What has Bush done that is good?

weeperofsouls · Post by **weeperofsouls** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:45 pm

probably because the war was sold as being quick and painless. get in, get out, no problems at all. unfortunately the reality of war is much more complicated then that.

Storminator16 · Post by **Storminator16** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:49 pm

weeperofsouls wrote:probably because the war was sold as being quick and painless. get in, get out, no problems at all. unfortunately the reality of war is much more complicated then that.

Actually, the "reality of war" has nothing to do with this. Since we aren't fighting a nation, we took a chance fighting this very unorganized enemy. The intelligence community should have focused on the nature of the beast instead of focusing on "the bitch has aluminum tubes" and "the bitch is inquiring about uranium from the Cradle of Civilizaton".

Sorry, Dave Chapelle is on the brain. Don't drop that yellow cake!

Still, this is very damning. No one at the White House and in the Bush cabinet seem to took in consideration how we were going to when this "war". I'm surprised no one has been bitching about this more than anything else.

Arrogant sons of bitches. Plus the bitch Rice.

Fanatical Islam was not taken into consideration at all. These people will fight, and fight, and fight, and fight, and fight...well, you get the picture.

We can't win this. I don't want to see my country going through this hell-spawn again.

Joe999 · Post by **Joe999** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:05 pm

He's a republican, that's good enough for republicans. Just as being a democrat is the only qualification needed in a canidate for democrats to vote for them. Most Americans vote on party, not policy.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:53 pm

I'd like to hear what he had done DOMESTICALLY that people think is so great...

Post by **|darc|** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:19 pm

He, uhh....

umm....

Cut taxes! Yeah... err...

Cn'Fused · Post by **Cn'Fused** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:03 am

spiroth10 wrote:ok here we go -- what he's done good.

1. hes man enough to fight the pure evil deamons that are terrorist. they are only pure evil. they have no good in them.
2. he saved the Iraqi people. he saved their lives from being terrorised and tortured by saddam
3. he tried to mend the economy. and yes, he was HELPING it. it was clintons fault the economy went bad. the thing is, his changs took this long to take effect. also, 9/11 crippled the economy also. neither of these had ANYTHING to do with bush. he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. youd all be angry if kerry was president at that time. these two things are what brought our economy down. but its almost back now, it IS regenerating. thanks to bush.

Ok, I need you to be more specific and less prejudiced, because even now I can dismiss most of your claims quite easily, and that's not good considering I want things that are difficult to dismiss. Not crap like "teh Iraq war was good because sadamm is out and we get to free the iraqi people from the infidel evil terorsts who worsip satan and muslims are bad bad people whgo eat childen".

Linux is on the right track - I can understand why people are at least somewhat pleased with his education reforms (although I get the idea there are hitches to it). Partial abortion bans are something I'd agree with as well, since foetuses of a certain age can actually feel pain as they are removed (although there should be certain exemptions from this ban just in case the mother is going to die, or she was raped, etc), and even though I don't understand this immigration thing I can't complain since Australia is a nation of scared bigots who lock people up indefinitely just to try and prove a point that we are "hardline". Which is funny considering we are a small, backwater country that couldn't fight a flea unless we had British and American support behind us

law, I'd like to hear more from you too, since I know you're a supporter (or at least appear to sympathise with Bush). Same with everyone who criticises al the anti-Iraq threads. Just please be specific, because stuff like the above doesn't really prove anything to me other than some people can't understand simple English...

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:32 am

the thing is, his changs took this long to take effect

Which changes do you think led to the downturn, and through what mechanisms did it manifest such that it was delayed for the better part of a decade?

it IS regenerating. thanks to bush

By what measure is it regenerating, and what did Bush do to encourage this?

Post by **|darc|** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:36 am

Cn'Fused wrote: Linux

o_O

MetalGearRay · Post by **MetalGearRay** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:16 am

|darc| wrote:
Cn'Fused wrote: Linux
o_O

HAHAHAHA

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:21 am

but its almost back now, it IS regenerating. thanks to bush.

It'd be coming back if he'd done nothing too. I also think we'd have had a long period of prosperity if Clinton had done next to nothing...

Cn'Fused · Post by **Cn'Fused** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:31 am

|darc| wrote:
Cn'Fused wrote: Linux
o_O

1LINUXuser. What did you think I was referring to, the OS?

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:51 pm

Lartrak wrote:
but its almost back now, it IS regenerating. thanks to bush.
It'd be coming back if he'd done nothing too. I also think we'd have had a long period of prosperity if Clinton had done next to nothing...

Clinton wanted higher taxes in order to get his tax hike the republicans demanded a cut in the capital gains tax so they would have something to run on neither side realized the net was about to explode on to the scene when it did the lower capital gains tax made many people invest in the new upstart net companies with all this money hitting the stock market everyone created dot coms they new there ipo would give them enough operating capitol to give it a go the dot coms bought computers and hired programers like crazy and that supersized the economy. So in theory if we repealed the Bush tax cut and removed the capital gains tax we should see major economic growth. Another thing Clinton did was keep interest rates low and the dollars value high if the dollar was worth the same now as it was under clinton gas would be about 125-150 a gallon we had some of the lowest full costs ever under him and since interest rates were low euro investors put there money into the stock market instead of the banks. Bush mucked up a little the drop in the value of the dollar increased exports alittle but it raised the cost of oil and that slowed the economy down then the rest of the world lowered there currency to a level that would increase there exports and his tax cuts didnt work like they did under reagan because of globalization under reagan a rich guy with some extra money would invest in a american company now they can invest in a european company and see similar returns.

Post by **|darc|** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:20 pm

Cn'Fused wrote:
|darc| wrote:
Cn'Fused wrote: Linux
o_O
1LINUXuser. What did you think I was referring to, the OS?

Yeah... It would've made a lot more sense to call him Linux user over Linux

farrell2k · Post by **farrell2k** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:49 pm

SuperMegatron wrote:
Lartrak wrote:
but its almost back now, it IS regenerating. thanks to bush.
It'd be coming back if he'd done nothing too. I also think we'd have had a long period of prosperity if Clinton had done next to nothing...
Clinton wanted higher taxes in order to get his tax hike the republicans demanded a cut in the capital gains tax so they would have something to run on neither side realized the net was about to explode on to the scene when it did the lower capital gains tax made many people invest in the new upstart net companies with all this money hitting the stock market everyone created dot coms they new there ipo would give them enough operating capitol to give it a go the dot coms bought computers and hired programers like crazy and that supersized the economy. So in theory if we repealed the Bush tax cut and removed the capital gains tax we should see major economic growth. Another thing Clinton did was keep interest rates low and the dollars value high if the dollar was worth the same now as it was under clinton gas would be about 125-150 a gallon we had some of the lowest full costs ever under him and since interest rates were low euro investors put there money into the stock market instead of the banks. Bush mucked up a little the drop in the value of the dollar increased exports alittle but it raised the cost of oil and that slowed the economy down then the rest of the world lowered there currency to a level that would increase there exports and his tax cuts didnt work like they did under reagan because of globalization under reagan a rich guy with some extra money would invest in a american company now they can invest in a european company and see similar returns.

Clinton was not responsible for the enonomy under his presidency. He raised taxes on everyone, and that is never good for business. He came into office when the economy was on an up cycle. The.com boom contributed a hell of a lot to the economy during that time. I know this is what you said, (i think) and I agree. The rest of what you said makes no sense to me

Covar · Post by **Covar** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:11 pm

a little update from my earlier post.

just heard on talk radio, bush's immigrant plan failed before it was passed.(i guess a lot of people really hated it). apparently to stop the flow they have predator drones in the air to locate them.

OneThirty8 · Post by **OneThirty8** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:05 pm

farrell2k wrote: Clinton was not responsible for the enonomy under his presidency. He raised taxes on everyone, and that is never good for business. He came into office when the economy was on an up cycle. The.com boom contributed a hell of a lot to the economy during that time. I know this is what you said, (i think) and I agree. The rest of what you said makes no sense to me

Clinton was President for 8 years. Even if he wasn't responsible for the initial upturn, I can't believe it was just his good luck that kept it going until Bush came in.

Orange_Ribbon · Post by **Orange_Ribbon** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:25 pm

I have not heard much about it since but there is one thing I love that Bush has done. He started planning a mission to Mars. Not only will this open up new fronteers BUT the spin offs will be more helpfull hopefully than the Moon landing Spin Offs. This is actually the one reason I might vote for him.

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:44 pm

Orange_Ribbon wrote:I have not heard much about it since but there is one thing I love that Bush has done. He started planning a mission to Mars. Not only will this open up new fronteers BUT the spin offs will be more helpfull hopefully than the Moon landing Spin Offs. This is actually the one reason I might vote for him.

and then cut funding to NASA. You can initiate plans all you want, but you gotta givem money to do it.

farrell2k · Post by **farrell2k** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:53 pm

OneThirty8 wrote:
farrell2k wrote: Clinton was not responsible for the enonomy under his presidency. He raised taxes on everyone, and that is never good for business. He came into office when the economy was on an up cycle. The.com boom contributed a hell of a lot to the economy during that time. I know this is what you said, (i think) and I agree. The rest of what you said makes no sense to me
Clinton was President for 8 years. Even if he wasn't responsible for the initial upturn, I can't believe it was just his good luck that kept it going until Bush came in.

Economies move in cycles, up and down. He came into the beginning of an up cycle, and rode its success for an entire 8 years. The president doesn't have as much power over the economy as most believe. Clinton did get some nice economic policies passed, though. NAFTA really helped strenghten the u.s. economy, eventhough it did move many factory jobs to Mexico. He also didn't have to worry about paying for a war. Clinton is given too much credit for the economy in the 90s. When the economy is on an up cycle, as long as you're not funding major projects like a war in 2 countries, things are going to go well.

ragnarok2040 · Post by **ragnarok2040** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:07 am

We wouldn't have to worry about paying for a war if Bush had followed through with the inspections and UN resolutions. Instead, he decided to start a war with no good reason. Last resort my ass, it was "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" then "Saddam has the means to create weapons of mass destruction" then "Saddam has the materials to create weapons of mass destruction." All proven false, and what they did find was almost 20 years old.

Also, for the economy, Bush's tax cuts seem to be ineffective as most voters seem to think that their tax burden hasn't changed despite there being three years of tax cuts. The bill that recently was passed in the Senate would require the President to either increase taxes or cut spending from elsewhere in order to curtail the huge deficit we have, thereby stopping Bush from giving out tax cuts without cutting spending.

What has Bush done that is good?

Re: What has Bush done that is good?