"as for the credit card remark, i dont think Bush is spending billions of dollars on himself... that is against the constitution first of all, you cannot create legislation that affects your personal salary."

Granted he is not spending billions of $$ on himself, but he is spending the money on a personal vendeta that his family has against Saddam. No, I cannot prove that statement. I was not invited to the Bush family Thanksgiving dinner last year, but it is obvious that is happening. Saddam never made the first move and he NEVER would have. It's people like Bush that think WAR=$$, and his people are set into the mix that he will become a richer man after he re-enters the private sector. (Every president will do that, not just Bush). Right now the United States is spending more effort taking care of a foreign nation than it is it's own. When was the last time we heard about the government stepping in to re-build downtown L.A., or the rougher places in America? I think we need to spend about 10 years dedicated to get our country out of the poverty circle and then worry about what others are doing. History tells us that a country can rule the world, but for only so long before it is taken out. In my opinion, Bush=Satan, because he started a war on terrorism that cannot be won (war on drugs as a reference), but at the same time set it up where he can go to war on ANY country in this great world at any time. Congress didn't approve the Iraqi war, and something tells me he can talk them out of having to approve the next one. Come on, $87 BILLION, that kind of change could have been given to the teachers and schools.

Darn, I just dropped my hooter!

 

Originally posted by discorabbit
"as for the credit card remark, i dont think Bush is spending billions of dollars on himself... that is against the constitution first of all, you cannot create legislation that affects your personal salary."

Granted he is not spending billions of $$ on himself, but he is spending the money on a personal vendeta that his family has against Saddam. No, I cannot prove that statement. I was not invited to the Bush family Thanksgiving dinner last year, but it is obvious that is happening. Saddam never made the first move and he NEVER would have.

Tell that to the people of Kuwait and Iran, or better yet, tell that to his own people, the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south. He had no trouble trying to wipe out any of those four groups by any means possible.


It's people like Bush that think WAR=$$, and his people are set into the mix that he will become a richer man after he re-enters the private sector. (Every president will do that, not just Bush).

It's easy to make a lot of money after you leave office, legally. Slick gets big bucks every time he opens his mouth.

Right now the United States is spending more effort taking care of a foreign nation than it is it's own. When was the last time we heard about the government stepping in to re-build downtown L.A., or the rougher places in America? I think we need to spend about 10 years dedicated to get our country out of the poverty circle and then worry about what others are doing.
We've already spent over $7 Trillion on LBJ's War on Poverty and guess what? WE LOST! How much more money do you think we should throw down the rathole? $10 Trillion?

History tells us that a country can rule the world, but for only so long before it is taken out. In my opinion, Bush=Satan, because he started a war on terrorism that cannot be won (war on drugs as a reference), but at the same time set it up where he can go to war on ANY country in this great world at any time.
You assume it can't be won. The Taliban is gone; Saddam is gone; Lybia is falling in line; N. Korea and Iran will soon follow Lybia's lead. I'd call that better than a draw.

Congress didn't approve the Iraqi war, and something tells me he can talk them out of having to approve the next one. Come on, $87 BILLION, that kind of change could have been given to the teachers and schools.
What? Congress DIDN'T approve the war? Since when? What was the Resolution passed by a bipartisan Congress in Oct. 2002 authorizing the use of force to oust Saddam? I would suggest a little research is in order on your part.

 

dang jpsartre12 you beat me to it
you said exactly what i would have too, we are very like minded, good response

my favorite part:

excellent

i do have to add a quick thing or two...

... What about Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' plan, that has been put into full action, and i personally have seen results and improvements in my home state.

... so since he already covered education, i guess he can go ahead and spend that (like he did) on taking out the Taliban (and other terrorist organizations), taking out Sadaam and loyalists, and rebuilding Iraq in order to:
improve its social status
improve its economy
allow it a chance to contribute to the world economy
allow it to take a role in world affairs rather than be dictated and strongarmed by terrorist oraganizations and fighting for basic survival.

as a smart man stated earlier:

no offense was meant there discorabbit, you brought a couple good arguments to the discussion, mainly domestic re-building, but i do suggest looking into Bush's education policies and Congress' role in the war on terrorism. feel free to post back, like i said i enjoyed your point on domestic rebuilding... however jpsartre12 is correct, we have been spending big $$ on it for years, but maybe a new plan is in order?

yet again jpsartre12, excellent wording

-Tim

 

I voted for both of the Bushs, I've always voted Republican in national elections, but this time around I'll vote for whatever the Democrats serve up as a candidate.

My primary consideration in chosing to vote for a democrat is based on a desire for fiscal change. Partisanship aside, I'm not looking for a debate on which major party can spend the most, or how they spend it.

From a purely financial point of view, I feel tax cuts in a time of declining tax revenues in our economy are irresponsible and geared to attract voters who lack the desire to understand the overall impact of intentionally reducing tax revenue at a time when tax collections have dropped from reduced net (taxable) earnings.

We're in the process of migrating from an industrial economic base to a service economy and, in spite of of people believing you have to spend money to make money, it doesn't work that way in our current economic circumstances. Our manufacturing industry, the part that formerly generated products sold around the world to bring wealth to our country, new wealth, is on the ropes. We're currently churning our own dollars in a GDP dominated popularity contest with consumers and government driving the numbers, and let's not forget how many of those drop off to pay taxes which never come back into the economy unless you collect spent bullets.

There's a lot more to cover, but this post is already far too long. Check with your Republican Party Committee people, not the politicians, and see what they have to say about our current and future economic structure.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by georgedavila
I voted for both of the Bushs, I've always voted Republican in national elections, but this time around I'll vote for whatever the Democrats serve up as a candidate.

Now, there's a strategy. May I suggest a Ouji Board instead?

My primary consideration in chosing to vote for a democrat is based on a desire for fiscal change. Partisanship aside, I'm not looking for a debate on which major party can spend the most, or how they spend it.

From a purely financial point of view, I feel tax cuts in a time of declining tax revenues in our economy are irresponsible and geared to attract voters who lack the desire to understand the overall impact of intentionally reducing tax revenue at a time when tax collections have dropped from reduced net (taxable) earnings.
Democrats failed to learn the lesson of the Reagan Years. Reagan CUT taxes and revenues increased. Unfortunately, spending increased more than the new revenues could cover.

We're in the process of migrating from an industrial economic base to a service economy and, in spite of of people believing you have to spend money to make money, it doesn't work that way in our current economic circumstances. Our manufacturing industry, the part that formerly generated products sold around the world to bring wealth to our country, new wealth, is on the ropes. We're currently churning our own dollars in a GDP dominated popularity contest with consumers and government driving the numbers, and let's not forget how many of those drop off to pay taxes which never come back into the economy unless you collect spent bullets.

There's a lot more to cover, but this post is already far too long. Check with your Republican Party Committee people, not the politicians, and see what they have to say about our current and future economic structure.

We are in the churn as you say. But, I would argue that we need to create an environment that is even MORE business-friendly. The Democrats have already demonstrated that they are business antagonists. That's one of the main reasons for business migration off-shore. Tougher environmental statutes, labor laws, unfavorble tax codes, etc., are all the creations of the Democratic Party and it's attempts to place socialism ahead of capitalism....but you already knew that.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jpsartre12
[B][QUOTE
Democrats failed to learn the lesson of the Reagan Years. Reagan CUT taxes and revenues increased. Unfortunately, spending increased more than the new revenues could cover.





I hate so say it but what worked for the economy in the Reagan years won't necessarily work for Bush Jr. Turn the clock back and the United States had substantially more manufacturing that was boosted by putting a few dollars in consumers pockets. We made things here and we employed people in those plants that benefited from their success. Today we broker foreign made goods that return a small fraction of their sale price to our economy, the rest going to the producing nations. Neither party is responsible for the exporting of jobs, it's a natural phenomenon that occurs all the time in a free market, producers look to minimize costs and maximize profits. Unfortunately, all the labor bargains are overseas.

 

(((Tell that to the people of Kuwait and Iran, or better yet, tell that to his own people, the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south. He had no trouble trying to wipe out any of those four groups by any means possible.)))

I don't quite see where America falls in to this, or what we have to do with it. He did NOT threaten OUR country.

(((It's easy to make a lot of money after you leave office, legally. Slick gets big bucks every time he opens his mouth.)))

Jimmy Carter also got the publicty, out of office. It is the double 00 years, and new schemes are brought about, that the evil dooers can stand right in front of you, and as the flock of sheep that we are, WE will believe them. Yes sir, I'll take another lie....Wait, Wait, Wait----I'll vote for you. SIR... Interesting how so many can understand that the junk we swallow during election year never gets put in to action.

(((We've already spent over $7 Trillion on LBJ's War on Poverty and guess what? WE LOST! How much more money do you think we should throw down the rathole? $10 Trillion?)))

War on drugs???????? How many trillion??? If we are gonna just throw it away, lets throw it away on U.S., or us.. Yes, I said 10 years, and that figure you put ot there is probably close to what needs to be done. Thanks for pointing that out.

(((You assume it can't be won. The Taliban is gone; Saddam is gone; Lybia is falling in line; N. Korea and Iran will soon follow Lybia's lead. I'd call that better than a draw.)))

(((The Taliban is gone))----Why are death rates on the climb??

If I remember correctly 16 out of the 20 were from Saudi Arabia. Please correct me on this one, but I cannot see how that country was not invaded nor were they even mentioned in your rebuttle. Personally, I cannot see the distintion between...that...and a flat out war on terrorism. My friend, it only takes one to become a terrorist. I think the same people that think we are winning or gonna win, are being the sheep that Bush wants us to be. Vote for him, by all means. What ever makes us sleep at night, I guess.

(((What? Congress DIDN'T approve the war? Since when? What was the Resolution passed by a bipartisan Congress in Oct. 2002 authorizing the use of force to oust Saddam? I would suggest a little research is in order on your part.)))

I believe you are referring to the same document that was written by Bush Sr.? Can you/anyone tell me why four pages were missing out of the United States version of it? I know that we all know what was contained in thoes pages since they we uncovered by the BBC 12 years later. Oh, yes I know about what Congress passed in to law after the fact. Congress told him to take approite action. Osama's family was flying out of this country while ALL planes were grounded on 9/11. Bush hunted for him and...then...all the sudden focused on Saddam. We cannot touch Osama because his family is Saudi Oil. Wow, Bush went all out for that deal.


Please inform me, as because I just have entered this political thing. I will only vote green party, or independant. I guess I am a hyporicrite because I believe in old fashion family, but feel stronger to radical beliefs that affect our country.

Jpsarter12.....Question. How did you get 650 more posts than me? Nice to meet you....

Matt...

 

Originally posted by discorabbit
(((Tell that to the people of Kuwait and Iran, or better yet, tell that to his own people, the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south. He had no trouble trying to wipe out any of those four groups by any means possible.)))

I don't quite see where America falls in to this, or what we have to do with it. He did NOT threaten OUR country.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and attempted to control one of the largest amounts of oil in the world. It was in the US' self-interest to NOT let that happen since our economy was very dependent on Kuwaiti oil.

(((It's easy to make a lot of money after you leave office, legally. Slick gets big bucks every time he opens his mouth.)))

Jimmy Carter also got the publicty, out of office. It is the double 00 years, and new schemes are brought about, that the evil dooers can stand right in front of you, and as the flock of sheep that we are, WE will believe them. Yes sir, I'll take another lie....Wait, Wait, Wait----I'll vote for you. SIR... Interesting how so many can understand that the junk we swallow during election year never gets put in to action.

That's because the majority of Americans are asleep at the wheel when it comes to politics. They get their news in predigested soundbites off the big three TV stations and never do any digging for themselves. Cable and the Internet are slowly changing that and surprisingly or not, more internet saavy people tend to be Republicans or Conservatives, in general. Just about every wide internet poll shows that liberalism is in the minority on the internet. This forum is a perfect microcosm of that fact.


(((We've already spent over $7 Trillion on LBJ's War on Poverty and guess what? WE LOST! How much more money do you think we should throw down the rathole? $10 Trillion?)))

War on drugs???????? How many trillion??? If we are gonna just throw it away, lets throw it away on U.S., or us.. Yes, I said 10 years, and that figure you put ot there is probably close to what needs to be done. Thanks for pointing that out.

There is no war on drugs. There's lip service and a Federal war on drug assets, though. They aren't as interested in stopping drug usage as they are on confiscating property, IMHO. And personally, I think that's a waste of resources, too. I'd hold druggies accountable for their actions and decriminalize the whole shooting match. Let the druggies flame out.

(((You assume it can't be won. The Taliban is gone; Saddam is gone; Lybia is falling in line; N. Korea and Iran will soon follow Lybia's lead. I'd call that better than a draw.)))

(((The Taliban is gone))----Why are death rates on the climb??

Death rates due to the Taliban?! I wasn't aware that any climb in the deaths from terrorists was attributed to increased Taliban activity. If it is, please cite your source of info, I'd like to read it.

If I remember correctly 16 out of the 20 were from Saudi Arabia. Please correct me on this one, but I cannot see how that country was not invaded nor were they even mentioned in your rebuttle. Personally, I cannot see the distintion between...that...and a flat out war on terrorism. My friend, it only takes one to become a terrorist. I think the same people that think we are winning or gonna win, are being the sheep that Bush wants us to be. Vote for him, by all means. What ever makes us sleep at night, I guess.
Saudi Arabian citizens were the majority of terrorists on 9-11, unquestionably. But, Saudi Arabia, the country, did not "sponsor or endorse" those terrorists. Bin Laden is a Saudi by birth, just as Jeffrey Dalmer was an American by birth. We do know that the Saudis have been pumping money into Fundamentalist sects and these sects teach violence as a means to eliminate the Infidels so we've been putting pressure on them to stop funding these groups. Believe it or not, I think that Saudis HAVE seen the light. They see that having the US ****ed at them is worse than having small radical splinter groups mad at them.

(((What? Congress DIDN'T approve the war? Since when? What was the Resolution passed by a bipartisan Congress in Oct. 2002 authorizing the use of force to oust Saddam? I would suggest a little research is in order on your part.)))

I believe you are referring to the same document that was written by Bush Sr.? Can you/anyone tell me why four pages were missing out of the United States version of it? I know that we all know what was contained in thoes pages since they we uncovered by the BBC 12 years later. Oh, yes I know about what Congress passed in to law after the fact. Congress told him to take approite action. Osama's family was flying out of this country while ALL planes were grounded on 9/11. Bush hunted for him and...then...all the sudden focused on Saddam. We cannot touch Osama because his family is Saudi Oil. Wow, Bush went all out for that deal.
Sounds like the black helicopters have been depriving you of sleep, my friend. The resolution I spoke of was voted on in Oct. 2002 and authored by Congress, IIRC.

Please inform me, as because I just have entered this political thing. I will only vote green party, or independant. I guess I am a hyporicrite because I believe in old fashion family, but feel stronger to radical beliefs that affect our country.
Unfortunately, my friend, "old fashion family" has become a radical belief....and I mourn its loss. If you're up for it, we can tackle the myths of the "green party" at another time. You'll be amazed.

Jpsarter12.....Question. How did you get 650 more posts than me? Nice to meet you....

Matt...

Nice to meet you too, Matt. You'd be surprised at how many beliefs we probably have in common, especially regarding the family unit. The reason that I have 650 more posts than you is because I'm a computer junkie. This is one of my addictions.

 

I think we passed the mile marker on that one and are far beyond going around for another pass. Our major obstacle to competing within a world market, recent past (20-yrs) and present, is our labor costs, with government regulation running a distant second. Until the cost of non-skilled, semi-skilled, skilled and professional US labor markets reach rock bottom, regulation doesn't mean much to recovery.

My personal concern regarding current irresponsible government spending is the lack of belt tightening and refusal to tell the public we have serious economic problems that will get a lot worse before we find our level of stability. We're now trying to tell G7 that the surge of economic gain in parts of Europe and Asia will pull our economy together because the dollar is low, our exports will improve and the US public will soon begin savings programs that will lower our horrendous personal debt levels. G7 members aren't exactly stupid, but how do you accuse the world's largest economy of lying through its teeth? We have so little world credibility since Iraq that everything is now a wait and see attitude, the worst possible scenario.

I see our major danger as crutching the GDP economy numbers with consumer and government spending until it finally topples. That won't take much; higher mortgage interest rates, falling demand for the foreign portion of our treasury bonds and the resultant increase in debt service to attract investors, saturation of consumer debt capacity, state governments not able to meet social requirements, etc. It won't take much and military spending provides almost zero ROI in a service economy.

 

Hmmm, I missed this thread yesterday.

I did see all the other closed threads attributed to one poster. He must have racked up at least 4 or 5 strikes before he managed to make contact.

However, the one poster that was not pro Bush, Republican, conservative, and religious didn't even get a warning shot before he was canned.

Very interesting.

Waxy

 

A. The canned user posted after I said it must stop.

B. Its a moot point because Pig Pen is closing this week.

C. Now you take a pot shot at me.

 

Your'e kidding - and not the slightest idea if God is a possibility!?

Give me the list, webmaster, and I'll say a few words over 'em!

 

I am sure I dont stand alone when saying the Pig Pen is one of the best forums and reasons for coming to FTE.

I'll be the first to say please don't close the Pen

 

Nope, not kidding.

A. Too many people ignore the guidelines.
B. It drags down the FTE's image.
C. Section seems to bring the worst out in some people.
D. Section seems to be a magnet for trouble-makers.

While there are many who conduct themselves nicely a large enough minority doesn't. Then there are those like Waxy that take shots at us when a Liberal is moderated but not when a conservative is moderated.

 

Yes, how dare anyone point out an observation that may put a moderator in a bad light. I'm all for moderation of the Pig Pen, I just like to keep it on an even keel, the same rules for everyone.

As for this being a pot shot, like I said, I wasn't around for the firestorm or you can bet I would have commented then.

Grow up Ken.

Waxy