It's official: Bush sewage plant on the ballot

[EJFB1029]

So James, you excuse Bush's lying and incompetence, because it gets you a judges on the Supreme Court? Thats actually pretty sad.

It is interesting that according to you, Bush does all the right things, but his followup is always wrong, but according to you, excusable because initially it was the right thing. That actually makes no sense, either he got it right or he got it wrong, you don't get credit for starting out right, if you are a complete failure afterwords.

In Afghanistan, I believe the stated goal was to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, to defeat the Taliban that harbored him, and to destroy Al Qaeda, in that respect Bush is a complete failure. Afghanistan shows no sign of accomplishment, the Taliban are making a strong resurgence, Al Qaeda is alive and well, and Osama still makes statements to the world. Under US management, Afghanistan has grown the largest Opium crop ever, with funds used to finance and support Taliban and Al Qaeda agendas. And that shows no sign of slowing.

In Iraq, the so called surge has done a decent job of policing, with the help of huge sums of money and weapons given out to the Shias, and the Shiites holding back their fighting for now. And all that in Iraq at a current cost of $1 Trillion, over 4000 American lives, and a continuing escalating cost in money and lives.

Now what is your excuse for all that, oh yeah, creating a Democracy, an experiment that has never shown any kind of hold in that area of the world, there is a reason for that, but I'm sure you wouldn't believe it, history shows that even the US doesn't allow Democracy in that part of the world. I read a statement from Colin Powell about Iraq, it wasn't widely promoted in the media, but he stated that we would leave Iraq, when it had a government that was friendly to the US, meaning forever essentially.

I see you support Reagan also, how about his capitulation to terrorists, not only in Iran/Contra, but in Lebanon, is that acceptable? His actions at the killing of over 200 Marines, gave Hezbollah a huge boost in prestige, bringing a mediocre group into the forefront of power in the region. And his response at the bombing of the Marines, is and was the basis of belief by terrorist organizations, that the US will not fight back if attacked. Reagan's only claim to fame, is that he could speak, and he could spend debt, thats pretty pathetic.

Now back to your hero Bush, his appointments in his cabinet are abysmal, worthless and incompetent, they were and are unprepared for even the simplest things. His economic advisors did not even foresee or prepare for any of the current economic situations.

Bush's foreign diplomacy is almost non-existent, in fact, so bad, that in the final few months in office, he is backtracking on he entire 7 years in office to accomplish anything in his last months in office. His foreign relation skills has made the US the laughing stock of the world, barely tolerated by most world leaders, leaving the US with almost no major friends that believe us or really want to help us in fighting the so called war on terror.

And finally Bush's fiscal planning, he and his cabinet are so bad at that, that even in Iraq, there are 10's of billions of dollars missing and unaccounted for. Bush has pushed budget after budget through congress, each and everyone with massive debt buildup, then to hide spending in Iraq, he called for 100's and 100's of Billions outside of the Official Budget of the US. Bush literally doubled the national debt in 8 years, a national debt that took 230+ years to get to where it was when he took office. He grew the size of government and he spent debt, two of the worst things you can do as a conservative.

I know you don't agree, but Bush and Reagan were two of the worst presidents in history, they saddled current and future Americans with a massive debt, and interest on that debt, currently around $400 Billion a year in interest payments alone, much to foreign governments. And they both played with Social Security funds to achieve their spending, with Bush saddling the system with $1 Trillion of unfunded Medicare prescription benefits.

[JamesWyatt]

Originally Posted by icarus

You're right we would disagree completely on court nominees. As for Afghanistan,it was the right move,,,,,but the follow up has been a disaster. As I state earlier,,taking the eye off the ball by "doing" Iraq has let the Taliban regroup significantly. As to Pakistan,,,another case of be careful who you choose to be friends with. Truth be told OBL did expect it. American policy has played into his hands quite nicely. If we had spent a fraction of the money that we have (and will continue to spend) spent in Iraq, bringing Afg. into the 20th century, OBL would be largely irrelevant 7 years on. We have never learned the lesson that economic advantage is a way more powerful weapon than brute force. The Afghans welcomed us when they thought we were going to help them. When our forces and our money ran short, they felt let down yet once again. (and I don't blame them!)

This whole debate between McCain and Obama about "The Surge" working, is just BS. The FACT, is the insurgency has begun to turn around because we have begun to pay off the warlords! As long as the money flows they are our friends! (Remember the Mujahadim)(sp?). Remember Saddam Hussien? (Today happens to be the anniversary of his taking power,,,with our help).

No administration is without mistake, but no rational person can think that the current one is head and shoulders above ALL others in it's persistent mishandling ALMOST everything that has been put before it. Even if you are a conservative you have to admit, there has been nothing conservative about GWB. How's that deficit?

Icarus

I don't disagree with some of what you've said. I would think the Taliban regrouping has as much or more to do with the fact they are sheltered in Pakistan than the fact that we are not there with enough force. The opium trade is another ugly monster, and a real solution for Afghanistan exceeds my political expertise. I'm looking for solutions from the next candidates. So far, I have not heard any.

[JamesWyatt]

Originally Posted by Stev0

Re: Reagan and the Cold War. The sun also rose and set a lot during his administration; I suppose we should personally give him credit for that, too, then, using this logic.

Re: Bush and Afghanistan. We're fighting folks who were given arms and training by that *cough cough* great American, Ronald Reagan. Yay us. Also, in case nobody noticed, the Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan.

Re: Jimmy Carter vs. terrorists. Here's how it went:

Terrorists: We kidnap Americans! Do what we want NOW, American pig-dogs.
Carter: (says nothing, raises middle finger to terrorists, doesn't do much else).

Now let's see how the next leading President handled a similar situation:

Terrorists: We kidnap Americans! Do what we want NOW, American pig-dogs.
Reagan: Oh no! Please don't hurt me Mr. Terrorist! Do you want weapons? Is this enough? You say you want money to? I'll have Ollie give you another truckload, just please pretty please don't hurt me! (Starts crying, goes to change pants soiled in fear)

I know which one of the above two Presidents I personally respect more.

Sounds like you are willing to lay blame where blame is due, but where credit is due, you point to the rising of the sun and dumb luck. Do you feel Clinton Forrest Gumped his way into economic prosperity as well? It's difficult to have a rational discussion about these issues when the glasses donned have such partisan lenses.

[JamesWyatt]

Originally Posted by EJFB1029

So James, you excuse Bush's lying and incompetence, because it gets you a judges on the Supreme Court? Thats actually pretty sad.

It is interesting that according to you, Bush does all the right things, but his followup is always wrong, but according to you, excusable because initially it was the right thing. That actually makes no sense, either he got it right or he got it wrong, you don't get credit for starting out right, if you are a complete failure afterwords.

In Afghanistan, I believe the stated goal was to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, to defeat the Taliban that harbored him, and to destroy Al Qaeda, in that respect Bush is a complete failure. Afghanistan shows no sign of accomplishment, the Taliban are making a strong resurgence, Al Qaeda is alive and well, and Osama still makes statements to the world. Under US management, Afghanistan has grown the largest Opium crop ever, with funds used to finance and support Taliban and Al Qaeda agendas. And that shows no sign of slowing.

In Iraq, the so called surge has done a decent job of policing, with the help of huge sums of money and weapons given out to the Shias, and the Shiites holding back their fighting for now. And all that in Iraq at a current cost of $1 Trillion, over 4000 American lives, and a continuing escalating cost in money and lives.

Now what is your excuse for all that, oh yeah, creating a Democracy, an experiment that has never shown any kind of hold in that area of the world, there is a reason for that, but I'm sure you wouldn't believe it, history shows that even the US doesn't allow Democracy in that part of the world. I read a statement from Colin Powell about Iraq, it wasn't widely promoted in the media, but he stated that we would leave Iraq, when it had a government that was friendly to the US, meaning forever essentially.

I see you support Reagan also, how about his capitulation to terrorists, not only in Iran/Contra, but in Lebanon, is that acceptable? His actions at the killing of over 200 Marines, gave Hezbollah a huge boost in prestige, bringing a mediocre group into the forefront of power in the region. And his response at the bombing of the Marines, is and was the basis of belief by terrorist organizations, that the US will not fight back if attacked. Reagan's only claim to fame, is that he could speak, and he could spend debt, thats pretty pathetic.

Now back to your hero Bush, his appointments in his cabinet are abysmal, worthless and incompetent, they were and are unprepared for even the simplest things. His economic advisors did not even foresee or prepare for any of the current economic situations.

Bush's foreign diplomacy is almost non-existent, in fact, so bad, that in the final few months in office, he is backtracking on he entire 7 years in office to accomplish anything in his last months in office. His foreign relation skills has made the US the laughing stock of the world, barely tolerated by most world leaders, leaving the US with almost no major friends that believe us or really want to help us in fighting the so called war on terror.

And finally Bush's fiscal planning, he and his cabinet are so bad at that, that even in Iraq, there are 10's of billions of dollars missing and unaccounted for. Bush has pushed budget after budget through congress, each and everyone with massive debt buildup, then to hide spending in Iraq, he called for 100's and 100's of Billions outside of the Official Budget of the US. Bush literally doubled the national debt in 8 years, a national debt that took 230+ years to get to where it was when he took office. He grew the size of government and he spent debt, two of the worst things you can do as a conservative.

I know you don't agree, but Bush and Reagan were two of the worst presidents in history, they saddled current and future Americans with a massive debt, and interest on that debt, currently around $400 Billion a year in interest payments alone, much to foreign governments. And they both played with Social Security funds to achieve their spending, with Bush saddling the system with $1 Trillion of unfunded Medicare prescription benefits.

Wow. You've completely misjudged me. Why is it that I cannot disagree with your characterization of Bush as an enemy of America without him becoming my hero? Amazing.

The rest of your points are worth discussion once I get some breakfast and can think straight.

Still, I hear no solutions from you concerning Afghanistan and the Pakistani problem.

I have given up trying to get you to take full responsibility for your "Bush is the enemy of America" statement. I will take your avoidance of responsibility as acquiescence.

[EJFB1029]

Then how about some economic facts for you:

United Stated National Debt
Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 34. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.7% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

[EJFB1029]

As far as Bush is the enemy of America goes, I stand by it, his policies have followed Osama Bin Laden's plan to the letter, he has done more harm to the country in 8 years, then Osama Bin Laden could ever dream of. Like it or not, facts prove what I say, and as far as your BS about being able to do something about it, that would be impossible, and would go against the Constitution, which I believe in, so therefore I call a spade a spade, and thats the most I do for the country, when they elect their own enemy to the highest office in the land.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by EJFB1029

Then how about some economic facts for you:

United Stated National Debt
Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 34. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.7% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

Which is better? "Tax and spend" democrats or "Spend and don't tax" Republicans?

icarus

[icarus]

"I don't disagree with some of what you've said. I would think the Taliban regrouping has as much or more to do with the fact they are sheltered in Pakistan than the fact that we are not there with enough force. The opium trade is another ugly monster, and a real solution for Afghanistan exceeds my political expertise. I'm looking for solutions from the next candidates. So far, I have not heard any."

Your right that the Taliban has been sheltered in both Afg and Pak. The cure for the opium trade is to buy up the entire crop at better than market prices to drive out the Mafia etc. It would be way cheaper than any other option. It would also buy time for poppy farmers to use their cash to develop over time new cash crops. (You have to do something real on the demand side in N. America,,,something other than jail and "just say no!)

As long as the only option for solution is military, we will continue on a war mentality. It is time to look at the much bigger picture.

And by the way,, I am no big Clinton fan, but clearly, in spite of his personal problems, by ANY measure he was a more competent chief executive the GWB. You may not agree with all that he did, but the economy grew, the debt was reduced, employment grew, (some) international tensions eased, Kyoto was established etc.

No, as I say, you have to rank GWB not near, but at the bottom of presidents.

Icarus

[JamesWyatt]

Originally Posted by icarus

...Your right that the Taliban has been sheltered in both Afg and Pak. The cure for the opium trade is to buy up the entire crop at better than market prices to drive out the Mafia etc. It would be way cheaper than any other option. It would also buy time for poppy farmers to use their cash to develop over time new cash crops. (You have to do something real on the demand side in N. America,,,something other than jail and "just say no!)

Some good ideas, but they have a high level of difficulty with regard to successful execution.

Originally Posted by icarus

As long as the only option for solution is military, we will continue on a war mentality. It is time to look at the much bigger picture.

Agree.

Originally Posted by icarus

And by the way,, I am no big Clinton fan, but clearly, in spite of his personal problems, by ANY measure he was a more competent chief executive the GWB. You may not agree with all that he did, but the economy grew, the debt was reduced, employment grew, (some) international tensions eased, Kyoto was established etc.

Come on, you're defending Clinton so of course he must be your hero! Yes, Clinton was a better President than GWB. GWB has abandoned too many conservative ideals for my taste. I don't like that we have financed our war with Chinese and Japanese credit. If Iraq was/is a war worth fighting, we should have had the opportunity to buy war bonds and contribute in some way as citizens. I'm glad we have better choices this time around. I think either candidate running for office right now would do a better job than did GWB.

Originally Posted by icarus

No, as I say, you have to rank GWB not near, but at the bottom of presidents.

It's too early to say. We need a decade or so before we can fully get an unbiased and more long-term historical perspective. A lot will depend on where Iraq goes from here. Regardless, the lack of WMDs will be a nasty black eye in the history books. Even if Iraq becomes a shining beacon of democracy, the ends never justify the means.

[JamesWyatt]

Originally Posted by EJFB1029

As far as Bush is the enemy of America goes, I stand by it...

I think I've made my point regarding this. Let's MoveOn.org, if you don't mind. Let the reader decide.

Originally Posted by EJFB1029

he has done more harm to the country in 8 years, then Osama Bin Laden could ever dream of.

That is not a true statement, and you know it. Just more inflammatory fodder.

Originally Posted by EJFB1029

...as far as your BS about being able to do something about it, that would be impossible

Another untrue statement to further cloak either your insincerity or your cowardice.

Originally Posted by EJFB1029

and would go against the Constitution, which I believe in,

So you're content to sit back and believe in the Constitution but do nothing to defend it from it's number one enemy, GWB?

Originally Posted by EJFB1029

so therefore I call a spade a spade, and thats the most I do for the country,

Don't forget you also whine about the spades in a thread about a sewage plant name on a forum about the Prius hybrid. Surely that's helping the country...

Originally Posted by EJFB1029

when they elect their own enemy to the highest office in the land.

When "they" elect. Sorry, buddy. I may not have voted for Clinton, but as a citizen of the United States I did elect him.