Bush, beatable in 2004?
You know what would be great? If we had a good president. Ok so the last two havn't exactly been stellar. Clinton....nothing even needs to be said, Bush is a little slow in the uptake to say the least. It would be great if we had an intelligent president that didn't make up words or have an affair while in the white house (dumbshit). I mean I'm thinking about it and I don't HATE Bush, but it's not like I'm impressed with how he's handled his job. Wonder if we'll even have a decent president in my lifetime, I mean the one dude, forget his name was 100 freaking years old and still like believed in slavery or something. Yeah, the slavery part may be wrong but he was 100. How can you have someone who's 100 having that much power in our country? He probably can't even remember his name, there's a minimum age for presidents but is there a max? I really hope so.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Yeah , we do need someone like that. I was somewhat impressed with Bush earlier in his presidency.
BUT he shows weakness against his domestic adversaries. He spends endless billions enacting liberal policies so they will like him, yet their response is always "Fuck you, give me more!"
He panders to minorites that will never vote for him, and sells out the base that elected him.
Who is that 100 year old guy your talking about?
-n
BUT he shows weakness against his domestic adversaries. He spends endless billions enacting liberal policies so they will like him, yet their response is always "Fuck you, give me more!"
He panders to minorites that will never vote for him, and sells out the base that elected him.
Who is that 100 year old guy your talking about?
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Oh man, I will attempt (rather tersely) to scratch the surface with some corrections and qualifications regarding the late Strom Thurmond (he passed away this year) - needless to say you have a bit of research to do. Thurmond ran as a Segregationist in '48, but later rescinded his beliefs. From cnn.com:LameR wrote:there's a minimum age for presidents but is there a max? I really hope so.
"But once the barriers to black voter registration fell, he (Thurmond) courted African-Americans and supported the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. He also backed the establishment of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday and was the first Southern senator to hire a professional black staff member."
For more info:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/sp ... index.html
Definitely a controversial, yet intriguing, figure.
As for your comment on age limits... ahem... no, there is no "official" limit, but we do have something called VOTING. If you, or the general populace, feels that someone is unqualified, unprepared, vapid, vacuous, senescent, senile and generally a shriveled old carpet bagger then you are in no way obligated to VOTE for that individual. That's sort of the whole idea behind VOTING.
Matt Kain
P.S. my real reason for this post is to remind Californians to VOTE Oct. 7th!!!!! Hopefully you are all registered...
I don't know...who knows what people will come up with next? Our country isn't exactly a genious...the guy who "invented" the Pet Rock became a millionaire...mattkain wrote:If you, or the general populace, feels that someone is unqualified, unprepared, vapid, vacuous, senescent, senile and generally a shriveled old carpet bagger then you are in no way obligated to VOTE for that individual.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
He's not 100 years old yet, but remember Robert Byrd(D) , the ex-KKK member (he might have even been a wizard) who CURRENTLY holds a Senate seat.
I forget when he denounced his racist past, maybe he never did.
(Let's not hold our breath)
-n
I forget when he denounced his racist past, maybe he never did.
(Let's not hold our breath)
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
To continue this flurry of posts before dinner, here's an excerpt of a column I read today by Paul Craig Roberts (whose probably been branded a right-winger )
----------------------------------------------------
America Is For Aliens
By Paul Craig Roberts
So you think your government looks out for you? Not nearly as much as it does for aliens.
On September 24, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that the Bush administration has quietly decided to stiff 6 million poor elderly and disabled Americans by denying them Medicare drug benefits. According to the Bush administration, these Americans are already covered under state Medicaid programs.
(.........)
It seems that the job loss recovery has forced virtually every state to take action to cut back on Medicaid.
Not to worry. All the 6 million poor and disabled Americans need to do is to acquire Mexican citizenship and recross the border as illegal aliens. Once Americans acquire the status of illegal aliens, their medical care is provided free without even a co-pay.
(....)
Not to worry about being caught crossing the border. Senator Robert Byrd’s(note: he's the KKK dude from my last post) amendment to the homeland security appropriations to provide $125 million to put 1,300 customs inspectors to help patrol our borders was rejected by the Bush administration as “too expensive.”
The same day President Bush made an “emergency request” for $150 million to pay for “border inspections personnel” on Iraq’s borders.
(....)
I left out alot.
The whole column is about 2 pages, if anyone wants to read more @
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/for_aliens.htm
Bush might lose a few more points if to many people read this.
-n
----------------------------------------------------
America Is For Aliens
By Paul Craig Roberts
So you think your government looks out for you? Not nearly as much as it does for aliens.
On September 24, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that the Bush administration has quietly decided to stiff 6 million poor elderly and disabled Americans by denying them Medicare drug benefits. According to the Bush administration, these Americans are already covered under state Medicaid programs.
(.........)
It seems that the job loss recovery has forced virtually every state to take action to cut back on Medicaid.
Not to worry. All the 6 million poor and disabled Americans need to do is to acquire Mexican citizenship and recross the border as illegal aliens. Once Americans acquire the status of illegal aliens, their medical care is provided free without even a co-pay.
(....)
Not to worry about being caught crossing the border. Senator Robert Byrd’s(note: he's the KKK dude from my last post) amendment to the homeland security appropriations to provide $125 million to put 1,300 customs inspectors to help patrol our borders was rejected by the Bush administration as “too expensive.”
The same day President Bush made an “emergency request” for $150 million to pay for “border inspections personnel” on Iraq’s borders.
(....)
I left out alot.
The whole column is about 2 pages, if anyone wants to read more @
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/for_aliens.htm
Bush might lose a few more points if to many people read this.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Bob Herbert`s new column from the New York Times. Sums up the economic impact of Bush`s Presidency pretty well, as well as raises other issues that Republicans and Democrats alike are criticising Bush over.
Shaking the House of Cards
By BOB HERBERT
Published: October 3, 2003
No wonder the sky-high poll numbers for President Bush have collapsed. The fiasco in Iraq is only part of the story. The news on one substantive issue after another could hardly be worse. It's almost as if the president had a team in the White House that was feeding his credibility into a giant shredder.
Despite the administration's relentlessly optimistic chatter about the economy, the Census Bureau reported that the number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.7 million last year, the second straight annual increase. During those two years, the number of poor Americans has grown by 3 million.
Belt-tightening is also in order for the middle class. The median household income declined by 1.1 percent, a drop of about $500, to $42,400. It was the second straight year for a decline in that category as well.
Per capita income decreased, too. It dropped by 1.8 percent, to $22,794 in 2002, the first decline in more than a decade.
Boom times these ain't.
On Monday we learned that there had been a steep increase last year ・the largest in a decade ・in the number of Americans without health insurance.
The international outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas is reporting that job losses in the U.S. have resulted in a sharp decline in the number of dual-income families, particularly for those with children under 18.
And so on.
With the federal government piling up massive deficits and local governments struggling to provide the most basic of services (some areas are closing schools; others are releasing prisoners prematurely), Mr. Bush is asking the nation to go much further into debt in the service of some vague notion of a civic renaissance in Iraq.
Even Republicans are beginning to ask what the heck is going on.
Contributing to the growing sense of unease in some quarters and outrage in others is the blatant war profiteering in Iraq by politically connected firms like Bechtel and Halliburton ・profiteering that is taking place with the scandalous encouragement and connivance of the Bush administration.
A front-page article in The Times on Tuesday said: "A group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family and his administration have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects."
Iraq is proving to be a bonanza for the Bush administration's corporate cronies even as it is threatening to become a sinkhole for the aspirations of ordinary Americans.
The vicious release to news organizations of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer could serve as a case study of the character of this administration. The Bush II crowd is arrogant, venal, mean-spirited and contemptuous of law and custom.
The problem it faces now is not just the criminal investigation into who outed Valerie Plame, but also the fact that the public understands this story only too well. Deliberately blowing the cover of an intelligence or law enforcement official for no good reason is considered by nearly all Americans, regardless of their political affiliations, to be a despicable act.
According to an ABC-Washington Post poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans believe a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the leak.
Now that so much has gone haywire ・Iraq, the economy, America's standing in the world ・the tough questions are finally being asked about President Bush and his administration.
Perhaps foreign policy was not Mr. Bush's strength, after all. And even diehard Republicans have been forced to acknowledge that the president was surely wrong when he insisted that his mammoth tax cuts would be the engine of job creation. And nothing has ever come of Mr. Bush's promise to be the education president, or to change the tone of the discourse in Washington, or to deal humbly and respectfully with the rest of the world.
Americans are increasingly asking what went wrong. How could so much have gone sour in such a short period of time?
Was it incompetence? Bad faith?
Loud warnings were ignored for the longest time. Now, finally, the truth is becoming more and more difficult to avoid.
Shaking the House of Cards
By BOB HERBERT
Published: October 3, 2003
No wonder the sky-high poll numbers for President Bush have collapsed. The fiasco in Iraq is only part of the story. The news on one substantive issue after another could hardly be worse. It's almost as if the president had a team in the White House that was feeding his credibility into a giant shredder.
Despite the administration's relentlessly optimistic chatter about the economy, the Census Bureau reported that the number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.7 million last year, the second straight annual increase. During those two years, the number of poor Americans has grown by 3 million.
Belt-tightening is also in order for the middle class. The median household income declined by 1.1 percent, a drop of about $500, to $42,400. It was the second straight year for a decline in that category as well.
Per capita income decreased, too. It dropped by 1.8 percent, to $22,794 in 2002, the first decline in more than a decade.
Boom times these ain't.
On Monday we learned that there had been a steep increase last year ・the largest in a decade ・in the number of Americans without health insurance.
The international outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas is reporting that job losses in the U.S. have resulted in a sharp decline in the number of dual-income families, particularly for those with children under 18.
And so on.
With the federal government piling up massive deficits and local governments struggling to provide the most basic of services (some areas are closing schools; others are releasing prisoners prematurely), Mr. Bush is asking the nation to go much further into debt in the service of some vague notion of a civic renaissance in Iraq.
Even Republicans are beginning to ask what the heck is going on.
Contributing to the growing sense of unease in some quarters and outrage in others is the blatant war profiteering in Iraq by politically connected firms like Bechtel and Halliburton ・profiteering that is taking place with the scandalous encouragement and connivance of the Bush administration.
A front-page article in The Times on Tuesday said: "A group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family and his administration have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects."
Iraq is proving to be a bonanza for the Bush administration's corporate cronies even as it is threatening to become a sinkhole for the aspirations of ordinary Americans.
The vicious release to news organizations of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer could serve as a case study of the character of this administration. The Bush II crowd is arrogant, venal, mean-spirited and contemptuous of law and custom.
The problem it faces now is not just the criminal investigation into who outed Valerie Plame, but also the fact that the public understands this story only too well. Deliberately blowing the cover of an intelligence or law enforcement official for no good reason is considered by nearly all Americans, regardless of their political affiliations, to be a despicable act.
According to an ABC-Washington Post poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans believe a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the leak.
Now that so much has gone haywire ・Iraq, the economy, America's standing in the world ・the tough questions are finally being asked about President Bush and his administration.
Perhaps foreign policy was not Mr. Bush's strength, after all. And even diehard Republicans have been forced to acknowledge that the president was surely wrong when he insisted that his mammoth tax cuts would be the engine of job creation. And nothing has ever come of Mr. Bush's promise to be the education president, or to change the tone of the discourse in Washington, or to deal humbly and respectfully with the rest of the world.
Americans are increasingly asking what went wrong. How could so much have gone sour in such a short period of time?
Was it incompetence? Bad faith?
Loud warnings were ignored for the longest time. Now, finally, the truth is becoming more and more difficult to avoid.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
You gotta stop quoting the "Times". Thats like saying something is true because a Clinton said it. haha
Here's a few quotes from one of Tom Marshall's column today. All of them sound like justification for war to me(they can't all be lying, can they?):
---------------------------------
"We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, 2-17-98
"The risk Iraqi leaders may use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us, or our allies, is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, 2-18-98
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, 2-18-98
"... take necessary steps to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton from Sens. Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others, 10-9-98
"Saddam's engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., 12-16-98
"He's reinvigorated his weapons programs ... biological, chemical and nuclear programs ... he continues to redefine delivery systems to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush from Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, 12-5-01
"Saddam is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He's ... building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., 9-12-02
"He's stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, 9-23-02
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., 9-27-02
"Saddam retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons ... he is seeking nuclear weapons ..." Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., 10-3-02
"I'll be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force ... to disarm Saddam. ... I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., 10-9-02
"Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons." Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., 10-10-02
"Hussein's worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He's given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members." Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., 10-10-02
"... a brutal, murderous dictator ... an oppressive regime ... continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... the threat of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., 1-23-03
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/20 ... 3645.shtml
---------------------------------
They were chomping at the bit to launch an offensive, to give Clinton the war every good president needs. (like Johnson "needed" Vietnam)
Of course, the candidates will rightly assume that many will forget what they said recently. So they are free to turn around and tell you that they stand for the exact opposite.
Bush may still be beatable, but it would be sad to lose to these empty suits.
----------
edit: Hillary has the only chance to win.
---------
-nathan
Here's a few quotes from one of Tom Marshall's column today. All of them sound like justification for war to me(they can't all be lying, can they?):
---------------------------------
"We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, 2-17-98
"The risk Iraqi leaders may use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us, or our allies, is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, 2-18-98
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, 2-18-98
"... take necessary steps to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton from Sens. Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others, 10-9-98
"Saddam's engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., 12-16-98
"He's reinvigorated his weapons programs ... biological, chemical and nuclear programs ... he continues to redefine delivery systems to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush from Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, 12-5-01
"Saddam is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He's ... building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., 9-12-02
"He's stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, 9-23-02
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., 9-27-02
"Saddam retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons ... he is seeking nuclear weapons ..." Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., 10-3-02
"I'll be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force ... to disarm Saddam. ... I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., 10-9-02
"Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons." Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., 10-10-02
"Hussein's worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He's given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members." Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., 10-10-02
"... a brutal, murderous dictator ... an oppressive regime ... continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... the threat of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., 1-23-03
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/20 ... 3645.shtml
---------------------------------
They were chomping at the bit to launch an offensive, to give Clinton the war every good president needs. (like Johnson "needed" Vietnam)
Of course, the candidates will rightly assume that many will forget what they said recently. So they are free to turn around and tell you that they stand for the exact opposite.
Bush may still be beatable, but it would be sad to lose to these empty suits.
----------
edit: Hillary has the only chance to win.
---------
-nathan
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
1. No I don`t.HighDemonslayer wrote:You gotta stop quoting the "Times". Thats like saying something is true because a Clinton said it. haha
---------
-nathan
2. No it isn`t.
Ask any hisorian at any credible university what is `the paper of record` in America.
As for your tediously long and boring post, here is my reply:
The Pope, mother Theresa, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ can all say that Saddam Hussein is a threat. They can all also say he is a tyrant. They can all also say he had chemical weapons at one point. I support the right of anybody to make these comments.
It is a completely different thing to make comments like these when you are a civilian, or if you are a senator not on an intelligence committee. It is an entirely different thing to have access to CIA information which clearly shows that Iraq does not have nuclear weapon, that it poses no direct/immediate threat to the US, and that it has no ties to Al Qaeda; and then mislead the public into thinking the opposite of all the above, and then take the country into a war based on these lies (which, if you were the President, you knew they were lies), with no exit plan, and no financial plan to pay for the war.
The President had better access to better information than everybody you quoted above. If the evidence he had supported a war in Iraq, then it was his responsibility to present the information to the American public. Instead, he systematically misled the public about the nature and scope of the risks posed by Iraq, and charged us into a war that was badly thought out, and has led to hundreds of US deaths, and costs us billions of dollars that we don`t have (because of Bush`s illogical fiscal practices).
You can quote all the people you like, but unless they are named Bush, Cheney, or anybody else in the administration, you can`t blame them for dangerously overextending the armed forces in a hostile area, in an expensive, dangerous occupation, with no clear goals or exits in sight.
Oh, and despite the length of your post, don`t think I didn`t notice something: You don`t address the main point I have been making since I started posting in this thread: Bush is beatable, because of his amazingly inept handling of the economy. You can play he-said she-said pre-school games, but it doesn`t change the fact that millions of Americans have lost their jobs, States cant pay for basic services like maintaining schools and prisons, and that the largest surplus in history has become the biggest deficit in history, and only the rich can see any benefits from this.
I`m not gonna bother posting here again until you adress this point intelligently. Give it a shot. Or stop wasting my time.
Not that I am trying to stir up trouble, but let us all remember that even the NY Times (which I confess is one of my favorite papers as well) is not the end-all-be-all when it comes to truth, fact, and journalistic integrity. Ken, did you forget the whole Jayson Blair ordeal and his very cavalier method of journalism (also known as fabrication, also known as lying)? The Times is a GOOD paper, but (like all news media) it is not PERFECT.C-Fan wrote:Ask any hisorian at any credible university what is `the paper of record` in America.
Matt Kain
EDIT: for those who do not remember the NY Times plagiarism and fraud scandal:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 4725.shtml
Of course I remember that, and of course it isn`t perfect. I only claimed it is considered the paper of record by most credible historians, and it is. When the Blair thing happened, both head editors of the Times resigned, and corrections were made for every story.mattkain wrote:[Ken, did you forget the whole Jayson Blair ordeal and his very cavalier method of journalism )? The Times is a GOOD paper, but (like all news media) it is not PERFECT.
The reason it was such a big deal when it happened at the times was PRECISELY because the Times is such a credible and reliable paper. If the same error happened at The Wall Street Journal (another very good paper with a solid reputation) it would not have kicked up nearly the same kind of stir, because the Wall Street Journal does not have the same reputation as the Times.
I guess my main point is that when I read something by Krugman, who is a professor of economics at Princeton, and he is being critical of Bush`s fiscal policy, I don`t think there is a problem with me quoting him, especially since he puts things so much better than I do.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
c-fan wrote:
-----------------------
It is a completely different thing to make comments like these when you are a civilian, or if you are a senator not on an intelligence committee. It is an entirely different thing to have access to CIA information.
------------------------
O.K. I quoted a former president, a Secretary of Defense, and a National Security Advisor.
(personally, I thought Albright and Berger were inept failures)
I know at least one of those other Senators were or are on the Armed Services committee.
The rest may be totally ignorant, which makes their calls for war back then kind of suspect.
I would bet 5 dollars that any of those quoted Senators(still serving at the time) voted YES to authorize the President to "do whatever is necessary".
I will concede that the Prez should be the most informed on these topics.
c-fan said:
----------------
You don`t address the main point I have been making since I started posting in this thread: Bush is beatable, because of his amazingly inept handling of the economy. You can play he-said she-said pre-school games, but it doesn`t change the fact that millions of Americans have lost their jobs, States cant pay for basic services like maintaining schools and prisons, and that the largest surplus in history has become the biggest deficit in history, and only the rich can see any benefits from this.
------------------
Gee, i'd love to get back to the topic of this post. The reason I asked the question in the first place was cuz I thought he was vulnerable, possibly more so now.
Bush deserves some of the flak for the economy, he spends to much; he's to scared to say why and the NY Times won't.
Why did all these jobs go away? It's cheaper to do business someplace else. No minimum wages,No union wages,No mandated healthcare benefits.
Why do we import so many under-skilled aliens when Americans are out of work?
Why can't states pay for services like schools and prisons?
The Federal prisons are 25% illegal aliens. I have no idea what the state prisons look like. This costs billions.
Schools and hospitals are overwhelmed. These institutions are stretched to the breaking point.
How can the media and officials ignore this? 800,000 to 1 million poor people entering the country each year, recent immigrants having children, is it any mystery that the number of people living in poverty has gone up?
Why people want to come here is a worthy topic, but we are discussing the effects.
It's easy to say there was a big surplus, did you see the cash?
I'm sure they kept good books , back in the days when the Enron and WorldCom giants were wheeling and dealing full blast. The Dot-Com bubble was stretching , stretching, POP! (during Clinton's watch)
c-fan said:
----------------
I`m not gonna bother posting here again until you adress this point intelligently. Give it a shot. Or stop wasting my time.
---------------
My recent post about Bush selling us (and the economy) out to aliens, wasn't on topic enough for you?
If you're just going to quote the New York Times, don't bother. That would be wasting my time.
-nathan
-----------------------
It is a completely different thing to make comments like these when you are a civilian, or if you are a senator not on an intelligence committee. It is an entirely different thing to have access to CIA information.
------------------------
O.K. I quoted a former president, a Secretary of Defense, and a National Security Advisor.
(personally, I thought Albright and Berger were inept failures)
I know at least one of those other Senators were or are on the Armed Services committee.
The rest may be totally ignorant, which makes their calls for war back then kind of suspect.
I would bet 5 dollars that any of those quoted Senators(still serving at the time) voted YES to authorize the President to "do whatever is necessary".
I will concede that the Prez should be the most informed on these topics.
c-fan said:
----------------
You don`t address the main point I have been making since I started posting in this thread: Bush is beatable, because of his amazingly inept handling of the economy. You can play he-said she-said pre-school games, but it doesn`t change the fact that millions of Americans have lost their jobs, States cant pay for basic services like maintaining schools and prisons, and that the largest surplus in history has become the biggest deficit in history, and only the rich can see any benefits from this.
------------------
Gee, i'd love to get back to the topic of this post. The reason I asked the question in the first place was cuz I thought he was vulnerable, possibly more so now.
Bush deserves some of the flak for the economy, he spends to much; he's to scared to say why and the NY Times won't.
Why did all these jobs go away? It's cheaper to do business someplace else. No minimum wages,No union wages,No mandated healthcare benefits.
Why do we import so many under-skilled aliens when Americans are out of work?
Why can't states pay for services like schools and prisons?
The Federal prisons are 25% illegal aliens. I have no idea what the state prisons look like. This costs billions.
Schools and hospitals are overwhelmed. These institutions are stretched to the breaking point.
How can the media and officials ignore this? 800,000 to 1 million poor people entering the country each year, recent immigrants having children, is it any mystery that the number of people living in poverty has gone up?
Why people want to come here is a worthy topic, but we are discussing the effects.
It's easy to say there was a big surplus, did you see the cash?
I'm sure they kept good books , back in the days when the Enron and WorldCom giants were wheeling and dealing full blast. The Dot-Com bubble was stretching , stretching, POP! (during Clinton's watch)
c-fan said:
----------------
I`m not gonna bother posting here again until you adress this point intelligently. Give it a shot. Or stop wasting my time.
---------------
My recent post about Bush selling us (and the economy) out to aliens, wasn't on topic enough for you?
If you're just going to quote the New York Times, don't bother. That would be wasting my time.
-nathan
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
ok, this may be an mis-informed unintelligent question, but if lots of liberals (actually, i shouldnt say that, it isnt only limited to liberals) think bush fucked the economy so bad, and part of the cause is immigrant workers (honestly, i think most of the problem is in immigrant workers illegally IN america, maybe thats the point of discrepency) why arent more liberals for MUCH tighter security on america's borders, and cutting down on immigration in general? or maybe they are and i REALLY have no idea what im talking about. entirely possible.
Pete Bowler
B$C
keeps it offah da ground.
617 FOR LIFE
B$C
keeps it offah da ground.
617 FOR LIFE
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Conservatives aren't for tightening border control either... And big business actually wants less restrcitions so they can higher cheap labor.ok, this may be an mis-informed unintelligent question, but if lots of liberals (actually, i shouldnt say that, it isnt only limited to liberals) think bush fucked the economy so bad, and part of the cause is immigrant workers (honestly, i think most of the problem is in immigrant workers illegally IN america, maybe thats the point of discrepency) why arent more liberals for MUCH tighter security on america's borders, and cutting down on immigration in general? or maybe they are and i REALLY have no idea what im talking about. entirely possible.
GI Joe action figures look cool too, but I still don't want one leading my country.and oh yeah, i also dont think bush landed the plane. he just thought the flight suit looked cool
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
i never said conservatives WERE for tightening the borders...and im not for or against everything that conservatives ARE for or against, though im sure you could find plenty of conservatives that agree with me on this one...
dont be so black and white
dont be so black and white
Pete Bowler
B$C
keeps it offah da ground.
617 FOR LIFE
B$C
keeps it offah da ground.
617 FOR LIFE
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22