachev string of premieres. Reagan also was responsible for much of the US support to Iraq. Ferdinand Marcos? How about Imelda's shoe fetish while Phillipino children were put to work picking through landfills?
Reagan was an inspiring speaker and the last of the old guard dinosaurs.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I will admit though that Bush's environmental policies are terrible.
Isn't this enough to seriously question his worth as a President?
He's leader of the most powerful country in the world. Which, conincidentally, has contributed a lot to the world's environmental problems. (Though you're not alone in this one - basically every country's done their share. With maybe the exception of Lichtenstein.)
The environment is one of, if not the biggest, problem to face the world. It will not get better by itself. And it will affect everybody.
Isn't one of Bush's prime reponsibilities to make a change? He's in a position to do so - if the US ratified the Kyoto Protocol for example, other countries such as Australia would soon follow because of international pressure.
If Bush really wants the US to be a global policeman, and a positive force, then shouldn't he do this not only in a military sense?
Ok, end rant. I just get mad when people say dismiss environmental problems as not so important - which is what you're doing if you say Bush is a great president even though you acknowledge his environmental policies are awful.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I consider myself a conservative. I do not consider George W. Bush a conservative. Real conservatives believe in small, limited government that does not encroach upon your freedoms. George W. Bush has also done the most of any President to diminish our soft power around the world. You can't keep a country running by making the world afraid of it. That is Machiavellian nonsense. Even Machiavelli admitted that over the long run fear will always turn into hate and disgust. Even when he counseled that if you must chose between being loved and being feared you should chose being feared, he added a caveat later saying you should not let that fear turn into hatred and disgust. However, he didn't explain how that was possible.
If Edmund Burke were alive today he would be ashamed at what George W. Bush is doing in the name of conservatism.
Just look at his justifications for Iraq. Bush starts off with legitimate security concerns, but then starts off on this humanitarian/human/natural rights thing. That is liberal nonsense. That is what caused the chaos of the French revolution. Bush is a political whore who is not ethically consistent with any single ideology that he claims to be.
[ December 11, 2003, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Any NASA initiative wouldn't be underfunded a la "No Child Left Behind" because an unfunded program would be simply too obvious to the American people. It wasn't all that long ago that we went to the moon, and we did it in 10 years like JFK decreed. With the space program, Americas are used to getting results -- we are not the most patient populace in the world. If Bush announces support for NASA and the public doesn't see results almost immediately (i.e. a shuttle launch by spring of next year followed by well-publicized research/scouting missions to Mars and/or the moon), no one will believe it and he'll lose the support he had.
Granted, this is only relevant if he waits til AFTER the 2004 election to make the announcement about the space program.
Honestly, though....if Bush does announce a space plan and Dean comes out against it, he's lost my vote. I don't care that it's not economically feasible or wise.....I guess space is my pet issue. I'd sacrifice a lot for our space program, including a good portion of my tax dollars....I'd even pay a few more.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kasie? Sorry, but I think you're being politically naive. If Bush doesn't adequately fund the program and ever gets called on it (which is itself unlikely), he'll blame it on NASA bureaucracy, and the people he's put in charge there will issue statements which seem to stand up for NASA but are so weak they only back him up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd like to add one of the reasons I have for not liking Bush that has developed over time: he gets rid of the cabinet members that dare to suggest his policies might be wrong.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
*sigh*
Maybe I am being naive. I guess I was just hoping the American public would be smarter than that.
Although that's one thing that does get me about Bush....he really does galvanize people. You're either for him or against him, and if you're against him he's against you. And there is really no middle ground -- you can't support SOME of his policies. It's all or nothing. In that you're probably right -- his supporters will back him up no matter what they clearly see as the truth.
Why is that? I don't really understand it. It's almost as though people have made Bush their religion...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I dislike the following about Bush:
1) His tax break.
2) His secret negotiations to establish an energy policy.
3) His cabinet's disregard for basic American freedoms (Patriot Act, Patriot II, etc.) and the Geneva Convention (Gauntanamo)
4) His willingness to support despicable people as a hedge against other despicable people knowing the history on this issue for the US (e.g., our instant love affair with Pakistani coup leaders when we needed a place to launch from).
5) The cynical way he boosted a "prescription drug benefit" for seniors that fails to address the root causes of high costs, and is phased in over such a long period.
6) His devaluation of the American soldier in exchange for boosting contracts to the military suppliers.
7) His disregard for international cooperation and diplomacy.
8) His failure to bring Rumsfeld and Ashcroft up on treason charges.
9) His record on the environment.
10) His lies about Iraq. And his determination to launch a pre-emptive war regardless of what the reliable information was telling him.
11) His outright lies about what he meant by "no child left behind." And consequent failure to deliver on most of his education promises.
12) He's run up the deficit to record numbers after we'd finally got the thing cleared off.
What I disliked about Reagan:
1) As governor of California, he dessimated education.
2) He ran up the US deficit to (then) record numbers.
3) He lied about the Contras.
4) He lacked substance, relying instead on a bunch of advisors who technically ran the country for him because he really didn't know anything except how to look and sound good on TV.
5) His consultations with astrologers (documented fact) making the US a complete laughing stock. Albeit a scarey one to those who might potentially cross us.
6) His "just say no" program, and his stance on birth control.
What I disliked about Clinton:
1) His hubris. Thinking he had answers when he didn't. Especially as it related to health care. The abortive thing with Hillary trying to set up a national system probably set us back 20 years on the road to a workable, affordable system and basically handed an easy victory to the HMOs and lobbyists.
2) His personal morals sucked big time.
3) His failure to understand what it takes to actually conduct military campaigns successfully thus leading us into stupid blunders like the incursions into various countries blowing things up in hopes of "catching" Bin Laden.
Basically, I don't think we've had a "good" president in my lifetime. The ones I admire the most from a moral and ethical standpoint (Ike, Carter) have been completely ineffective as political leaders. The ones who were the strongest in terms of using America's might have, in my opinion, misused it horribly (Reagan and Bush I and Bush II). And I don't think one of them in my lifetime has had ANY sophistication or rational basis for their foreign policy. Not a one! Well, maybe Nixon and he was so flawed in most other ways as to be an overall disaster for us.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote:5) The cynical way he boosted a "prescription drug benefit" for seniors that fails to address the root causes of high costs, and is phased in over such a long period.
I personally dislike the new addition to medicare, however the root cause is price fixing in other countries resulting in all R&D cost being paid by the us. It is not completly the "evil drug companies" or the US government at fault for the high prices of perscription drugs.
Carter is a fool, he allows himself to be used as a pawn.
[ December 11, 2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: luthe ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Drug companies... Record profits...
I don't have much sympathy.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Bush can't take critism well. He needs to learn that. He is too arrogant to assume that he has all the answers. Furthermore, his tax cut really does suck *once again rants and raves about how unfair it is to pay taxes when I get 7 bucks an hour while some rich bozo gets a tax cut, how is that fair? tax them, not me!*
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Before you start complaining that the US has to foot the bill for all the R&D costs I think you might want to compare the amount of money put into R&D to the amount put into advertising.
You'll forgive me if I don't want to fund their marketing campaigns.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
your argument against his tax cut is that was not for you? Thats pretty pathetic. If you are going argue that the rich don't need the tax cut at least say that the rich already pay far less tax than I do because our tax system leaks like a sieve.
To which I would still respone that it is none of your business how much money anyone else makes, not is it the government's, hence the only fair tax system is a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income, without all the holes that the current one has.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How about if I pay no taxes because I'm making no money? That way more of my money goes into my pocket and I can afford to spend it on things like books and CDs which improves the economy?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"To which I would still respone that it is none of your business how much money anyone else makes, not is it the government's, hence the only fair tax system is a flat tax...."
Your first premise -- that it's none of anyone's business -- is one I reject.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I agree. How will the government know how much tax you should pay if they don't know your income?
I'm all for a flat tax, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't mind a flat tax with a sufficiently high deduction, but I think that only begins to address the REAL problem: tax loopholes and corporate investment. If you institute a flat tax with a decently high deduction, it's necessary to eliminate tax loopholes in order to maintain the same level of income. Doing this, however, will drive the rich to invest in their personal corporations. In conjunction with the elimination of capital gains taxes, this will drastically reduce federal income.
For this reason, I see most flat tax proposals -- the ones that don't outright soak the poor -- as being thinly-veiled ways of sneaking in a "starve the beast" strategy.
--------
By the way, I'm STILL waiting for Rhaegar to answer my question from Page One. Do you think he will?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Why can't we include capital gains in income and continue to tax them? I agree that, either way, the government will be deprived of some cashflow, but they could compensate by letting some of our big-spending programs privatize.
And no...I think Rhaegar pull the old "newbie hit-and-run".
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think a flat tax would sweep with too broad a broom. There are only two data points to adjust, basically: deduction and rate. This makes it pretty much impossible to adjust the tax structure to deal with, say, a major war, which pretty much requires a more progressive tax (by major I mean land war in asia against China, or possibly a two front war against anyone), since more tax revenues are required than can be gotten by taxing evenly unless one is willing to ruin the economy -- one can only hideously overtax the rich for a short term boost to state income, it doesn't work on the poor.
I'm an advocate of a two tier system.
Also, one must recognize that many complications in tax law are not due to income tax, but other taxes on businesses. However, I'd relish a switch to a two tier system with the accompanying jaw dropping as a number of the more devious companies' profits suddenly got eaten up by the taxes they had been avoiding.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
I guess that I was no clear in scope of my nome of anyone's business phrase. It is none of Peter's business how much Paul makes. One would need to provide figures with one's tax return for the same reasons that you do now.
Looking back I don't think that my earlier respone is very coherent. What I was trying to say was that Synesthesia feeling that the rich should pay a larger percentage than she(?) is inhierently wrong. It is not her concern how much anyone else makes. This concern is embedded in the current tax system. My solution was to switch to a flat tax system. As was pointed out this does to have it flaws, I am afraid tha I do not know enough to come up with decent replie to Tom's enumerated flaws, other than perhaps a switch to taxing consumption.which also has it's problems.
Edit to add: I was discussing this with some of my friend the other day, It seems to me that my argument was much more succinct then.
Edited again to add: Synesthesia's second post does not make any sense to me, hence I am ignoring it. How can you not make any money and have more of it go to your pocket? Are you talking about saving? Those are taxed when they are income.
[ December 12, 2003, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: luthe ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm making very little money. An amount of money so small it might as well be nothing. Why should I have to pay such a large chunk of taxes and then get some piddly little refund in return? Bad enough i got to pay union dues too. Worse was working in Americorps, getting 800 a month and seeing it reduced to 600. How fair is that? How else is a struggling former college student supposed to scramble from the ashes if all their money is being taxed away? I can't even afford to save money even with cheap rent. To make matters worse, taxing low income people just means they have to rely on public assistance to make ends meet. Yet public assistance and other social programs get cut in the light of all these tax cuts for higher income people. It just doesn't seem right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Syn, perhaps you've missed the fact that people who make $800 a month have all their tax returned to them, and are in fact often eligible for tax CREDITS -- meaning that the taxes the rest of us pay go to them. Your decision to work for AmeriCorps also included several other perks, which count as part of your salary consideration. (AmeriCorps frequently pays for lodging, health insurance, and school loans, for example.)
Now, Social Security "tax" is STILL taken out, which is either a good or a bad thing depending on whether you think Social Security is hopelessly broken -- but, again, tax credits help keep things fair.
In other words, you're whining.
-------
By the same token, though, the RICH are whining when they complain that SO MUCH of their money goes away. While luthe can argue from an ideological point that it's none of Syne's business how much Bill Gates makes or has to spend, the simple fact is that Syne needs every single dollar much, much more than Bill Gates does.
The advantage of a high tax deduction (on a flat tax) or progressive tax is that it recognizes that people need a certain amount of money to live, period, and that any money ABOVE that limit is ultimately disposable income, less important to their survival and happiness. This limit, of course, varies depending on a number of factors, but it's kind of pointless to deny its existence. Bill Gates pays tax, but it does not appreciably impact his lifestyle; on the other hand, the genuinely tiny amount taken from Syne (and ultimately given back to her at the end of the year, unless she claims exemption early) matters a great deal to her.
[ December 12, 2003, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Or maybe he'll fund NASA, maedicare-style. You know, not apportioning funds for it until 2006, or something. And of course, going back to the moon will take more than 5 years, so no one is going to blame him if the program is cut.
-Bok
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"6) His devaluation of the American soldier in exchange for boosting contracts to the military suppliers"
Im going to need some furhter explication on this one. I am exponentially more interested in this asertion than any other made above.
Tell me more. Got any links or anything?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I don't have a link for you, but I have heard this from two different sources:
1) The Economist magazine. True, it's a British publication, but they actually do a very fair and balanced job of reporting issues. They claimed that morale was down dramatically among US soldiers just prior to Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Iraq and this was partly due to deferred pay raises and reduction in benefits to veterans.
I dont' have independent verification of that, but,
2) NPR had a very similar report. They are much more "liberal leaning" in their reportage, but it said pretty much the same as the Economist. It went further to talk about record spending on hardware (sure hardware keeps getting more and more costly) but the perception is that this spending is coming at the expense of payments to soldiers and veterans.
Anyway, that's where I formed the opinion that Bush is not really all that good for the military personnel, but apparently very good for those who make hardware and software for use by the military.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Thats right. I had heard about the reduction in veterans benefits.
I was very grumpy about that because the nebulous word 'veterans' can also be interpreted as 'My father, uncles, and generally every male in my extended family older than me.'
Posted by Phoenix6462 (Member # 6020) on :
[QUOTE] [Isn't this enough to seriously question his worth as a Preident?]
I agree with imogen, the enviroment is a very important topic that should be addressed. Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
quote:By the same token, though, the RICH are whining when they complain that SO MUCH of their money goes away. While luthe can argue from an ideological point that it's none of Syne's business how much Bill Gates makes or has to spend, the simple fact is that Syne needs every single dollar much, much more than Bill Gates does.
I've always said I'm for a flat tax--anything anyone makes over $150k/yr goes straight to the government. Of course, this wouldn't ever work for like a hundred billion reasons, but still I think that's the direction we should go. Anyone who makes more money than that has no reason to complain . . . and the LAST thing they should complain about is taxes. Last year, the steel company I worked for dissolved spontaneously (long story involving the cops), and it turns out they screwed up my witholdings. So, I had to pay $112 in taxes out of my meager unemployment pay, when I wasn't even making ends meet as it was.
I'm deeply thankful FOR said unemployment pay--which is why I NEVER bitch about taxes. But whenever I hear some 45-year-old white male who makes over 100k and drives a $40,000 car p*ss and moan about Uncle Sam taking all his money, I want to SCREAM. SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM.
Peace policy
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Syn, you need to play with your W2 a little bit. If you tune it right, you'll get more with each check. Then, you'll still get what you do pay back at tax time.
I, personally, claim two dependencies on my W2. One for me, and one because I only work one job. I get about 5/6th of my check back each time.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
So what motivation is there to work after you've made your $150,000 a year?
While there are plenty of people who have more than $150,000 a year and don't deserve it, the ones who work for it and claim it as income, rather than capital gains ir inheritance do/ do work that is more profitable/more important/requires more education than most.
If something like your flat tax proposal ever came to pass, I'd be standing right next to the doctors, lawyers, and CEOs on the pickett line.
People who make that much money care about making money. It's their goal in life to make a lot of money. It's that drive that we need to make our economy the strongest in the world.
Besides, The Communist States of America just doesn't sound as nice.
Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
Storm Saxon
You are aware they haven't even attempted to use these yet right?
Tom
Just goes to show you he isn't a hardline conservative. It is possible to lead without being an idealodge.
Furthermore the Steel Tarifs are not a clear cut issue popularity wise. Overall most of the country including business leaders and unions alike opposed them. But in certain areas (like mine) they were a godsend in helping the steel industry get back on it's feet.
If he was just selling out to the polls the steel tarifs weren't a good thing to do nationally. But yet he put them there and only repealed them under threat of a massive trade war.
Not sure how you can argue that is pandering for the polls...
The Medicare bill has many flaws and should have been much smaller but sadly eldery vote a lot more than our age group(s) so they get more cash from the Dems and GOP both.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
What I'm wondering is why everyone here assumes George W. Bush is a conservative. People for and against him on this thread call him that as if that is really what he is. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Bush is not a conservative. A conservative believes in small, limited government and fiscal responsibility. George Bush with his huge deficits and human/natural rights crusade is more liberal than many socialists I've met.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I suppose that's right if you believe that his human rights campaign isn't just an excuse/coverup to get to Middle East oil and/or mythical WMDs.
It's possible to be economically liberal and still be a conservative. He's not a liberal just because he's a crappy businessman and a recovered substance abuser.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
I really would like to respond to policy's comment, but after writing a number of replies I seem to lack the ablities needed for such a task. So I will respond with someone else's words instead.
quote: "Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --PJ O'Rourke
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Frisco, crusading around the world for human rights is a bad way to go. Now, before all the politically correct police stomp on me and say I'm wrong, they should read Edmund Burke's criticisms of the French Revolution. Anyone who believes in human or natural rights is setting themselves up for failure through totalitarian government in the longrun. Real conservatives are nearly-identical to libertarians. Conservatives are also realists. They believe in fighting all the wars you have to, but only the wars you have to. You cannot be socially liberal and be a conservative. The difference is that true conservatives see the danger in crusading for natural rights, especially when the national interest is put in danger.
Do you see why Bush is not a conservative?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Well, I at least I see why you don't think he is.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Hmm, let me try to phrase it a little differently. Those different attributes I talked about are key to what the word conservatism has meant in politics since Burke. There is no other definition. To think differently would be like trying to change the definition of the word black to white in your mind
[ December 13, 2003, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Do you like apples?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
The problem is, the "conservative" voices in media, the "conservative" party in power, and so on have all shifted their messages in synch such that the vast majority of people I talk to don't realize they're espousing things 180 degrees opposed to what they parroted 7 years ago.
I used to worry sometimes, now I can't stop. Mostly because the solution is so obvious, yet doesn't fit with the ideology it's supposedly a part of. You see, when I'm dictator and set everything right, will that really be setting everything right? Discuss.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
What I don't like is that its not something that's as variable as that. The very word conservative means caution over unrestricted innovation and change. Core concepts like that and what I mentioned above are inseperable from the term. If Bush and the party have become something else then let themselves soil another designation.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Look on the bright side. "Liberal" became its own antonym a solid 25 years before "conservative" met the same fate.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
policyvote said:
quote:I'm deeply thankful FOR said unemployment pay--which is why I NEVER bitch about taxes.
I don't know how it's done in your state, but in mine it isn't the employee's taxes that are used for Uneployment Insurance - so we employees have nothing to bitch about when someone receives Unemployment Insurance because we aren't paying for it.
How much does Washington pay in unemployment benefits for workers? Unemployment benefits are paid from Washington's Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. The trust fund balance was $1.1 billion on Oct. 31, 2003.
Unemployment Insurance is funded by taxes paid by employers. The money to pay unemployment insurance benefits comes from a state payroll tax levied on employers. The amount employers pay depends on the number of their employees who actually receive benefits from the program. The money to pay for the administration of national and state UI programs comes from a federal tax under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). In extreme cases of high unemployment, the FUTA tax is also used for the payment of extended benefits. In the state of Washington, neither of these taxes is deducted from the payroll checks of employees.
quote: I'd like to add one of the reasons I have for not liking Bush that has developed over time: he gets rid of the cabinet members that dare to suggest his policies might be wrong.
Why? If you apply the principle of natural selection in politics, you should expect politicians to serve their own interests and political agendas. Those who put idealism on a pedestal and avoid taking advantage in grey areas of legal but biased opportunity, while noble in intent, will generally be beat out by those who walk the fine line to gain the greatest advantage. Ironically, in many cases, in the long run, the "ideal" response at an individual level is MORE wasteful than the waste that we all rightfully rue in the first place. When waste is rampant because it is beneficial to the decision-maker, non-waste will by definition be replaced by waste over time anyway, and in the process wastes the career investment in gaining the political position in the first place.
That's why we have so much wasteful pork in government. Rampant pork is a stable system state. You can you obtain pork for your constituents to equalize your position with the rest of the politicians getting pork for their districts. Or you can martyr yourself by a noble refusal for pork and be replaced by another pork-chaser. Pointing out that pork is wasteful is worthless; everybody agrees. But idealism and identification of such stable state problems will never make the problem go away. The only way to make it go away is to add a system-wide constraint that equally and simultaneously turns the wasteful action into a negative rather than a positive proposal for all decisionmakers. Generally, such system-wide constraints only appear through legislation, or through massive spontaneous social change ignited by trauma, which we should never hope for.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many Presidents have maintained cabinet level appointees that have publicly disagreed with, and even defied, them, because the reason those cabinet members exist is not to be yes men (and women) but to run their department as they see best.
Bush fires anyone who is not a yes person, and I'm certainly going to dislike him for it, particularly as many of the people he has fired have been those which early on persuaded me he might not be such a bad President after all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lincoln was the best President we've ever had, bar none. An examination of the terrible problems he faced and the amazing difficulties he had to deal with from within proves that beyond any doubt.
I don't love Dubya at all. I'm rather lukewarm on him, in fact. I dislike him less, though, than I dislike any of the baker's dozen Democratic candidates there are (or 9, if they haven't added any).
I'm not sure if Dubya (and I've always called him that, ain't `bout to stop now) does what he thinks is right. He certainly makes the impression clear that he's doing what he thinks is right, though.
I don't know if he has guts, and frankly guts aren't always a good thing. Kind of like George Patton, who really said it takes blood and brains to win a war, guts without brains are in fact usually harmful. Does he have political guts, or does he simply not care if people don't like his decisions, or is he just stupid? I don't know. As an individual, I'd bet the first. As the President, I can't say.
I agree he's paying attention to our military, which is frankly the most critical item to a nation's sovereignty at any time, peace or war (so long as it is led by elected civilians). Clinton did terrible, unnecessary things to the military-and the military hasn't forgotten. Look at how they vote.
I don't know if he's a sleazebag or not. Many of his decisions seem decidedly sleazy to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If he was just selling out to the polls the steel tarifs weren't a good thing to do nationally. But yet he put them there and only repealed them under threat of a massive trade war. Not sure how you can argue that is pandering for the polls..."
Because it's targeted pandering.
Bush knows that he only barely won certain key states, and only barely lost others. Since the next election is also likely to be close, he needs to make sure that those states are likely to remember him fondly.
Ergo, he can afford to piss off a few OTHER states, as long as he wins the states he really, really needs.
The steel tariffs were very popular in a handful of states that Bush needs to win re-election.
-----
It's rather like how, every single election cycle, people go to Iowa and talk about how much they love the idea of ethanol research and subsidies, and then never mention it again. In Iowa, ethanol's big news -- and anyone who supports it is their friend. Anywhere else in the country, no one cares in the slightest about ethanol. Consequently, every candidate who passes through Iowa gives lip service to ethanol just long enough to get through the primary, and then completely forgets about it.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Actually, if you refer to ethanol by its common names, "alcohol", "liquor" and "beer" then a lot of states have done research on this. I myself, have spent too many hours studying the effects of ethanol on myself and on some of my friends. Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Why are we talking about beer in a political thread?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It helps make it tolerable, Rhaegar.
-------
Speaking of which, it's good to see you. While you're here, please tell me what you think about Bush's steel tariffs and Medicare bill, keeping in mind of course that you've said the man never does things just to be popular.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:I agree he's paying attention to our military, which is frankly the most critical item to a nation's sovereignty at any time, peace or war (so long as it is led by elected civilians). Clinton did terrible, unnecessary things to the military-and the military hasn't forgotten. Look at how they vote.
Military voting patterns have mostly to do with its recruitment base: Midwestern conservatives.
Clinton's terrible things mostly included downsizing the ranks of the military while overextending it in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, etc. Bush has not made similar cuts, but he has worsened the policy of overextension at just about every turn. More important to the question of "whom did military voters unknowingly elect?", though, look at the Administrations policy before 9/11: I'm very surprised there wasn't outcry from the Right when Rumsfeld was appointed. (Perhaps it was muted by the appointment of the Wolfowitz hawk-disciples, or drowned out by the Left's whining about bin-Ashcroft). After all Rumsfeld's stated doctrine for a decade has been to demolish the previous structure and move the armed forces into a much more refined group of specialized, diversified (across old departmental boundaries) task forces. Quite possibly a good move, but a far more dramatic reduction in workforce and large-scale defensive power than anything Clinton planned.
Regardless, I think you overstate the importance of military in the 21st century 1st world. If Vicente Fox is overthrown by a paramilitary drug lord, then we'll talk...except, oh wait, our Colombia policies already encourage such things...
Almost forgot: military record! If you ask me, going AWOL on a National Guard assignment and having your dad (try to) cover it up is more dispicable than dodging the draft in the first place. If you're going to object to service or prove yourself unfit to do so, at least be honest about it.
[ December 14, 2003, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Richard,
You may be correct in your statement concerning recruitment base. Since you brought that part up, though, may I ask where you learned that statistic? It's something I hadn't thought of before.
I agree concerning Clinton, but in addition to that was the sensation of contempt he had-or to be charitable, was perceived as having-towards the military.
I personally believe Rumsfeld's ideas weren't met by more conservative opposition is because, frankly, they make sense. Conservatives largely believe we need a robust, large, and superior military as a matter of national policy and security. This doesn't mean that they think we should stick to the Cold War model.
As for a large reduction in defensive power...that to me sounds rather like an unbustantiated idea than a cogent military theory. You need large numbers of soldiers to take and hold ground. It takes less to conquer ground and continue moving, which has been American military doctrine since practically forever.
quote:Regardless, I think you overstate the importance of military in the 21st century 1st world. If Vicente Fox is overthrown by a paramilitary drug lord, then we'll talk...except, oh wait, our Colombia policies already encourage such things...
I think you misunderstood me, and that is my fault. When I said that the military is the most critical aspect of a nation's sovereignty at any time, I did not mean that a nation is always under threat of military conquest, and that in any given short-term, without a strong military the nation will be overthrown. I just meant that there is ultimately only one thing that protects a nation from foreign and domestic aggression, and that's the nation's military...or the military of their allies.
The fact that our military isn't actively protecting us from foreign aggressors right now is a sign of its success and a proof of my statement, not its inaccuracy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"As for a large reduction in defensive power...that to me sounds rather like an unbustantiated idea than a cogent military theory."
Actually, that was a stated goal of Rumsfeld's; he sought to replace men on the ground with improved technology, thus reducing military cost. Due to the distraction of the war, he hasn't announced whether he's changed his mind or not.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
You won't hear me argue against the value of a strong military, nor that shifting doctrine away from "two fronts" is a positive step. I'm just remarking that when the Right attacked Clinton on the military issue, they talked about his cutting the rate of spending growth, the reduction in infantry divisions, and the problems every branch except the Marines was having with recruitment. Bush has already done the cutbacks if you look at base payscales in real dollars (and overall as well, if you don't count silly multi-billion-dollar weapons that will never be used); his Cabinet had planned to do the latter; recruitment was actually down between the inauguration and 9/11.
Respect among the rank-and-file is a tricky thing. If I were commanding a vast left-wing conspiracy, I'd harp on the AWOL history as much as the Right did about Clinton being a pot-smoking Canada-immigrating hippie, and would probably have good results among .mil types (breaking UCMJ is more inviolate to a Marine than sodomy to a Catholic). In the short term, it's swayed by silly things like a 2.5-hour meet & greet on Turkey Day. In the long term, it depends mostly on the length of deployments -- there's a very good reason the above publicity stunt was staged, and that's the dangerously sinking morale our current overextension had been causing. We had this problem at the height of the Bosnia affair, but even then were able to rotate troops more effectively.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Tom's right, the irony being that it's actually a good plan. Heck, even HRW agrees. (Did I already link that here, or was it on another forum?)
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Yeah, it's almost like that time he defended Air Force One from terrorists, isn't it?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Four reasons I love George W. Bush.
1. His rippling pectorals 2. His dashing good looks. 3. His charming smile.... 4. (melts)
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Can someone throw some numbers up, with sources, about what Bush has done for the military? I thought he gave them the largest military pay increase they've seen in a decade, but I don't know where I got the idea. Yet, I also have seen that he cut veterans' benefits in other posts, but no articles to back that up either...
Edit: How did Ryuko ever see W's pecs, hmmmm? Does Dubya have his own Lewinsky scandal brewing? (j/k)
[ December 14, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Yeah, it's almost like that time he defended Air Force One from terrorists, isn't it?
My favorite Bush anecdote is when he went back to Vietnam to rescue those POWs with nothing but grit, a pocket knife and exploding arrows to see his mission through. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:Actually, that was a stated goal of Rumsfeld's; he sought to replace men on the ground with improved technology, thus reducing military cost. Due to the distraction of the war, he hasn't announced whether he's changed his mind or not.
My mistake. I did not mean that I thought Rummy didn't intend to decrease the number of personnel. Rather, I thought that the way in which he proposed decreasing, and what he proposed making up the loss of personnel, didn't result in a "large reduction of defensive power".
Basically, that with improved technology, a smaller number of soldiers could be capable of doing the same job, just as well, as a larger group of soldiers with inferior technology.
And no, I am not remotely proud of Dubya's AWOL record. I would not, in fact, have any problem with him being brought up on charges for desertion. Not now, but after his presidency.
Ain't gonna happen, of course.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Pardon me while I point out how much I HATE when people talk about war like it's some sort of stupid sport like football or baseball. This is life we are talking about. Human lives being destroyed. I don't care for what cause, war should be treated with respect and used only as a last resort.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Nice, very nice.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)