or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › GW Bush the worst president in US history
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GW Bush the worst president in US history - Page 3  

post #81 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

.

You didn't read anything from the link I provided...

...he's just a typical redneck.

Of course he is (I read that sophmorically written article), but please, please don't take everything he says seriously. I don't. His music is entertainment. If you are looking for a message...there isn't one. It's teenage masturbatory rock & roll. That's all.

As far as his dodge of the draft (DRAFT), if the draft returned, do you think that the Bush daughters will line up to serve for their country, on the front lines?

I'm not going to go into the hunting crap, I don't hunt, I like animals. But I have friends who do. I feel that if you are hunting within their element, fine. If you hunt or let others hunt within an environment that merely traps the animal in a fenced in location then that sucks. Ted don't do that. He's an asshole (the manhandling of the protesters and mugging with cops IS uncool), but he's harmless.

And as far as politically correct...he's right. It has gone too far. What Michael Richards did was wrong because it was real hatred. Ted's hatred for Japan is an act. He sells out every show in Japan. Why? Because they know it's an act (OH look at the funny American!). The rest is comedy, he's an entertainer. He knows he has "REDNECK" and "ASSHOLE" stamped on his image, he'll never get rid of it.

I swear, if Lenny Bruce was alive today, he'd be railroaded just as he was in the 60's...you think Bruce could get away with this today?...

Are there any n*ggers here tonight? I know that one n*gger works here, I see him back there. Oh, theres two n*ggers Between those two n*ggers sits one k*ke man, thank God for the k*ke. Uh, two k*kes. Thats two k*kes and three n*ggers and one sp*c. One sp*c two, three sp*cs. One m*ck. One m*ck, one sp*c, one h*ck thick funky spunky boogey.

The point? That the words suppression gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. If President Kennedy got on television and said, Tonight Id like to introduce the n*ggers in my cabinet, and he yelled n*ggern*ggern*ggern*ggern*gger at every n*gger he saw, boogeyboogeyboogeyboogeyboogey n*ggern*ggern*ggern*gger till n*gger didnt mean anything any more, till n*gger lost its meaning you'd never make any four-year-old n*gger cry when he came home from school.

He believed in freedom of speech, whether it came from the good or bad.

"Take away the right to say 'fuck' and you take away the right to say 'fuck the government'."

I'm done with this. I don't want to derail this thread. Bush has created more hatred, fear and death than three million Ted Nugents.
post #82 of 455
Quote:
I'm done with this. I don't want to derail this thread. Bush has created more hatred, fear and death than three million Ted Nugents.

The thread is already derailed.

If he's so harmless, would you vote for this Patriotic asset if he came to your hometown, state, whatever and decided to run for office?

He's beyond redneck, debasing himself to get out of the draft is just, well psychotic.
If you try to tell me this is normal redneck behavior, you guys down south of the border are in worse trouble than I thought.
post #83 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

The thread is already derailed.

If he's so harmless, would you vote for this Patriotic asset if he came to your hometown, state, whatever and decided to run for office?

He's beyond redneck, debasing himself to get out of the draft is just, well psychotic.
If you try to tell me this is normal redneck behavior, you guys down south of the border are in worse trouble than I thought.


Derailed? Go over to this thread and see how DMZ sent it to another galaxy defending of all people, Jerry Falwell. He and his feeder addabox have destroyed it.

Get over Ted. He's fucking harmless.
post #84 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Music is the one thing that is common in all cultures. I made the money to buy my windmills and my solar panels in music. Music is known to enhance intelligence and retainment.

Bush therefore must be tone deaf. SDW you should try and teach our president some music. That just might help.

"Freude schoener Goetterfunke, Tochter aus Elysium, wir betreten freudentrunken Himmlische dein Heiligtum...."

SDW is the only republican music person in the country. I mostly hang out with musicians and they are all liberal to the core, maybe there are some drummers...

Agreed with that last part. Most are libs, it's true.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #85 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Derailed? Go over to this thread and see how DMZ sent it to another galaxy defending of all people, Jerry Falwell. He and his feeder addabox have destroyed it.

Get over Ted. He's fucking harmless.

I couldn't let Jubelum's Patriotic American just slide without putting my 2 cents worth in.
That's allowed isn't it?

He may be harmless, but in my mind he is a psycho, and I'm sure, not what you would consider an asset to your country, talent aside.

Patriotic, about the same as the "Swift Boaters" thought about Kerry.

End of Nugent rant, unless Jubelum cares to respond.
post #86 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post



I saw Ted Nugent in 1975. Opened for Black Sabbath. I don't care what his politics are, he can still rock. My ears are still ringing from that show.

Play it Ted! "Stranglehold" - 1977(76?)

1994, at a small club in Dallas. Crazy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #87 of 455
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Quote:
Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.

Quote:
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

She used to speak with such affection when talking about GW.

Quote:
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America."

Wow, now Republicans that question his wisdom are unpatriotic.
post #88 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Wow, now Republicans that question his wisdom are unpatriotic.

Well, the bullshit that Bush is pulling is "unpatriotic." Bush will not be satisfied until he has single-digit approval numbers and his party is unelectable for a generation. He's not working for democrats, he's not working for republicans... so some of us need to ask WHO he IS working for... the global banking elites. That's the "unpatriotic" part. Pot, meet kettle.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #89 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted June 1, 2007. Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.
Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?

As the nation focused on whether Congress would exercise its constitutional duty to cut funding for the war, Bush quietly issued an unconstitutional bombshell that went virtually unnoticed by the corporate media.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution.

If a "catastrophic emergency" -- which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster -- occurs, Bush's new directive says: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

What about the other two co-equal branches of government? The directive throws them a bone by speaking of a "cooperative effort" among the three branches, "coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers." The Vice-President would help to implement the plans.

"Comity," however, means courtesy, and the President would decide what kind of respect for the other two branches of government would be "proper." This Presidential Directive is a blatant power grab by Bush to institutionalize "the unitary executive."

A seemingly innocuous phrase, the unitary executive theory actually represents a radical, ultra rightwing interpretation of the powers of the presidency. Championed by the conservative Federalist Society, the unitary executive doctrine gathers all power in the hands of the President and insulates him from any oversight by the congressional or judicial branches.

In a November 2000 speech to the Federalist Society, then Judge Samuel Alito said the Constitution "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that. The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."

These "unitarians" claim that all federal agencies, even those constitutionally created by Congress, are beholden to the Chief Executive, that is, the President. This means that Bush could disband agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Reserve Board, etc., if they weren't to his liking.

Indeed, Bush signed an executive order stating that each federal agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee. Consumer advocates were concerned that this directive was aimed at weakening the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The unitary executive dogma represents audacious presidential overreaching into the constitutional province of the other two branches of government.

This doctrine took shape within the Bush administration shortly after 9/11. On September 25, 2001, former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo used the words "unitary executive" in a memo he wrote for the White House: "The centralization of authority in the president alone is particularly crucial in matters of national defense, war, and foreign policy, where a unitary executive can evaluate threats, consider policy choices, and mobilize national resources with a speed and energy that is far superior to any other branch." Six weeks later, Bush began using that phrase in his signing statements.

As of December 22, 2006, Bush had used the words "unitary executive" 145 times in his signing statements and executive orders. Yoo, one of the chief architects of Bush's doctrine of unfettered executive power, wrote memoranda advising Bush that because he was commander in chief, he could make war any time he thought there was a threat, and he didn't have to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

In a 2005 debate with Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel, Yoo argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering that a young child of a suspect in custody be tortured, even by crushing the child's testicles.

The unitary executive theory has already cropped up in Supreme Court opinions. In his lone dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice Clarence Thomas cited "the structural advantages of a unitary Executive." He disagreed with the Court that due process demands an American citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker. Thomas wrote, "Congress, to be sure, has a substantial and essential role in both foreign affairs and national security. But it is crucial to recognize that judicial interference in these domains destroys the purpose of vesting primary responsibility in a unitary Executive."

Justice Thomas's theory fails to recognize why our Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government.

In 1926, Justice Louis Brandeis explained the constitutional role of the separation of powers. He wrote, "The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy."

Eighty years later, noted conservative Grover Norquist, describing the unitary executive theory, echoed Brandeis's sentiment. Norquist said, "you don't have a constitution; you have a king."

One wonders what Bush & Co. are setting up with the new Presidential Directive. What if, heaven forbid, some sort of catastrophic event were to occur just before the 2008 election? Bush could use this directive to suspend the election. This administration has gone to great lengths to remain in Iraq. It has built huge permanent military bases and pushed to privatize Iraq's oil. Bush and Cheney may be unwilling to relinquish power to a successor administration.

Hail, Hail to the idiot king!
post #90 of 455
Quote:
Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?

As the nation focused on whether Congress would exercise its constitutional duty to cut funding for the war, Bush quietly issued an unconstitutional bombshell that went virtually unnoticed by the corporate media.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution.

If a "catastrophic emergency" -- which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster -- occurs, Bush's new directive says: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

Wait...this sounds familiar...

1. Hitler passes a law to give him ultimate power in case of an emergency
2. He creates his own emergency
3. Gets ultimate power
4. Doesn't really feel like giving it back
5. WWII.




Link...
post #91 of 455
Thread Starter 
And I thought the comparison went too far, when in reality it does not go far enough. GW with his nukes and aircraft carriers can make Adolf's bones turn red with jealousy.


BTW @_@
You really are screwing with my love for solo banjo music.....
post #92 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

BTW @_@ You really are screwing with my love for solo banjo music.....

Shoot. Sorry.

Here's Steve Martin/Bela Fleck/Tony Trischka's Banjo Jam on David Letterman
post #93 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Wait...this sounds familiar...

1. Hitler passes a law to give him ultimate power in case of an emergency
2. He creates his own emergency
3. Gets ultimate power
4. Doesn't really feel like giving it back
5. WWII.

You whacko tinfoil-hat conspiracy nut.
It "can't happen"... "not here."

I dunno... Maybe:

1. Bush has already passed ultimate power for the Exec. Branch "in case of emergency" - this is nothing new, folks. We've been under one "emergency" after another for decades. We've most recently been in the same state since Clinton and Executive Order 12947.

Quote:
The Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established that Presidents may not act arbitrarily during an emergency. In 1976 the National Emergencies Act set a limit of two years on emergency declarations unless the president explicitly extends them.

But, hey, why let a SCOTUS ruling get in the way?
"Terror's the product you push..."

2. The people are slowly waking up and need fear running their lives again.
3. Will get ultimate power.
4. Doesn't really plan to ever give it power back. For himself or successors.
5. Total slavery. Of everyone on the planet. Coming to a gulag near you.

It's been chronicled since the mid 90s here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.infowars.com

Um, uh... "RON PAUL 2008"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #94 of 455
Somebody please explain the difference between National and Homeland® security?

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
post #95 of 455
Bush now wants to hide data about WH visitors:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/....ap/index.html

The odd thing about this is the Repuglicans got similar data about the Clinton WH...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #96 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/





She used to speak with such affection when talking about GW.



Wow, now Republicans that question his wisdom are unpatriotic.


I agree with Noonan and really think Bush is off base with his immigration comments.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #97 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Well, the bullshit that Bush is pulling is "unpatriotic." Bush will not be satisfied until he has single-digit approval numbers and his party is unelectable for a generation. He's not working for democrats, he's not working for republicans... so some of us need to ask WHO he IS working for... the global banking elites. That's the "unpatriotic" part. Pot, meet kettle.

Bush thinks he's doing the right thing. He's a big liberal on immigration...always has been. I really don't understand why he's use the kind of rhetoric he recently did against those opposed to the bill, though. My assumption is he views this as his last chance to get "immigration reform" done, and is starting to consider his legacy. I can't stand the talk about legacy no matter which party is in office.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #98 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Wait...this sounds familiar...

1. Hitler passes a law to give him ultimate power in case of an emergency
2. He creates his own emergency
3. Gets ultimate power
4. Doesn't really feel like giving it back
5. WWII.




Link...

Don't be stupid.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #99 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree with Noonan and really think Bush is off base with his immigration comments.

Quote:
Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

Yeah, I'd say that thinking will get him points for "Worst President"

Not just his immigration comments,

Quote:
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome.

I seem to remember her saying Bush had Reagan like qualities not to long ago, like 6 months ago, not 3 years.
Yet she continued to support him?

I suppose "suggesting" being anti-patriotic didn't sit right with her sensibilities.
Anti Bushy's got that a long time ago.

His standing is, if not there already, a hair away from worst US President.
post #100 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Yeah, I'd say that thinking will get him points for "Worst President"

Not just his immigration comments,



I seem to remember her saying Bush had Reagan like qualities not to long ago, like 6 months ago, not 3 years.
Yet she continued to support him?

I suppose "suggesting" being anti-patriotic didn't sit right with her sensibilities.
Anti Bushy's got that a long time ago.

His standing is, if not there already, a hair away from worst US President.

That's wehre we differ. I've said many times, such a judgment would be impossible so close to his time in office. And objectively, you can't look at how things are going in the country and conclude that it's "worse than ever." The economy is booming. We haven't been attacked since 9/11. Perhaps you disagree fully and think Bush is really alienating not just liberals, but his own party and base...but to suggest that he's the "worst in history" in ridiculous.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #101 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's wehre we differ. I've said many times, such a judgment would be impossible so close to his time in office. And objectively, you can't look at how things are going in the country and conclude that it's "worse than ever." The economy is booming. We haven't been attacked since 9/11. Perhaps you disagree fully and think Bush is really alienating not just liberals, but his own party and base...but to suggest that he's the "worst in history" in ridiculous.

He's the gift that keeps on giving.

We differ on who is benefitting from the stock market and economy as a whole.

Heard on Fox today, bin Laden is planning a big one, some of their analysts say, be worried.
You do know the terrorists think long term, of course, so called "home grown" aren't so smart,
bragging about it,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/ny...on&oref=slogin

He seems to have lost Noonan, in fact she took it personally.

Maybe I missed it, but Fox hasn't discussed Noonan's comments today, Hmmmm.

It really isn't to hard to say he's at the least, within a hair of being the worst, unless you're a battered spouse who hasn't seen, it ain't gonna stop.
post #102 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's wehre we differ. I've said many times, such a judgment would be impossible so close to his time in office. And objectively, you can't look at how things are going in the country and conclude that it's "worse than ever." The economy is booming. We haven't been attacked since 9/11. Perhaps you disagree fully and think Bush is really alienating not just liberals, but his own party and base...but to suggest that he's the "worst in history" in ridiculous.

" We haven't been attacked since 9/11 "

This is not really proof f anything since this was the first really big sucessful attack of it's nature. And it was handled so unbelievably bad.

I believe the terrorists got exactly what they wanted. Making us paranoid so Bush had more power to be an ass with other countries which in turn isolates us and makes us look bad.

They're probably worried that he's almost outta there.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #103 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

He's the gift that keeps on giving.

We differ on who is benefitting from the stock market and economy as a whole.

Heard on Fox today, bin Laden is planning a big one, some of their analysts say, be worried.
You do know the terrorists think long term, of course, so called "home grown" aren't so smart,
bragging about it,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/ny...on&oref=slogin

He seems to have lost Noonan, in fact she took it personally.

Maybe I missed it, but Fox hasn't discussed Noonan's comments today, Hmmmm.

It really isn't to hard to say he's at the least, within a hair of being the worst, unless you're a battered spouse who hasn't seen, it ain't gonna stop.

Let's on the bold part above. It's typical liberal talking point crap. Everyone has benefited. That's who. How do I know? Because I've benefited from bush's tax cuts and good economy, and I'm middle class. You likely have too...you're just too blinded by hatred for the rich and rehtoric about evil CEOs to see it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #104 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

" We haven't been attacked since 9/11 "

This is not really proof f anything since this was the first really big sucessful attack of it's nature. And it was handled so unbelievably bad.

I believe the terrorists got exactly what they wanted. Making us paranoid so Bush had more power to be an ass with other countries which in turn isolates us and makes us look bad.

They're probably worried that he's almost outta there.

It's proof of a lot, unless you think we haven't been attacked by chance. They've certainly tried.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #105 of 455
What I thought was eerie, was Tenet's recent admission, that 'we know they're here, we just don't know what they're waiting for.'

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #106 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's on the bold part above. It's typical liberal talking point crap. Everyone has benefited. That's who. How do I know? Because I've benefited from bush's tax cuts and good economy, and I'm middle class. You likely have too...you're just too blinded by hatred for the rich and rehtoric about evil CEOs to see it.

No hatred for the rich here.
Never said anything about evil CEOs.

Typical right wing talking point crap is saying everyone benefitted because you did.

Remember this from page 2 of this thread,

Quote:
From Cavuto on Business, Fox News Channel,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274332,00.html
"Ben Stein: Charles is completely right. Compared to previous generations, the wealth of this country is phenomenal, breath-taking, off-the-charts, unbelievable. But, this is really two economies. This is really a very wonderful economy for the rich. But, for the ordinary person, wages peaked in 1973 and have never reached that peak, adjusted for inflation. There are an awful lot of home foreclosures, an awful lot of people in the upper Midwest who are really bleeding as the auto industry hemorrhages. For the rich, though, it's an incredibly great economy. For people who have capital, it's an incredibly great economy"

And your reply,

Quote:
And even assuming Stein is correct: What do you propose we do about it? Limit CEO pay? Raise taxes on the rich? Sounds like someone likes redistributing wealth! ?

See, you brought up CEOs.
post #107 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's proof of a lot, unless you think we haven't been attacked by chance. They've certainly tried.

Care to share any real proof of that last statement and show how it is different from before 9/11?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #108 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's proof of a lot, unless you think we haven't been attacked by chance. They've certainly tried.



Ah yeah........

They shouldn't have got through the first time.

Get real!

Also I already explained why we were attacked and the terrorists got what they wanted out of it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #109 of 455
A little insght, perhaps, into why Bushi Baby doesn't care about emissions:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070602/..._MYqoVzkLMWM0F

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #110 of 455
post #111 of 455
WTF,2 months ago,

Quote:
Sunni militants are being armed with Iranian-made munitions, US military spokesman Maj Gen William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6546555.stm

Now,

Quote:
With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...487785,00.html

Fraught with risk huh?

Does Bush even try to learn from history, or is all this reading he supposedly does just so much hyperbole?

What a freaking moron.
post #112 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

No hatred for the rich here.
Never said anything about evil CEOs.

Typical right wing talking point crap is saying everyone benefitted because you did.

Remember this from page 2 of this thread,



And your reply,



See, you brought up CEOs.

Uh..anyone in my income bracket benefited. Anyone with similar tax implications benefited. And since the cuts clearly benefited the overall economy, everyone benefited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Care to share any real proof of that last statement and show how it is different from before 9/11?

For which part do you want proof?

As for how "it's different" after 9/11: There are many good points, and many points that still need to be addressed. Airline security is better. The PATRIOT Act has broken down some of the barriers between law enforcement agencies. We're doing more surveillance and attacking terrorists in many locations around the globe with the military.

That said, the border is insecure. Terror ops can take years to plan and execute, so more could and probably are coming. We're not protecting hard targets as we could be (nuclear plants, chemical plants, monuments, etc.)




Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



Ah yeah........

They shouldn't have got through the first time.

Get real!

Also I already explained why we were attacked and the terrorists got what they wanted out of it.

Thanks, professor. Never would have figured it out with your" explanation."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #113 of 455
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh..anyone in my income bracket benefited. Anyone with similar tax implications benefited. And since the cuts clearly benefited the overall economy, everyone benefited.

Overall economy yes, ignored the rest of my post, Ben Stein, remember?
Spend the coupla hundred, what health care so you can get a cast for a broken leg?, and you are back at square one.
post #114 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh..anyone in my income bracket benefited...

SDW, if you take cash advance from your credit card, do you call that a "benefit" too? And what if you get $0.50 cents for every cash back dollar you take, while Dick Cheney gets $1.50, while your balance shows an even dollar taken out for each?

Your financial planning ability seems incredibly short-sighted if you can't see the paralell between you borrowing money and the country borrowing money, and why that costs you money in the long run.

Or maybe you're not planning on having kids, so you're not too worried about future payback. Let the other people's kids pay for it, right? Wink, wink...
post #115 of 455


Heh. Anyway, did anyone see Bush getting his watch swiped off during his Albanian Love-Fest? Watch...about 56 seconds into the video...



post #116 of 455
[CENTER]
GWB's stolen watch.


Money in GWB's stolen wallet.



GWB was also carrying what he was told by his trusted advisors was Albanian money.[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
post #117 of 455
[QUOTE=screener;1095364]
Quote:

Overall economy yes, ignored the rest of my post, Ben Stein, remember?
Spend the coupla hundred, what health care so you can get a cast for a broken leg?, and you are back at square one.

I disagree with Ben Stein on this issue. I agree with him a good portion of the time, but not on this. I didn't mean to ignore it. Well, actually I did...but only because it's been discussed ad nauseam here before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

SDW, if you take cash advance from your credit card, do you call that a "benefit" too? And what if you get $0.50 cents for every cash back dollar you take, while Dick Cheney gets $1.50, while your balance shows an even dollar taken out for each?

Your financial planning ability seems incredibly short-sighted if you can't see the paralell between you borrowing money and the country borrowing money, and why that costs you money in the long run.

Or maybe you're not planning on having kids, so you're not too worried about future payback. Let the other people's kids pay for it, right? Wink, wink...

You're unbelievably misguided on this. Unbelievably, especially for an intelligent guy by most other accounts.

It's not "taking a cash advance" when the government lets me keep more of MY money to begin with. I assume that you're referencing the debt and deficit here, so let me address that as well. Despite tax cuts, revenue is up. This is because the cuts benefited the overall economy, 2/3 of which is based on consumer spending. Now, I agree that we need to eliminate the deficit and reduce our debt burden, but the way to do that is not with tax increases. It's with spending cuts, which certainly have not happened.

As for your Dick Cheney comment: This is the part where I really can't believe what I'm reading. Dick Cheney gets more back in terms of actual dollars because he pays much more than I do. One cannot, simply CANNOT look at tax cuts in terms of real dollars. It must be looked in terms of percentages. Example: Let's say we offer a 10% across the board tax cut. The person who pays $5,000 in taxes gets $500 off that bill, and the person who pays 100,000 in taxes gets $10,000. According to your class-warefare logic, you'd scream "Dick Cheney got $9,500 more than I did! He got like 20x the reduction I did! Except of course, that is stupid. He got more because he paid more.

Now, of course the upper rates were reduced more than the middle rates. There is a good reason for that. The tax code was grossly unfair. The top rate was raised in 1993 from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. The cuts for the "rich" were also not that much more.

The 2001 tax cuts did this:

Old Rate 2000 vs. New Rate 2001

15-------->15
28-------->27.5
31-------->30.5
36-------->35.5
39.6------->39.1

Then: 2002 saw these changes

10%
15%
27%
30%
35%
38.6%

And in 2003:

10%
15%
25%
28%
33%
35%

So, let's examine that over Bush's term. Here is the net result:

Old lowest bracket: 15%
New lowest bracket 10% (33% overall reduction for lowest income earners)

28 percent bracket reduced to 25% (12% reduction)

31 percent bracket reduced to 28% (10% reduction)

36 percent bracket reduced to 33% (8.5% reduction)

39.6 percent bracket reduced to 35% (12.7% reduction)


As you can see, the highest level at which income is taxed progessivley was reduced across the board over the past 6 years. The lowest bracket was reduced my 33%. The highest by 12.7%, which is within a few ticks of the 12% reduction the 28/25 bracket saw...where millions of middle class Americans fall.

So, it's intectually dishonest and/or...stupid...to suggest that "Bush cuts taxes for the rich!" Yes, they did get a cut, and in terms of real dollars it's far more than what I, for example, pay. But the "rich" are paying the taxes. That's they way it goes.

I haven't yet begun to get into the other changes (aside form the brackets) that have beneifted the middle class, including the Captial Gains Tax reduction, depreciation deductions, etc.

Last, there is a moral component here. At least to me, anyway. Is it really right that we take, say, 40 percent of someone's top level income? I have a problem with that. In fact, I have a problem with the entire progessive-taxation system. But that's another argument.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #118 of 455
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1095612]
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post


I disagree with Ben Stein on this issue. I agree with him a good portion of the time, but not on this. I didn't mean to ignore it. Well, actually I did...but only because it's been discussed ad nauseam here before.



You're unbelievably misguided on this. Unbelievably, especially for an intelligent guy by most other accounts.

It's not "taking a cash advance" when the government lets me keep more of MY money to begin with. I assume that you're referencing the debt and deficit here, so let me address that as well. Despite tax cuts, revenue is up. This is because the cuts benefited the overall economy, 2/3 of which is based on consumer spending. Now, I agree that we need to eliminate the deficit and reduce our debt burden, but the way to do that is not with tax increases. It's with spending cuts, which certainly have not happened.

As for your Dick Cheney comment: This is the part where I really can't believe what I'm reading. Dick Cheney gets more back in terms of actual dollars because he pays much more than I do. One cannot, simply CANNOT look at tax cuts in terms of real dollars. It must be looked in terms of percentages. Example: Let's say we offer a 10% across the board tax cut. The person who pays $5,000 in taxes gets $500 off that bill, and the person who pays 100,000 in taxes gets $10,000. According to your class-warefare logic, you'd scream "Dick Cheney got $9,500 more than I did! He got like 20x the reduction I did! Except of course, that is stupid. He got more because he paid more.

Now, of course the upper rates were reduced more than the middle rates. There is a good reason for that. The tax code was grossly unfair. The top rate was raised in 1993 from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. The cuts for the "rich" were also not that much more.

The 2001 tax cuts did this:

Old Rate 2000 vs. New Rate 2001

15-------->15
28-------->27.5
31-------->30.5
36-------->35.5
39.6------->39.1

Then: 2002 saw these changes

10%
15%
27%
30%
35%
38.6%

And in 2003:

10%
15%
25%
28%
33%
35%

So, let's examine that over Bush's term. Here is the net result:

Old lowest bracket: 15%
New lowest bracket 10% (33% overall reduction for lowest income earners)

28 percent bracket reduced to 25% (12% reduction)

31 percent bracket reduced to 28% (10% reduction)

36 percent bracket reduced to 33% (8.5% reduction)

39.6 percent bracket reduced to 35% (12.7% reduction)


As you can see, the highest level at which income is taxed progessivley was reduced across the board over the past 6 years. The lowest bracket was reduced my 33%. The highest by 12.7%, which is within a few ticks of the 12% reduction the 28/25 bracket saw...where millions of middle class Americans fall.

So, it's intectually dishonest and/or...stupid...to suggest that "Bush cuts taxes for the rich!" Yes, they did get a cut, and in terms of real dollars it's far more than what I, for example, pay. But the "rich" are paying the taxes. That's they way it goes.

I haven't yet begun to get into the other changes (aside form the brackets) that have beneifted the middle class, including the Captial Gains Tax reduction, depreciation deductions, etc.

Last, there is a moral component here. At least to me, anyway. Is it really right that we take, say, 40 percent of someone's top level income? I have a problem with that. In fact, I have a problem with the entire progessive-taxation system. But that's another argument.


Good ol' SDW,

You'll notice how I don't reply much anymore to your defense of our hairless ape leader. The reason is you lost all these arguments a long time ago. Dubbya has painted himself into such an incredibly small corner any denfense now days hardly matters.

However it's a free country so by all means carry on!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #119 of 455
[QUOTE=jimmac;1097126]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You'll notice how I don't reply much anymore

Because you can't. His numbers on the "tax cuts for the rich" destroy your class-warfare argument. Silence is about all you have (which is much appreciated, BTW). Now, go back to tossing off about the 2008 erect, er, election.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #120 of 455
[QUOTE=Jubelum;1097194]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


Because you can't. His numbers on the "tax cuts for the rich" destroy your class-warfare argument. Silence is about all you have (which is much appreciated, BTW). Now, go back to tossing off about the 2008 erect, er, election.


You weren't even in the game Juby.

But if you dinosaurs decide to say something dumb enough be assured I'll speak up.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › GW Bush the worst president in US history