Bush never does anything wrong...

[sliver108]

Face it anti-Bush people! There is not a thing that this man can do that is ever wrong. Don’t waste your time trying to prove otherwise.



Domestic:

Don’t pay attention to the surplus becoming a record deficit.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that he has not made one “new” job.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that healthcare has went up.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that income has went down.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the Bush administration is holding back the 9/11 report for some odd reason.

These things are all the fault of the recession handed over by Clinton and 9/11.



Foreign:

Don’t pay attention to the fact that most of the world isn’t on our side.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that this war should have been handled better.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that oil is being better protected than explosives.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that civilian Iraqi lives could be spared if we had better intelligence and didn’t rush into war.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the “SINGULAR” reason congress gave Bush the OK to go to war was based off of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. It is ok to justify this war now because we are helping the Iraqi people.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the Bush administration was naive enough to cut deals to the Taliban a month before 9/11 because we wanted to put a pipe in.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that we are paying for 90% of this war because most countries really don’t believe in this war.



All of what I just listed is speculation, circumstantial, coincidental and basically opinion based so just remember that. So have your pride of your convictions because changing your mind when circumstances drastically change only means that you are indecisive and a flip flopper.



PS – Fear, fear, fear and not a single other president but me would fight a war because they are all pussies. I can never admit I was wrong, I avoided serving in Vietnam and my VP received 5 deferments. My chief political advisor is a criminal, I like to fire generals that tell me to be careful and I support leaking the names of undercover CIA agents just because their husband did their job. As long as I make people fear and make them feel I am the only one that will protect them I will be fine. I will serve a second term because what have I ever done that was wrong, nothing.



(I became anti-Bush years before I was pro-Kerry BTW. I supported Bush in 2000 but now I do not.)

[slimbo]

Word Up

[TwoStep2888]

Damn that Clinton!

[Jake]

Face it anti-Bush people! There is not a thing that this man can do that is ever wrong. Don’t waste your time trying to prove otherwise.



Domestic:

Don’t pay attention to the surplus becoming a record deficit.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that he has not made one “new” job.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that healthcare has went up.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that income has went down.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the Bush administration is holding back the 9/11 report for some odd reason.

These things are all the fault of the recession handed over by Clinton and 9/11.



Foreign:

Don’t pay attention to the fact that most of the world isn’t on our side.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that this war should have been handled better.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that oil is being better protected than explosives.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that civilian Iraqi lives could be spared if we had better intelligence and didn’t rush into war.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the “SINGULAR” reason congress gave Bush the OK to go to war was based off of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. It is ok to justify this war now because we are helping the Iraqi people.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the Bush administration was naive enough to cut deals to the Taliban a month before 9/11 because we wanted to put a pipe in.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that we are paying for 90% of this war because most countries really don’t believe in this war.



All of what I just listed is speculation, circumstantial, coincidental and basically opinion based so just remember that. So have your pride of your convictions because changing your mind when circumstances drastically change only means that you are indecisive and a flip flopper.



PS – Fear, fear, fear and not a single other president but me would fight a war because they are all pussies. I can never admit I was wrong, I avoided serving in Vietnam and my VP received 5 deferments. My chief political advisor is a criminal, I like to fire generals that tell me to be careful and I support leaking the names of undercover CIA agents just because their husband did their job. As long as I make people fear and make them feel I am the only one that will protect them I will be fine. I will serve a second term because what have I ever done that was wrong, nothing.



(I became anti-Bush years before I was pro-Kerry BTW. I supported Bush in 2000 but now I do not.)



in order:

1. there was no 'surplus'. There was a projected surplus. It's not like the money was already there in neat little stacks. As soon as 9.11 occured, the surplus was gone b/c in order for the projection to happen, everything had to stay exactly the same as it was in late 99, when the 'surplus' was found to likely occur under prestine conditions.

2. The jobs are up about a million over the last month. That's simply hype that he didn't creat jobs. Every president 'creates' jobs.

3. Correct. Healthcare went up. I'd say it's cost of living due to lawsuits, but there is no doubt that healthcare went up.

4. Income has not gone down. I'm not sure where people get that notion, but I guess it sounds good when you say it loud enough.

5. The Bush admin is holding back a 9.11 report that plays monday morning qb to place blame on something rather then look ahead and stop something from happening again? OK, if that's how you want to live your life, so be it. Be angry about it... grrrr!

6. um... the recession started in 99. look up some stocks.



foreign.

1. you like to be the most popular kid and have everyone like you. Bush doesn't care- and would rather protect the country. different philosophies.

2. the war was a smashing success. the after war was butchered.

3. no proof that oil is being better protected the explosives. although, last time I looked, oil does go 'boom'.

4. no proof of that, whatsoever.

5. untrue. not one 'singular' statement swayed congress.

6. HA HA HA. I'm glad you liked Michael Moore's movie.

7. um... most countries flip the bill for wars they start, it's natural.



it was fun reading from the liberal handbook, but most of that stuff is pure hype.


it's sad to see how blind some people are... very very sad.

[marco j]

in order:

1. there was no 'surplus'. There was a projected surplus. It's not like the money was already there in neat little stacks. As soon as 9.11 occured, the surplus was gone b/c in order for the projection to happen, everything had to stay exactly the same as it was in late 99, when the 'surplus' was found to likely occur under prestine conditions.

2. The jobs are up about a million over the last month. That's simply hype that he didn't creat jobs. Every president 'creates' jobs.

3. Correct. Healthcare went up. I'd say it's cost of living due to lawsuits, but there is no doubt that healthcare went up.

4. Income has not gone down. I'm not sure where people get that notion, but I guess it sounds good when you say it loud enough.

5. The Bush admin is holding back a 9.11 report that plays monday morning qb to place blame on something rather then look ahead and stop something from happening again? OK, if that's how you want to live your life, so be it. Be angry about it... grrrr!

6. um... the recession started in 99. look up some stocks.



foreign.

1. you like to be the most popular kid and have everyone like you. Bush doesn't care- and would rather protect the country. different philosophies.

2. the war was a smashing success. the after war was butchered.

3. no proof that oil is being better protected the explosives. although, last time I looked, oil does go 'boom'.

4. no proof of that, whatsoever.

5. untrue. not one 'singular' statement swayed congress.

6. HA HA HA. I'm glad you liked Michael Moore's movie.

7. um... most countries flip the bill for wars they start, it's natural.

oh yeah and EVERY SINGLE INE OF THIS IS TRUE--PS – Fear, fear, fear and not a single other president but me would fight a war because they are all pussies. I can never admit I was wrong, I avoided serving in Vietnam and my VP received 5 deferments. My chief political advisor is a criminal, I like to fire generals that tell me to be careful and I support leaking the names of undercover CIA agents just because their husband did their job. As long as I make people fear and make them feel I am the only one that will protect them I will be fine. I will serve a second term because what have I ever done that was wrong, nothing.


you are the blind jake



it was fun reading from the liberal handbook, but most of that stuff is pure hype.


it's sad to see how blind some people are... very very sad.



yeah jake and the ones looking blind are the ignorant bush supporters.
most of what you wrote is bullshit. i'll give the surplus , but jobs are at a loss by the end of the year. try and argue it and i'll shove it down your throat.
job salaries are also down. argue that and i'll do the same again.

[barefoot]

yeah jake and the ones looking blind are the ignorant bush supporters.
Pot, meet kettle.

[Jake]

yeah jake and the ones looking blind are the ignorant bush supporters.
most of what you wrote is bullshit. i'll give the surplus , but jobs are at a loss by the end of the year. try and argue it and i'll shove it down your throat.
job salaries are also down. argue that and i'll do the same again.


job salaries are down?


wow, here I was thinking that I did get a raise last year. nice point. Anything else from that email you got from Dem HQ you want to point out?

[WJM-WJM]

Face it anti-Bush people! There is not a thing that this man can do that is ever wrong. Don’t waste your time trying to prove otherwise.



Domestic:

Don’t pay attention to the surplus becoming a record deficit.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that he has not made one “new” job.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that healthcare has went up.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that income has went down.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the Bush administration is holding back the 9/11 report for some odd reason.

These things are all the fault of the recession handed over by Clinton and 9/11.



Foreign:

Don’t pay attention to the fact that most of the world isn’t on our side.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that this war should have been handled better.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that oil is being better protected than explosives.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that civilian Iraqi lives could be spared if we had better intelligence and didn’t rush into war.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the “SINGULAR” reason congress gave Bush the OK to go to war was based off of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. It is ok to justify this war now because we are helping the Iraqi people.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the Bush administration was naive enough to cut deals to the Taliban a month before 9/11 because we wanted to put a pipe in.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that we are paying for 90% of this war because most countries really don’t believe in this war.



All of what I just listed is speculation, circumstantial, coincidental and basically opinion based so just remember that. So have your pride of your convictions because changing your mind when circumstances drastically change only means that you are indecisive and a flip flopper.



PS – Fear, fear, fear and not a single other president but me would fight a war because they are all pussies. I can never admit I was wrong, I avoided serving in Vietnam and my VP received 5 deferments. My chief political advisor is a criminal, I like to fire generals that tell me to be careful and I support leaking the names of undercover CIA agents just because their husband did their job. As long as I make people fear and make them feel I am the only one that will protect them I will be fine. I will serve a second term because what have I ever done that was wrong, nothing.



(I became anti-Bush years before I was pro-Kerry BTW. I supported Bush in 2000 but now I do not.)

Which mass email did you pull this off of? It's perfect for someone who doesn't need any factual support. Income is down and healthcare is up!! Woooo baby!!

[Dancing Ants]

job salaries are down?


wow, here I was thinking that I did get a raise last year. nice point. Anything else from that email you got from Dem HQ you want to point out?


i also did not get a raise. :rolleyes:

[sliver108]

in order:

1. there was no 'surplus'. There was a projected surplus. It's not like the money was already there in neat little stacks. As soon as 9.11 occured, the surplus was gone b/c in order for the projection to happen, everything had to stay exactly the same as it was in late 99, when the 'surplus' was found to likely occur under prestine conditions.

2. The jobs are up about a million over the last month. That's simply hype that he didn't creat jobs. Every president 'creates' jobs.

3. Correct. Healthcare went up. I'd say it's cost of living due to lawsuits, but there is no doubt that healthcare went up.

4. Income has not gone down. I'm not sure where people get that notion, but I guess it sounds good when you say it loud enough.

5. The Bush admin is holding back a 9.11 report that plays monday morning qb to place blame on something rather then look ahead and stop something from happening again? OK, if that's how you want to live your life, so be it. Be angry about it... grrrr!

6. um... the recession started in 99. look up some stocks.



foreign.

1. you like to be the most popular kid and have everyone like you. Bush doesn't care- and would rather protect the country. different philosophies.

2. the war was a smashing success. the after war was butchered.

3. no proof that oil is being better protected the explosives. although, last time I looked, oil does go 'boom'.

4. no proof of that, whatsoever.

5. untrue. not one 'singular' statement swayed congress.

6. HA HA HA. I'm glad you liked Michael Moore's movie.

7. um... most countries flip the bill for wars they start, it's natural.



it was fun reading from the liberal handbook, but most of that stuff is pure hype.


it's sad to see how blind some people are... very very sad.


I am not going to waste a lot of time on this.




Blame Clinton and 9/11 as I have stated.
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/todayseconomy/jobgrowth.cfm (http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/todayseconomy/jobgrowth.cfm) even if he does create jobs there will not be a significant amount made.
Thanks
go to www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/)
No, the report points out a lot of error’s made by senior Bush officials.
No need to look up stocks. I said “handed to” as in adopted etc.



The US doesn’t own the earth and we can’t do everything on our own.
So we are not in war? Bush used “mission accomplished” but in reality it is far from over. It is what it is, a war that is still going on.
I guess you are not aware of the fact that we lost 380 tons of explosives or that protecting the oil and pipes are a top priority by the military. I guess that doesn’t seem odd to you at all though.
It is on the news almost every single day. We are attacking people we “believe” are insurgents etc. I feel bad for our troops because it isn’t their fault.
You have me there. Singular was a bad word to use. The “main” reason was that we “knew” they had WMD. Please don’t use semantics with this. Why do you think we were aloud to go to war!
I did see that movie but that fact was never mentioned in it. Don’t you remember when Cheney, Halliburton and Enron went over to talk to the Taliban? Remember the tapes that we never heard etc., etc. and etc.?
Good justification.


You proved the title of this thread to be correct. I am not a liberal that subscribes to these views. I am a liberal because these were my views from the start.



You did absolutely nothing but make excuses up for the facts. I don’t like them and I didn’t make them up but they are facts. What allegiance do you feel that you owe Bush? Our forefathers once said that only fools would think our government is always right. Our government has made larger moral mistakes then this war hence slavery and women that were not created equal. The thinking that our government is always kosher is what lead to those large moral mistakes in the first place!

[TwoStep2888]

You did absolutely nothing but make excuses up for the facts. I don’t like them and I didn’t make them up but they are facts. What allegiance do you feel that you owe Bush? Our forefathers once said that only fools would think our government is always right. Our government has made larger moral mistakes then this war hence slavery and women that were not created equal. The thinking that our government is always kosher is what lead to those large moral mistakes in the first place!
:thumbsup Well said.

[Jake]

I'm still trying to figure out what excuse I said!

[WJM-WJM]

I'm still trying to figure out what excuse I said!

:lol

Yeah, your big excuses to those "facts." Facts like macroeconomic data coming from the AFLCIO. Facts like "income is down." Hey - can you check and see if the rich are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer? I had heard that was a fact too.

[sliver108]

:lol

Yeah, your big excuses to those "facts." Facts like macroeconomic data coming from the AFLCIO. Facts like "income is down." Hey - can you check and see if the rich are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer? I had heard that was a fact too.
:lol

[WJM-WJM]

:lol

I was being sarcastic, not sure if that came through clearly. ;)

[bill braskey]

job salaries are down?


wow, here I was thinking that I did get a raise last year. nice point. Anything else from that email you got from Dem HQ you want to point out?Well I guess as long as JAKE has gotten raises and doesnt have to back up the president by goin to Iraq, I guess things are A O'fucking K. You go ahead and vote with your wallet.

[pedelen99]

in order:

1. there was no 'surplus'. There was a projected surplus. It's not like the money was already there in neat little stacks. As soon as 9.11 occured, the surplus was gone b/c in order for the projection to happen, everything had to stay exactly the same as it was in late 99, when the 'surplus' was found to likely occur under prestine conditions..

The federal budget first moved into overall surplus in fiscal 1998; but there was still an "on-budget" (non-Social-Security) deficit. We achieved an on-budget surplus in fiscal 1999, but a tiny one ($1.8 billion). We achieved a significant on-budget surplus in fiscal 2000: $87 billion, corresponding to an overall surplus of $236 billion. That would be an actual $87 billion in neat little stacks...

2. The jobs are up about a million over the last month. That's simply hype that he didn't creat jobs. Every president 'creates' jobs.

Jobs are up 1.7 million over the last year, but the bottom line is that Bush will be the first president to preside over a net loss of jobs since the Great Depression. Thus proving that not every president 'creates' jobs.

4. Income has not gone down. I'm not sure where people get that notion, but I guess it sounds good when you say it loud enough..

Median household income in real terms declined 1.1% from 2001 to 2003, according to the US Census Bureau.

5. The Bush admin is holding back a 9.11 report that plays monday morning qb to place blame on something rather then look ahead and stop something from happening again? OK, if that's how you want to live your life, so be it. Be angry about it... grrrr!.

In December 2002 the House Intelligence Committe requested a report from the CIA's Inspector General reviewing the agencies performance before 9/11. That report has not yet been released, even though both the Republican & Democratic leaders of the committe have called for it's release.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/politics/21intel.html


6. um... the recession started in 99. look up some stocks. .

Economics is an inexact science, so it's hard to say definitively that someone is wrong. I'm happy to point out that, in this case, Jake is wrong. Recessions have a very clear technical definition. The National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the recession actually began in March 2001. Bush took office in January 2001.


it was fun reading from the liberal handbook, but most of that stuff is pure hype.

it's sad to see how blind some people are... very very sad.

I'll let that speak for itself...

- Phil

[ss10mets]

Economics is an inexact science, so it's hard to say definitively that someone is wrong. I'm happy to point out that, in this case, Jake is wrong. Recessions have a very clear technical definition. The National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the recession actually began in March 2001. Bush took office in January 2001.


Very correct, stocks have nothing to do with the recession.... nice try though

[saygoodbye12]

Economics is an inexact science, so it's hard to say definitively that someone is wrong. I'm happy to point out that, in this case, Jake is wrong. Recessions have a very clear technical definition. The National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the recession actually began in March 2001. Bush took office in January 2001.
Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001. Can a president be blamed for a recession that starts less than 50 days into his presidency?

[mwjorgens]

Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001. Can a president be blamed for a recession that starts less than 50 days into his presidency?
not really, but its easier to blame him when my financial future evaported when he came into office

[pedelen99]

Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001. Can a president be blamed for a recession that starts less than 50 days into his presidency?

Never said that, and it's a valid point. I was responding to 'the recession started in 1999'. It didn't. Nor did Bush inherit an economy in recession, as his campaign has claimed. It's not hard to get your facts right, and to make valid arguments based on those facts. You just made one, in fact. I would give you a gold star, but it's not one of the choices. How about a :thumbsup

:)

- Phil

[Jake]

Very correct, stocks have nothing to do with the recession.... nice try though


oh my....


what do the flowers smell like in your world?



btw, median households down 1.1%? not too bad considering that the entire 2002 year was spent WORRING ABOUT ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK!!


wonder what that 2001-2004 # is? hmmmm

[pedelen99]

wonder what that 2001-2004 # is? hmmmm

I tried to track through 2004 but that data is not released yet, as far as I could tell.

- Phil

[WJM-WJM]

pedelen99 - I appreciate you bringing some facts into the conversation. Seriously.

Jobs are up 1.7 million over the last year, but the bottom line is that Bush will be the first president to preside over a net loss of jobs since the Great Depression. Thus proving that not every president 'creates' jobs.

--- Net loss of jobs is highly attributable to the dot com situation. Not Clinton's fault, not Bush's fault. Entire situation has more to do with an irrational marketplace during the late 90's.



Median household income in real terms declined 1.1% from 2001 to 2003, according to the US Census Bureau.

--- I had not seen that stat. I'd be interested to see what a more current trend is though.



Economics is an inexact science, so it's hard to say definitively that someone is wrong. I'm happy to point out that, in this case, Jake is wrong. Recessions have a very clear technical definition. The National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the recession actually began in March 2001. Bush took office in January 2001.

--- If you admit that the recession started 6 weeks after Bush became President (therefore, it was out of his hands, right?), is it fair to say that he is not responsible for any of the economic downfalls that you mention in your previous points? Moreover, most would agree the economy is improving. Does the President deserve some of the credit for that?

[pedelen99]

btw, median households down 1.1%? not too bad considering that the entire 2002 year was spent WORRING ABOUT ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK!!

I see you've abandoned your 'income is not down' argument for the more traditional 'it's not that bad plus it's not really our fault' argument. Strategically a good move... much harder to get pinned down by pesky facts.

- Phil

[Jake]

I tried to track through 2004 but that data is not released yet, as far as I could tell.

- Phil


thanks for the info.

[sliver108]

It is nice to see that there are other informed people out there.

[Jake]

I'm still not backing down from my income not down statement. The terrorist attack wiped out 2002, and the dot com bust put a lot of people on the streets. Now, are they back working out of their homes? There are studies that suggest it is the case, which would make the 'jobs lost' number invalid. If we were short 1.7 mil jobs, why has spending been on such an upswing? The two go hand and hand. That's why I discount that number.

[pedelen99]

pedelen99 - I appreciate you bringing some facts into the conversation. Seriously.

Jobs are up 1.7 million over the last year, but the bottom line is that Bush will be the first president to preside over a net loss of jobs since the Great Depression. Thus proving that not every president 'creates' jobs.

--- Net loss of jobs is highly attributable to the dot com situation. Not Clinton's fault, not Bush's fault. Entire situation has more to do with an irrational marketplace during the late 90's.

Yes and no. I don't know what amount of job loss is attributable to the dot com bubble. But if you pull back and look at the big picture, Bush is not the first president to deal with very trying times. The point is less what the roots of the problem are than what you actually did about it. And quite frankly, I haven't seen much of any economic stimulus package from Bush. He's taken his tax cut because of a surplus, morphed it to tax cuts because of the recession, and then to tax cuts for jobs. It's not an effective strategy, and we didn't get much bang for our buck.

And if you look at the really big picture, the last Democratic president who didn't create 10 million jobs in a term was Kennedy. LBJ, Clinton twice, even Carter all created at least 10 million jobs. During that same 40 year stretch, only one Republican president in one term was able to do that - Reagan in his second term. Nixon, Reagan's 1st term, Bush 41, and Bush Jr - none of them came close. That's statistically significant. Democratic policies are simply better at creating jobs that Republican policies.

- Phil

[WJM-WJM]

I tried to track through 2004 but that data is not released yet, as far as I could tell.

- Phil

The absolute #'s are one thing. The trends are another. The time at which a President becomes responsible is another.

Here's an example:

If you look at a change in the absolute median income # from January 2001 to December 2003

I think we'd agree a good portion of 2001 is out of Bush's hands. So if this majorly kickass recession kicked in March 2001, the number could have gone down 3% from Jan to Nov 2001. Then, from Nov 2001 to the end of 2003 (a reasonable timeframe which Bush could be held accountable for macroecnomic decision making), the number may be down 1% overall from Jan 01 to Dec 03, but it could have been up 2% during the time which Bush was responsible.

I'm just throwing that out as an example. I suppose there are a million different ways to slice it.

[pedelen99]

I'm still not backing down from my income not down statement. The terrorist attack wiped out 2002, and the dot com bust put a lot of people on the streets. Now, are they back working out of their homes? There are studies that suggest it is the case, which would make the 'jobs lost' number invalid. If we were short 1.7 mil jobs, why has spending been on such an upswing? The two go hand and hand. That's why I discount that number.

I didn't say we were short 1.7 mil jobs - I said we are plus 1.7 mil jobs this year (a modestly good thing) but down over the 4 years.

Median household income is down from 2001 - 2003 according to the US Census. That's about as comprehensive and definitive a study as you can get. If you choose not to believe it then it says a lot about your interest in believing reality vs. what you'd like reality to be. Maybe it will come back up in 2004 - you're welcome to argue that. I think all of us would like to see that... everyone (hopefully), regardless of political affiliation, would like to see people do better. But facts are facts, and unless you have some other facts to put forward (and there may well be some) then they stand. And if you want to live in a different world, then... well, let us know what the flowers smell like there...

- Phil

[pedelen99]

The absolute #'s are one thing. The trends are another. The time at which a President becomes responsible is another.

Here's an example:

If you look at a change in the absolute median income # from January 2001 to December 2003

I think we'd agree a good portion of 2001 is out of Bush's hands. So if this majorly kickass recession kicked in March 2001, the number could have gone down 3% from Jan to Nov 2001. Then, from Nov 2001 to the end of 2003 (a reasonable timeframe which Bush could be held accountable for macroecnomic decision making), the number may be down 1% overall from Jan 01 to Dec 03, but it could have been up 2% during the time which Bush was responsible.

I'm just throwing that out as an example. I suppose there are a million different ways to slice it.

Down 1.1% from 2001 to 2002, flat from 2002 to 2003, if that helps.

- Phil

[WJM-WJM]

And if you look at the really big picture, the last Democratic president who didn't create 10 million jobs in a term was Kennedy. LBJ, Clinton twice, even Carter all created at least 10 million jobs. During that same 40 year stretch, only one Republican president in one term was able to do that - Reagan in his second term. Nixon, Reagan's 1st term, Bush 41, and Bush Jr - none of them came close. That's statistically significant. Democratic policies are simply better at creating jobs that Republican policies.

- Phil

Candidly, I'm not incredibly familiar with the job creating successes or shortfalls of Presidents prior to Clinton.

In Clinton's case though, I have a hard time giving him all of the credit. The late 90's was a modern day gold rush. Some dinky company would create 50 unsustainable jobs overnight. It happened thousands of times.

[Davenumber40]

Don’t pay attention to the fact that most of the world isn’t on our side.

Because that's what we all should be most concerned with. It isn't like nations that opposed the war are just acting in their own interests (ie. France's oil deals with Saddam). The US is the only country that does that.

[pedelen99]

Candidly, I'm not incredibly familiar with the job creating successes or shortfalls of Presidents prior to Clinton.

In Clinton's case though, I have a hard time giving him all of the credit. The late 90's was a modern day gold rush. Some dinky company would create 50 unsustainable jobs overnight. It happened thousands of times.

Trying to attach a chart, but don't shoot me if I don't get it right...

- Phil

[WJM-WJM]

Down 1.1% from 2001 to 2002, flat from 2002 to 2003, if that helps.

- Phil

Any idea what the year-to-date numbers are? I'm not sure they calculate them this quickly though.

[pedelen99]

And Bush numbers might be a little dated... it's probably better than charted (but still in the red).

- Phil

[pedelen99]

Any idea what the year-to-date numbers are? I'm not sure they calculate them this quickly though.

No idea. Quite honestly, that original response required a lot of time in research and I just ran out of energy to chase any more facts.

I'm outa here for a while. The team that broke my heart so many times as a kid actually has a shot at redemption... gotta go watch the Red Sox!

- Phil

[bill braskey]

Because that's what we all should be most concerned with. It isn't like nations that opposed the war are just acting in their own interests (ie. France's oil deals with Saddam). The US is the only country that does that.
OR, maybe, just maybe

The French government listened to its own populace and did not support the war.

OR......

The French thought Saddam's WMDs, or lack thereof, were not an imminent threat.

just throwin out some other probables, since you think the only reason france didnt go to iraq was their oil dealings with Saddam

How can you honestly be pissed at other countries who did not support this military action?

[dylanquirt]

3. no proof that oil is being better protected the explosives. although, last time I looked, oil does go 'boom'.

.


No Proof? last time i looked, there wasn't 380 tons of oil "missing."

[Davenumber40]

OR, maybe, just maybe

The French government listened to its own populace and did not support the war.

OR......

The French thought Saddam's WMDs, or lack thereof, were not an imminent threat.

just throwin out some other probables, since you think the only reason france didnt go to iraq was their oil dealings with Saddam

How can you honestly be pissed at other countries who did not support this military action?


Why is it that France gets this benefit of the doubt and our president doesn't?

[Jake]

No Proof? last time i looked, there wasn't 380 tons of oil "missing."


'missing' from before the war. Are you saying we should've invaded Iraq earlier? Seems like Kerry is alluding to that.

[nubby]

Kerry had nothing to do with the missing 380 tons of munitions. The drudge report is basing their information off a retraction from NBC. Even Fox News is admitting the reports are conflicting about when the munitions trully went missing.

[DMBSignGuy]

Kerry had nothing to do with the missing 380 tons of munitions. The drudge report is basing their information off a retraction from NBC. Even Fox News is admitting the reports are conflicting about when the munitions trully went missing.

yup lets all listen to the drudge report...a guy that admits to making shit up. :rolleyes:

[AnyonebutBush]

we'll all be dead and gone in a few short years

[TwoStep2888]

...so don't burn the day. Or vote for Bush.

[SatelliteEyes]

You know what. All of this shit doesn't FREAKING MATTER!!!!!

Why?? Because Bush has two "special" telephones. One that is red that he picks up in case he needs to order nukes, all Presidents have had that since we started making nukes.

The other?? I'm not sure what color it is but it is a direct line to Baby Jesus. W and Baby Jesus have a very close relationship. Baby Jesus tells Bush what God wants him to do and he does God's work.

It is that simple people. There is no arguing with God. Soon all the world will be converted to Born Again Christians and we can all live in peace and harmony with our bibles.

There IS NO ATTACK ADDS AGAINST CHRIST OUR SAVIOR!!!

[sliver108]

You know what. All of this shit doesn't FREAKING MATTER!!!!!

Why?? Because Bush has two "special" telephones. One that is red that he picks up in case he needs to order nukes, all Presidents have had that since we started making nukes.

The other?? I'm not sure what color it is but it is a direct line to Baby Jesus. W and Baby Jesus have a very close relationship. Baby Jesus tells Bush what God wants him to do and he does God's work.

It is that simple people. There is no arguing with God. Soon all the world will be converted to Born Again Christians and we can all live in peace and harmony with our bibles.

There IS NO ATTACK ADDS AGAINST CHRIST OUR SAVIOR!!!
That statement is very funny. Doesn’t anybody else see the hypocrisy? My god is better than your god etc. It is quite obvious that the radical Muslim terrorists don’t reflect the Muslim religion as a whole but has anyone thought about how people with Bush’s Christian beliefs may be viewed? He has said a few times that God told him to do things. I think it shows an extreme elitist view that is bad for our counrty. Check out this funny video clip about hypocrisy in religion: http://jesuspenis.ericschwartz.com/media/video/JP_QT.mov (javascript:OpenWin('http://65.54.187.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=c20d163316de80e3f77ae55b3ded8eef&lat=1098967804&hm___action=http%253a%252f%252fjesuspenis%252eeric schwartz%252ecom%252fmedia%252fvideo%252fJP_QT%252 emov');)

[EatSleepJeep]

If I hear one more filty rich, mercedes-driving, wife doesn't work, owns a yacht, has a $6M house Doctor bitch about the cost of his malpractice insurance, I'm going to puke. I have no doubt that ny drop in the cost of malpractice insurance would not make MY healthcare cheaper, it would go towards his 16 year old daughter's new cherry bimmer.

[WJM-WJM]

That statement is very funny. Doesn’t anybody else see the hypocrisy? My god is better than your god etc. It is quite obvious that the radical Muslim terrorists don’t reflect the Muslim religion as a whole but has anyone thought about how people with Bush’s Christian beliefs may be viewed? He has said a few times that God told him to do things. I think it shows an extreme elitist view that is bad for our counrty. Check out this funny video clip about hypocrisy in religion: http://jesuspenis.ericschwartz.com/media/video/JP_QT.mov (javascript:OpenWin('http://65.54.187.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=c20d163316de80e3f77ae55b3ded8eef&lat=1098967804&hm___action=http%253a%252f%252fjesuspenis%252eeric schwartz%252ecom%252fmedia%252fvideo%252fJP_QT%252 emov');)

I am Republican and will vote for Bush, but I'll be the first to admit that the "doing God's work" angle on any kind of decision making is absurd. If Bush loses, the Republican party is going to end up split between between die-hard right wingers and more moderate conservatives. There was a great article about this recently, can't remember if it was the Journal or NYT though.

In Bush's defense, I think some of the God-talk is campaign material though, to get relgious zealots to vote for him.

[WJM-WJM]

If I hear one more filty rich, mercedes-driving, wife doesn't work, owns a yacht, has a $6M house Doctor bitch about the cost of his malpractice insurance, I'm going to puke. I have no doubt that ny drop in the cost of malpractice insurance would not make MY healthcare cheaper, it would go towards his 16 year old daughter's new cherry bimmer.

I suppose some doctors live in $6M houses, but most don't. The average doctor makes about $200k per year, so $120k after taxes. The mortgage on a $6M house would be about $400k per year. If the doctor happened to have two wives that were both doctors, they still couldn't pay the mortgage (assuming they didn't need cars, food or clothes either, and they have no kids to put through college of course...) Your numbers don't make any sense. Nice stereotype though.

Do doctors make more money than most people? Yes. And it doesn't bother me one bit either. The doc spent about 10 years getting an education in a highly specialized field, nothing wrong with making some money as a result.

The problem is with exorbitant malpractice costs is that some doctors cannot afford to stay in business, or if they can't obtain the insurance at any cost, they can't be in business at all.

[Davenumber40]

Why is it that France gets this benefit of the doubt and our president doesn't?

I'm assuming this just isn't going to be responded to.

[DMBSignGuy]

Why is it that France gets this benefit of the doubt and our president doesn't?

When all this got started...a while back. I did give the president the benefit of the doubt. He said Iraq had WMD and was going to get rid of them. He said he'd show concrete proof and get those weapons inspectors back in there to find the proof. What he showed me was weak evidence, (ie Powells UN presentation) and a hasty inspection process that needed a lot more time.

Before he started i was willing to listen. He was "acting in our best interests". But as the effort progressed i saw that the "peace process", or coercive diplomacy as Condi Rice phrased it, was just a diversion until the invasion could begin. Once i realized that, he lost the benefit of the doubt.


I'm assuming this just isn't going to be responded to.

I just didnt see it till now :p :D

[sliver108]

In Bush's defense, I think some of the God-talk is campaign material though, to get relgious zealots to vote for him.
You may have something there but it is still scary.

[WJM-WJM]

You may have something there but it is still scary.

No doubt. I can't stand it.

With how effective it is though, it almost makes me wonder how a faith-based political party would do in the United States. For practical purposes, maybe it couldn't happen, but I honestly think a candidate who would 'go with God' (as his main theme) would actually have a lot of traction in the US. Scary, but maybe not totally out of the question either.

[crosscg]

No doubt. I can't stand it.

With how effective it is though, it almost makes me wonder how a faith-based political party would do in the United States. For practical purposes, maybe it couldn't happen, but I honestly think a candidate who would 'go with God' (as his main theme) would actually have a lot of traction in the US. Scary, but maybe not totally out of the question either.
Fortunately all of the different denominations of Christianity think they are better than the others... so it will probably never happen.

[WJM-WJM]

Fortunately all of the different denominations of Christianity think they are better than the others... so it will probably never happen.

Yeah, I know. I bet a religous candidate would finish a solid third though, topping Perot or Nader-like numbers.

[crosscg]

No doubt. I can't stand it.

With how effective it is though, it almost makes me wonder how a faith-based political party would do in the United States. For practical purposes, maybe it couldn't happen, but I honestly think a candidate who would 'go with God' (as his main theme) would actually have a lot of traction in the US. Scary, but maybe not totally out of the question either.
Check out this link

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

There are actually quite a few faith based parties failing to make a real dent.

[WJM-WJM]

There are actually quite a few faith based parties failing to make a real dent.

If Pat Buchanon is involved, we all have a lot to be thankful for. :lol

[jrock5730]

Can't wait to see what this reveals....http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/halliburton_contracts

[WJM-WJM]

Can't wait to see what this reveals....

Probably will reveal that Greenhouse is a huge Democratic supporter.

[marco j]

It is nice to see that there are other informed people out there.


:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup