What I don't like about our current president

[yunt2ride]

. Even the democrats voted for the war, but are now flip flopping because it has taken so long and its election time.

Another republican scare tactic (flip flopping), I guess you can't change your mind after someone blatantly lies to you and America.
Bush also had 9 months to do something with the same intelligences reports Clinton had and did nothing, but I guess Bush needed to have the 911 attacks to finance this useless war.

LMAO, 9 months, he hadn't hardly had time to get settled in and get used to the big job he had acquired. Even in my local elections, I give the commissioners some time to settle in and get used to their new jobs. I won't even get into the flip flopping thing because everyone knows what party that is affilliated with. They did it the last election and doing it again now. As for republican, Not neccessarilly. I vote for who I think is the best person for the job. Looks like it may be republican this time again. I'm gonna vote for the one who I think is best for the job.

[digginfool]

It resulted in 5 trillion deficient and a horrible recession of the early 90's. Works great!!

Because you say it, it's a fact? Back it up. If you are correct, you will completely rewrite every economic text book and theory in existence today.

You don't remember you must have the Alzheimer's disease like Reagen. Common Anoriginal its the same sh*t Bush is doing. Increase spending increase spending, Its like a dumb blonde with a unlimited credit card in a mall. Your going to live great for awhile!!!!!!!

Perfect example of a Democratic puppet; incapable of a fact-based, think-for-yourself presentation.  You clearly have no handle on history.  In regards to the Middle East and all the lies, you need to go back and read what your precious Democratic administration was saying for years before GW ever thought of running for President.  As far as economics, you clearly do not have a clue.  Get off the stage and leave this argument to people who have some idea of what the facts really are.  You are just wasting bandwidth with your gibberish.

[wilburz]

Fish, I will also be chiming in but I'm headed out of town until Tuesday.  Unless my points have been covered, you can be sure your points will be picked apart piece-by-piece.  That post is typical, left wing puppeteering.  Talk about an earpiece; whose on the other end of yours?  I can't wait for the day I meet a Democrat that can actually bring an educated, fact-based argument to the table.  Can you actually think for yourself?  BTW, have you ever read the Declaration of Independence or The Constitution of The United States?  Have you ever read the histories of the men who wrote and signed these documents?  With one or two exceptions, they were all deeply religious men of God.  That doesn't mean I agree with all of this administration's agendas but to judge a president's performance on the basis of the deepness of his religious beliefs is asinine as well as a number of your other points.  I regret I have but one minute to devote to this argument.  I shall return!   

Here is a fact base argument that can't be argued:

This country will be hitting the big 4,000 for number of young men and women who have died in the Iraq conflict. That is undisputable. We should have left Saddam in charge and there would be 4,000 young people , like ourselves, alive now. What a waste! I am a suporter of our armed services but not for the Iraq conflict, a waste of American lives and money. So sad!

[predatorracer8]

ive learned over the very short 16 years of my life to stay out of these conversations. and also isnt this atvflorida.com and not letsargueaboutpolitics.gov

[Anoriginal]

No doubt the deaths of American soliders is sad. However, they signed up for it and knew the risk. You join the armed forces and you're signing up for a potential conflict that could mean your life is in jeopardy. We're not talking about average citizens here. I'm not discounting their lives but, you can't spit in the wind and complain when your face gets wet.

[ScooterB]

Want to debate politics try it here http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zeroforum?id=99

[yunt2ride]

No doubt the deaths of American soliders is sad. However, they signed up for it and knew the risk. You join the armed forces and you're signing up for a potential conflict that could mean your life is in jeopardy. We're not talking about average citizens here. I'm not discounting their lives but, you can't spit in the wind and complain when your face gets wet.

Very well said, My brother went to desert storm. It was his choice to join the army. He was not drafted. Why should we even have a military if we are not EVER gonna use it. Thats exactly what the terrorists would like to know. Heck lets go terrorize america because even though they have a military, they won't use it. What about all these law enforcement officers, they know that their job is dangerous but not many would want to do anything else. I support the military and our local law enforcement officers and I am proud of the job that they do.

[HARRY-SACS]

Reagenomics should have be called Richonomics. Meaning only for the rich.

[Anoriginal]

Reagenomics should have be called Richonomics. Meaning only for the rich.

Back that up. 

[wilburz]

No doubt the deaths of American soliders is sad. However, they signed up for it and knew the risk. You join the armed forces and you're signing up for a potential conflict that could mean your life is in jeopardy. We're not talking about average citizens here. I'm not discounting their lives but, you can't spit in the wind and complain when your face gets wet.

If I was "signed-up" and was sent to that cluster-f of a place Iraq I would not be too happy. Our mighty military is much more capable than what they have shown over there. They are under armored and under manned. And the pathetic war plan that has been drawn up is a disaster. There are people there that have lost thier lives needlessly. 8 weeks of boot camp for a 19 year old and then being sent into that meat grinder. Not too good if you ask me. I am sure its good "practice" but too many young kids have lost their lives. Our military personnel deserve a better cause to die for than that pathetic crizap hole.         

[greenmachine]

Here is a fact base argument that can't be argued:

This country will be hitting the big 4,000 for number of young men and women who have died in the Iraq conflict. That is undisputable. We should have left Saddam in charge and there would be 4,000 young people , like ourselves, alive now. What a waste! I am a suporter of our armed services but not for the Iraq conflict, a waste of American lives and money. So sad!

Here is another fact. The Vietnam war lasted 10yrs.  The US casualties were 58,209 & over 2,000 MIA. So lets just round up to 60,000. Thats 6,000 per year.

We have been in Iraq for 5yrs & only 4,000 dead. I would say we are doing much better.
I also dont discount the lives of our guys over there. My cousin, a United States Marine did 2 tours in Iraq & I wondered about him everyday. I hate to hear the horror stories of guys not coming home to their wifes & kids, it really hurts me. On the other hand, they are heroes & died for our freedoms!!! That is a NOBLE death one that their family can be proud of!

[trx#9]

http://leftrevival.blogspot.com/2007/04/trickle-down-economics-perpetuates-war.html
 I'm sure going to argue that one too. If I were you I would stick to the law thing and please turn of the talk radio.
You also contradict yourself saying you would follow Ross Perot anywere. Well Ross was very much against trickle down economics. Get your story straight Mr. register Democrat.
Let me guess your going to type some fancy crap trying to divert issue's now.

[Smoknbanshee]

Let's face the fact.  Eliminate the media, and this war would be over.  The media portrays what they want the US people to see.  You don't see the whole war through the media.  I have several friends that I graduated with that have served and they say it is nothing like what the media makes it out to be.  My opinion is this, fight it over there, or fight it over here.  4,000 soldiers over 5 years, or 3,000 civilians in about 2 hours?  not a hard choice for me.  That is 4,000 soldiers that signed up knowing the duty they may have to carry out.  The 3,000 civilians didn't sign up for what they got.

[trx#9]

It's a useless war Smoke, your never going to change the way those people think. Let those people self destruct them self's.
The worst Muslims are from Saudi Arabia but were never going to do anything about it do to we kiss there asses even though they finance the  911 attacks.
 Bush will never get Bin laden do to he doesn't want to, if we catch him the Bush administration can't getting financing for the war in Iraq then.Right now the war is the only thing keeping the economy going.

[Anoriginal]

http://leftrevival.blogspot.com/2007/04/trickle-down-economics-perpetuates-war.html
 I'm sure going to argue that one too. If I were you I would stick to the law thing and please turn of the talk radio.
You also contradict yourself saying you would follow Ross Perot anywere. Well Ross was very much against trickle down economics. Get your story straight Mr. register Democrat.
Let me guess your going to type some fancy crap trying to divert issue's now.

David Truskoff ...... you post a link to an article by David Truskoff? Come up with some original educated discussion and not some wacko commentary from a bleeding heart readical liberal who's so far left he has no idea where "realism" (as he refers to it) starts. trx, you really didn't do yourself any favors here. Again......I'm still waiting for you to back up your comments or at least engage in a fruitful debate instead of resorting to personal jabs repleat in demonstrating your inability to engage in rational discussion. Oh, and Ross Perot's economic policies proposed (while not 100% Reaganomics) advocated injecting money into the economy through lowering taxation and stimulating spending at the upper and middle class levels..... hmmmmm.



Now then, on to Fish and his original well thought out and drafted post. While I do not necessarily agree with all of it, I appreciate the theory, opinion and discussion. Here's at least a partial reply. I didn't have time to address all of his points and will get to them when I can.

1.  Before the invasion of Iraq when one of the generals was addressing congress and he said we would need over 250,000 troops for the invasion and occupation he was forced to resign because the administration was trying to say it would take a lot less.

Interesting comment. I say interesting in that the liberals have preached withdrawing and fewer troops from day one. Bush and many other conservative leaders called for a build up from the start. It was the liberal left that kept screaming, "withdraw...get out" without an exit strategy. (Come on, now we all remember Lieberman, Kerry and the others flip flopping on their support for the war and screaming about pulling out our troops on an expedited basis.) Even their recent attempt to force a pull out by attaching a withdrawal measure to a war funding bill could not muster enough votes in a Democrat controlled Congress to pass. Yet the Dems still have to appease the anti - war left while straddling the fence post to satisfy the moderates in the party whose constituency is against their surrender agenda.

2.  I believe as others do that GW Doctored the intelligence reports to make it appear that the war with Iraq was needed because of weapons of mass destruction.  I will admit that Saddam Hussein did try to make it appear that he did have weapons of mass destruction but we had evidence to prove otherwise and he ignored it.

You act as if it was only Bush and his administration that waved the WMD flag. The Democrats were right there with him and in fact provided the majority of the push to initially go into Iraq. Here's a few excerpts from liberal democrats' speeches and memos to the President prior to entering Iraq:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Lets not forget, the vote was 81-0 to go into Iraq from the start. This includes the most liberal of politicians. Doctored documents? Well, I guess Bush was able to doctor all of the documents from all sources read by all politicians on both the democratic and republican sides.

This doesn’t hold water or make any rational sense.

3.  He and his cronies in his administration have run rough shot over any one that disagrees with them including calling people that don't like the way the war is run "anti-American".

Rough shot with the democrats controlling the house and senate? Please. The democrats are so busy bickering and moaning over policies and programs of no impact that they’ve accomplished absolutely nothing of substance in the past two years.

Look at the democratic leaders. Nancy Pelosi? It’s not running rough shot when you ignore someone as fanatical and inefficient as she is.

4.  Allowing oil execs to write the administrations energy policy and then won't say who these execs were, what are they hiding?

Assuming arguendo this is true, what’s the problem with it? Again, the vast majority of oil execs in the US would love to exploit US oil/energy reserves thus: (a) making the US less foreign energy dependant; and (b) increasing the US economy.

5.  George kept changing the reason for the war.  In the beginning in it was about weapons of mass destruction and then Saddam Hussein, and then Al queda, now stability and so on and so on.

See my response to number 2 above.  If the finger deserves to be pointed on this issue, point it at everyone. Keep in mind though, Iraq violated 16 United Nation resolutions over a period of 10 years. Saddam Hussein only allowed United Nations inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction due to the fact that the United States had Iraq surrounded by war ships and over 100,000 U.S. troops. He had ordered them out of Iraq and took actions to block them from inspecting sites. Many of the troops had been sitting in the desert and on ships for 6 to 8 months before the war began while diplomacy was given a chance. Military leaders had many factors to consider in the timing of the war in Iraq, such as the time of year (weather conditions) and morale of the troops. They could not invade in the middle of summer or in the middle of winter. They also could not leave our men and women in uniform remaining idle and bored for months or years while we try to negotiate with a dictator as countries like France undercut our efforts. If you really want to lower morale and place troops in great danger- leave them sitting stationed idle in a desert around Iraq for two years before conducting a war.

Also, keep in mind that goals in any military action develop over time. Look at any military conflict and you cannot deny that as time wears on, the initial goals are met, the outlook changes and in the end you’re always left with the task of stability and rebuilding. Kind of a no-brainer.


6.  Borrowing huge and I mean huge amounts of money to pay for the war and then to keep trying to reduce taxes has cost this country big time and we are starting to see the effects now.  Rising interest rates a while back slowed down the economy and the housing market and this started a couple of yrs ago.  The reason for rising interest rate in part is due to all the money that this country has borrowed for this war which is making money harder to borrow which shows itself in higher interest rates.

I will get to this one as soon as I can.


7.  I understand that GW is not directly at fault for the higher fuel prices and a lot of it is due to speculation on Wall Street.  However the reason fuel prices are rising is because Wall Street believes there could be another war with Iran (this time) which will cause problems in the world markets which would cause fuel prices to go up.  When prices went up under Bill Clinton he released our strategic fuel reserves to help bring prices down and that worked but our boy George won't do it, why?  Possibly because he is an oil man and big oil got him elected and they are making huge profits because of the high prices.

I’ve already responded to this one on the gas prices thread. Needless to say, I don’t think your reasoning is complete on this issue. You’ve got too many gaps and not enough back up.

8.  The guy is dumber than a box of rocks and does not have the IQ to be a good president.  I have only been around for 47yrs but I do not remember a president that was as dumb as this one.

Dumb? No. A poor speaker? Yeah. Big difference.


9.  I don't think he has the qualifications to be a president.  What was he, governor of Texas for 2 terms, so what that does not give him the experience to leed the greatest nation the world has ever known.

Clinton was the governor of Arkansas and Jimmy Carter a peanut farmer from Georgia. Texas has a GDP higher than most foreign countries. Also, the voters in the USA disagreed with you….twice.

10. He is just too damn religious.  We don't need to be making decisions in the White House based on what "God" might do.

Why not? What could possibly be wrong with bringing a little morality into the office? Granted,  I am all for separation of church and state. However, I appreciate a bit of morality in the oval office. Not saying he’s a saint, nor do I believe he’s as religious as you think. But, being a bit pias isn’t a bad thing.

11. He has dragged along some really scummy people into his administration like Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Roberto Gonzales and others.

Scummy? In your opinion. Not in others. But, if you don’t like them and think they’re “scummy” it’s just that….your opinion.

12. His main people outed a CIA operative (because they did not like her husband) and he and his cronies try to cover it up and play it down.  This is a good example how this administration likes to use bullying tactics to get what it wants.

I'll get to this one too.

13. Finally he and his party have done everything they can to try to keep republicans in office and it started to get really bad during the middle of the Clinton administration.  They were on a witch hunt and would not stop until they found something and no one could have stood that kind of digging and probing into their personal lives.  George and his party of right wing fanatics have drove this country apart when we need to be brought together.  If you will remember when Ronald Reagan (yes a republican and my favorite president ever)came into office the country was in pretty bad shape from the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon and 4 yrs of Jimmy Carter we were a hurtin.  Ronald Reagan came in and brought this country back together and it stayed together pretty darn good until the republicans could not stand the fact the Bill Clinton earned a second term.  Ever since then they have done everything they can to get right wing republicans back in office no matter what it to did to this country.


This is a good one and I will get to it too.

 

[trx#9]

David Truskoff a lot smarter than you buddy. I google this topic and that was one of many bashing trickle down economics with facts, do I have to post more. I think you have an ego problem. I can't believe that you can argue the statics that were presented. People can see through your smoke and mirrors. Prove to me your facts. Your in denial about the trickle down economics recession of the early 90's. Your in denial about the deficient it caused. I guess your pushing for this country to be like south America, 2 classes rich and poor with no middle class.
Show me were Ross Perot was for giving tax breaks for the rich to stimulate the economy, He was for tax breaks for the poor maybe but thats not trickle down.

[Anoriginal]

David Truskoff a lot smarter than you buddy. I google this topic and that was one of many bashing trickle down economics with facts, do I have to post more. I think you have an ego problem. I can't believe that you can argue the statics that were presented. People can see through your smoke and mirrors. Prove to me your facts. Your in denial about the trickle down economics recession of the early 90's. Your in denial about the deficient it caused. I guess your pushing for this country to be like south America, 2 classes rich and poor with no middle class.
Show me were Ross Perot was for giving tax breaks for the rich to stimulate the economy, He was for tax breaks for the poor maybe but thats not trickle down.

Easy wee man don't stroke out on me. As far as Mr. Truskoff's intelligence verses mine, after reading through his blogs, I think I'll disagree with you. His statistics are contrary to just about all others out there. (Do a little more googling  )

While you're at it do the same with Ross. In the meantime, look me up when you've got the ability to discuss this on an educated level. 

[buzzardman]

I think I'm a "middle of the road" kind of man and I'm taking a serious look at Fred Thomson.  I'll be the first to admit I'm not completely up to speed on all current affairs but when I hear Thomson being interviewed or answering questions on a show, I like his no B.S. nature and a good portion of his opinions.     It is sad right now for the Democratic side because the options of voting for Hillary or Obama isn't really even an option for me personally.  I just wish the Democratic party would get a decent person to run. 

Who knows what you all think about this one,  but I really think since the loss last time, Al Gore has picked himself up, and has been contributing to society in a great way.  some disagree with his Green thinking ways etc, but to me he has shown that even being defeated, he still tries to be a servant to this country/world in another way.  I think if he was to run again, I would vote for him.  Even before Thomson.

[trx#9]

Smoke and mirrors baby!!!!!!!!
Just like I said!!!!

Ross perot was for increasing taxes and cutting the military by 40 billion dollars.

 Educate youself Mr. SMOKE AND MIRRORS.


I can see why you don't advertise your law firm on this site.

[Fox17]

why cant we all just get along? 

[Anoriginal]

Smoke and mirrors baby!!!!!!!!
Just like I said!!!!

Ross perot was for increasing taxes and cutting the military by 40 billion dollars.

 Educate youself Mr. SMOKE AND MIRRORS.


I can see why you don't advertise your law firm on this site.

Wow. You're a hostile little one aren't you? But, that typical of someone who attempts a battle of wits with an advesary beyond them.

Anyway, pay attention Grasshopper and I'll fill you in on what the goggle searching failed to reveal.

Ross Perot advocated raising taxes in areas not related to upper class or big business. Rather, he wanted to tax certain retirement plans, but only to fund medicare costs. At the same time, he advocated cutting capital gains taxes as well as cutting taxes on long term investments (hmmmmm, that sounds like another past president's ideas. Give you 3 chances to guess who.)

In addition, he advocated tax incentives associated with qualified large business ventures and research and development incentives. Again, focused on aiding the economy via stimulating things at a high end business level rather than an high end individual approach taken by Reagan. But, not the across the board tax raise you blabber about although he did advocate a flat tax on gas.

Keep in mind that Perot's military cuts were aimed at obsolete (or pending obsolete) military programs that were on the chopping block by all 1992 candidates. PErot just took it a little further, meanwhile advocating a 10% tax break earmark for military personel retirement savings. Thus, leading to an actual build up of a more efficient and numbers strong military.

Perot thought that he could run the government like he ran one of his businesses. Trim the fat. Make the tax cuts where they'd make the most difference and increase them in areas that could bear the increase. Not brain science and so simple that most people couldn't see the forest for the trees.

But, I guess you never caught on did you?

Smoke and Mirrors? Please......get someone else to debate this for you. You're doing horrible.

[CEC]

Vote For Monica She Has Already Held The Presidency

[yunt2ride]

Original, Your fighting a no cause issue with TRX. Anyone who has to google to get any answers, evidently don't know politics real well. He will beleive everything he reads and anyone who puts it on the internet. I am like Buzzardman, I may not be quiet up on all the issues as everyone else, but I have someone that does a heck of a lot of research when it comes to election time. And thats not by reading what everyone has to say about each candidate. They check them out thoroughly.

[trx#9]

You left out a bunch, but even what you posted is clearly not Trickle Down Economics. He relieves some taxes here and adds some here. Not cutting taxes for the rich so the rich can get richer like the trickle theory. Most important thing you left out was the 10 cent increase in tax gas every year for five years. Not flat!


Anyways I'm done with ha, Many people PM about you being stuburn damn they were right.
I going to go trickle down in the toilet now.
                      






































                  

[trx#9]

Original, Your fighting a no cause issue with TRX. Anyone who has to google to get any answers, evidently don't know politics real well. He will beleive everything he reads and anyone who puts it on the internet. I am like Buzzardman, I may not be quiet up on all the issues as everyone else, but I have someone that does a heck of a lot of research when it comes to election time. And thats not by reading what everyone has to say about each candidate. They check them out thoroughly.

I can't remember every detail from 1990 I'm sorry. Smoke and mirrors does more pasting than anybody i know.