Your opinion on our Presedent,George W. Bush Jr.,please.

He's ok.

Better than the murderous Clinton Regime we had for 8 years. We don't have to hear stories about planes mysteriously falling out of the sky or people who commit suicide then walk for hundreds of yards.

I am a little tired of the doubts of Bush's intelligence. He went to Harvard and Yale, made lots of money and was the first foreign power to take over Afghanistan in thousands of years, not too shabby.

He's not the greatest President, and he has a LOT of problems with speech. Just because he pronounces it 'Nukular' or says something nonsensical once in a while means nothing. I've seen lots of little funny errors by other Presidents.

I didn't vote for him, I vote Libertarian usually... I was very upset by his stance on therapeutic cloning and many other things, but he's better than a lot of other people we've had.

I think GWB is a true blessing to our country.

BTW: (Was this posted by Caffeine Socialism or Brimshack?)
"His economic policies make marginally more sense than the wonderful Ronny Reagan's ideas (anyone who adds 4 trillion bucks to the national debt deserves an airport named after him, of course),"

FACT: Reagan's tax cut (the largest in history) DOUBLED the revenues to the US Treasury. The problem was with the Democratic congress who spent $1.41 for every dollar brought in through taxes. FACT-FACT-FACT

Trickle down economics does work. During Reagan's terms, more people moved up the the next higher economic class (including the lowest fifth) than ever before.FACT-FACT-FACT

During this same time period the Democrats decided to make the rich pay more taxes so they put an excise tax on luxury boats. The result- the rich bought their boats over-seas and a luxury boat factory in a New England state closed down. Average workers lost their jobs.FACT-FACT

When the rich get more money they spend and invest which in turn gives jobs to the average American. As John F Kennedy once said, "All ships rise with the rising tide."

In Christ, Patrick

BTW again: GET OVER IT!!!! George W. bush IS our elected president. Which part of the electorial college do you not understand???

Panterapet:

It wasn't me, but all us lefties look the same don't we. So, what the heck: "The problem was with the Democratic congress who spent $1.41 for every dollar brought in through taxes."

Amusing spin. Reagan and Congerss both spend the money, but you simply focus on the democrats ignoring Reagan's decision to pour money into the military, giving us a military welfare state. It's just another form of Keynsian economics in the long run. We spent more money than we had at the time, exactly as FDR had done (notwithstanding all the supply-siders pseudo-criticisms of Keynsianism). You ignore a near crisis in 1982, following the initial round of tax cuts. To the extent that the economy did recover, you also ignore factors, such as drops in oil prices world-wide, and the actions of the Federal reserve board. As for rising standards of living, you ignore the degree to which this was often due to the addition of a second income to the family. A substantial portion of the additional jobs wer not sufficient to keep a family above poverty, so the Reagan years ironically brought more married women into the market than feminists ever could have. But of course when you name only a few facts it's easier to pretend that trickle down economics was a great success.

There are certainly potential benefits to tax cuts, and sucessful businesses can certainly lead to benefits for workers, et., but those pretendoing this is necessarily the case, are confusing a potential outcome with a necessary condition. For example,: "When the rich get more money they spend and invest which in turn gives jobs to the average American." This makes the outcome seem automatic, but it ignores the many ways in which corporations can by-pass whole communities in the quest to make money. Wealth doesn't always trickle down, though I imagine it must be very conveniant to believe that is always the case.

BTW: I'm still curious about the source of your stats. For my own assertions, try any contemporary American history text (or alternatively commence standard neoc-onservative rant about left wing academics.)

Brimshack-

Are you wondering about these stats or the stats pertaining to Nazi gun control?
I certainly cannot present a disertation in this forum. Each of us choose the (facts???) we wish to present. But truly I do not pre-judge. I am open to the truth whatever that may be.

Pat

I don't know if I can say too much (even if I did study US Government and Politics for three years... I am rusty ) as I don't wish to tread on anyone's toes, but anyway. I see Bush, much like Reagan as a man with a Cold War ethic using the idea that the most complex of problems can ultimately be solved by the military.

Now look at the way Reagan came to power. Off the back of the Iranian hostage embarassment & a weak Carter administration. America needed a strong leader to bring courage and conviction back into the United States people and the military, so he had this "Big I am" approach and refused to let America be pushed about, which you can understand was welcomed by the US public, who wanted some results.

Again, after 9/11, America needed a strong repsonder and Bush made the response the public wanted. He made sure America was not humiliated and Afghanistan was a very good response, not to mention the fact the ground force was native people, so there was the bonus of not having to send troops in large numbers or have body bags coming back in the hundreds. The result is an apparently free nation, but there

Now you have two leaders, cutting taxes, spending more on the military. A world in/on the brink of recession and possible international conflicts. There is either a pattern or there isn't.

Reagan had the Soviet Union. Bush has the Axis of Evil. One leader can be credited with bringing about the end of the Cold War (as we knew it), another may one day be credited with bringing an end to the Axis of Evil. Either way, future leaders that arise will have another problem to deal with. The politics of yesterday becomes the military focus of tomorrow.

Now do I like President Bush? After 9/11 I thought that he was probably the only leader who could have responded the way people wanted. He said and did all the right things IMO. I have reservations about his ability to tackle domestic issues with the same vigor that he attacks issues involving the military, but that can be said for any leader, including my those within my own country.

 

On another note, if Germany & France, who suffered three wars in the last century can come to a peaceful acceptance of one another and forge friendships with former enemies and treat history as a lesson in what not to do rather than vengeance, then it's possible for the rest of the world as well.

I think G. W. could be doing worse....not by much, but he could be.

At this point the stats on Reagan. I understand I cannot expect a documented dissertation on every topic, but you are citing statistical information. That's trickier than usual, and so sources become more important. We both know that economic data gets a lot of spin from all sides, so I think it's fair to ask in this case. I also thought given the number of details you were mentioning the odds were pretty good that you had a specific source for these. If not then so be it. As for pre-judging the facts, well I don't know anyone without a bias, but if I've over-estimated yours, then I apologize.

In any event, I remain skeptical of your claims in both this discussion and the one on Nazi gun control. We may pursue either or drop both at your discretion.

Well, Bear, I would have responded to your county map, but I see that others have done it for me.

But no more hit-and-runs for me.

I like Bush, but i'm just a dumb farm wife from the rural areas of Texas so guess that's expected of me!


gwyyn

At a time such as this after 09/11/01 it is my contention that President Bush is indeed the man for the job.

He does not make decisions based on polls and he is not weak of character and integrity.

In this present world we live in the United States needs a strong leader.

He does not make decisions based on polls and he is not weak of character and integrity.

Click to expand...

character and integrity he may have <maybe>, but how good can a president who cant even construct a sentence be?

Originally posted by Texas Lynn
I would never vote for him or any other Republican unless they changed their ways drastically, though.

Click to expand...

So that means you wouldn't vote for anyone who wanted for us to actually show responsibility for the children we conceive?

So MyJhong, you would vote for someone who would call out a nuclear holocaust on a nation whose only crime is to have a dictator as its "government"?

Originally posted by Rae
So MyJhong, you would vote for someone who would call out a nuclear holocaust on a nation whose only crime is to have a dictator as its "government"?

Click to expand...

Nuclear? No.&nbsp; But when has that been discussed?

Originally posted by MyJhongFist
So that means you wouldn't vote for anyone who wanted for us to actually show responsibility for the children we conceive?

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? How do Republicans do that--by restricting education and funding of family planning programs?

I'm unaware of programs/initiatives/talk of helping the average person take responsibility for their children? Mostly I hear about tax cuts for people who own goodly amounts of stock and how I should be prepared for the postal clerk to report to the government that I'm a member of the ACLU and buy from Victoria's Secret.


--tibac

he has done btter for the U.S. than Clinton the liar that was in the seat last

Originally posted by GREG
he has done btter for the U.S. than Clinton the liar that was in the seat last

Click to expand...

Bush lied about his arrest record on t.v. during his campaign.&nbsp; He claimed that he has never been arrested - yet he was for drunk driving.

My opionion on Dubya:

I think he is a man of very mediocre intelligence who was born into a family of wealth and influence.&nbsp; He can read a teleprompter ok but he is an awful public speaker otherwise.&nbsp; He is clearly unfit to lead, IMHO.

I also think he's a bit of a hypocrite for bashing the AA policies of Michigan U.&nbsp; He himself certainly didn't get into&nbsp;Yale by being an overacheiver&nbsp;- so what's the difference?

Having said that I do think he did some things right.&nbsp; I'm particularily found of the way he approached Islam following 9/11, having visited Mosques in the U.S and intelligently avoiding the "Islam is evil" bandwagon that his religious right friends have jumped on.

You don't remember that W, in his vast intelligence, has been threatening to nuke Iraq? That should kill a lot more babies than abortion ever would...

hmmm and where did u hear about 'w' using nukes, I have yet to have heard or see anything on the news, web, or in newspapers ??

you got some hidden source??