[Tenchiro]

The fact that he would even consider using the constitution to limit our freedoms bothers me. Our constitution should never be about limitations, only about freedom.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=6&u=/ap/bush_interview

But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states "undermine the sanctity of marriage" and could mean that "we may need a constitutional amendment."

 

[Serial Midget]

George Bush really doesn't give a crap - he's just pandering to his base ala Strom Thurmond. If he really wants to preserve the sanctitiy of marriage he should see about an ammendment eliminating no fault divorce.

 

[CRUM]

Is that Dubya managed to somehow bypass the Peter Principle. He reached the level of his own incompetence way before he was governor of Texas. He's running on instinct. Not that using instinct is bad, but if that's the only tool in the shed, it probably means trouble down the road.

 

[BurlyShirley]

The only problem with Bush is that he doesnt have the communications skills to get his points across the right way. But dont be fooled by all the rhetoric, he is a smart man and is honestly trying to do what is best. IMO

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
he is a smart man and is honestly trying to do what is best. IMO

For who?

 

[slein]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The only problem with Bush is that he doesnt have the communications skills to get his points across the right way. But dont be fooled by all the rhetoric, he is a smart man and is honestly trying to do what is best. IMO

for all the BOOSH BASHING that goes on... i completely agree with this assessment. he is a CANCER, after all.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
The fact that he would even consider using the constitution to limit our freedoms bothers me. Our constitution should never be about limitations, only about freedom.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=6&u=/ap/bush_interview

[/B]

The last time an amendment was designed to curb our freedoms it was later repealed. It is an absolute waste of time to discuss or even work on such a thing.

I think that Dubya and his advisors are smarter than most give them credit. He knows this is exactly the kind of thing that those who vote for him are looking for him to do. I also think his communication skills are spot on for the audience he is playing to these days.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
The fact that he would even consider using the constitution to limit our freedoms bothers me. Our constitution should never be about limitations, only about freedom.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=6&u=/ap/bush_interview

[/B]

so, W's consideration bothers you, but you didn't express consternation to the bench for attempting to legislate? You'd be well advised to take heed for any bench to legislate (vice interpret). The whole always/never part of your sentiment caught my eye. I believe our founders/framers wanted freedom with limitations. You can indeed have both. In fact, wouldn't you think it's best to have one check the other? I do.

If this bothers you so much, you know what to do: vote. Vote for the reps who share your views. Hey, at least Ashcroft isn't leading the charge.

BTW, W's not a Jr.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The only problem with Bush is that he doesnt have the communications skills to get his points across the right way. But dont be fooled by all the rhetoric, he is a smart man and is honestly trying to do what is best. IMO

Dude...speech writers, ever heard of them?
Come on.
Yeah, he is trying to do what is best....financially for his daddy and company.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Sideways
Dude...speech writers, ever heard of them?
Come on.
Yeah, he is trying to do what is best....financially for his daddy and company.

Dude!

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
he is a smart man

Well, he has the experience and expertise resulting from a lifetime devoid of consequences. He's not well-spoken, he's not book smart, and he's not business smart. Exactly what kind of "smart" is he?

He has some very intelligent advisors I'm sure, but he is a less than average man with what he believes to be divine mandate.

The results have not been nearly as bad (yet) as I once feared, but I wouldn't exactly credit his "intelligence."

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
Well, he has the experience and expertise resulting from a lifetime devoid of consequences. He's not well-spoken, he's not book smart, and he's not business smart. Exactly what kind of "smart" is he?

He has some very intelligent advisors I'm sure, but he is a less than average man with what he believes to be divine mandate.

The results have not been nearly as bad (yet) as I once feared, but I wouldn't exactly credit his "intelligence."

I think he's very practical and reasonable. He decisive and blount. He displays qualities i would look for in a leader. So, he gets flustered on camera...that happens to some people, but dont judge him on that. You cants say his life was devoid of consequences....how would you know that? Even if that were the case, could that be an advantage in looking at things objectively? I dont think you could get to the whitehouse a "less than average man" regardless of your connections.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ohio
Well, he has the experience and expertise resulting from a lifetime devoid of consequences. He's not well-spoken, he's not book smart, and he's not business smart. Exactly what kind of "smart" is he?

He has some very intelligent advisors I'm sure, but he is a less than average man with what he believes to be divine mandate.

...smart enough to get through both harvard & yale, remember?

from his bio
College
- Yale University, bachelor's degree, history
Graduate School
- Harvard University, Master of Business Administration

legacy may have helped get him in, but his efforts got him out the other side. Perhaps i should resign to being far less than average b/c i don't have a graduate degree, not to mention from an IVY league school. I'm not a bushie, but i certainly wouldn't write him off as stupid, or foolish, or reckless. You know any brainiacs who can't speak in front of a bevy of mics? betcha do.

Allow me the opportunity to detract with a recent example (and yes, it's isolated) of someone who should speak coherently:

"Well speaking of the French and the Germans, Congressman [Jim Saxton], I'm asking here for your judgment, your opinion. We had, say if you disagree, it was pretty much a seller's market as far as President Bush and the administration, the U.S. government, in terms of trying to get Germany and France and some others to come to along and, for example, to help finance the rebuilding of Iraq. So up until the capture of Saddam Hussein, you had pretty much a seller's market. Now would you agree/disagree it's a buyer's market -- which is to say, they're going to have to readjust in light of this capture of Saddam Hussein, or do you think so?" --CBS's Dan Rather, making absolutely no sense after six hours on the air Sunday

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I think he's very practical and reasonable. noHe decisive and blount. yesHe displays qualities i would look for in a leader. So, he gets flustered on camera...that happens to some people, but dont judge him on that. You cants say his life was devoid of consequences....how would you know that? how do you know he gets flustered on camera? I think he looks smug as **** and happy as a clam. He just reads his teleprompter like a 1st grader. As for devoid of consequences, it's documented. From court martials that should have occurred but didn't, to arrests that have been sealed from public view. He has made mistakes and errors that have real (sometimes DIRE) consequences for most people such as repeatedly running companies into the ground without ever running one successfully... or becoming addicted to coke.Even if that were the case, could that be an advantage in looking at things objectively? you're stretching with that oneI dont think you could get to the whitehouse a "less than average man" regardless of your connections. that's something on which we'll have to disagree.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by $tinkle
...smart enough to get through both harvard & yale, remember? legacy may have helped get him in, but his efforts got him out the other side.

I speak from experience when I say that getting in is not simply the hardest part, it is the ONLY part.

Especially during an era of rampant grade inflation, you had to be a truly poor student to achieve the grades he did in undergrad. As for B-school, I've never heard of someone failing out. The classes are considerably easier than almost anything I took as an undergrad (which isn't to say they aren't valuable... just not difficult).

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ohio
how do you know he gets flustered on camera? I think he looks smug as **** and happy as a clam. He just reads his teleprompter like a 1st grader. As for devoid of consequences, it's documented. From court martials that should have occurred but didn't, to arrests that have been sealed from public view. He has made mistakes and errors that have real (sometimes DIRE) consequences for most people such as repeatedly running companies into the ground without ever running one successfully... or becoming addicted to coke.

w-w-w-w-what!?
i was in the military almost a decade, and early on i got busted trying to use the postal service (on base) to smuggle explosives across the country. (my reasoning was that taking it w/ my carry-on was too risky of being caught). All i got was an article 15 (non-judicial punishment under the UCMJ) b/c the military had juristiction. That was in the early 90's, and today that would no doubt be handled more harshly.

Now, what "court martials" was W supposed to be subject to? Oh, plea bargains almost never happen. So, would you be so kind as to play your cards face up? I'll even settle for a link from bushlies.com, or a buzzflash.com reference. Just so long as it's verifiable. What clinic did he do detox in for his coke habit? Does a losing season for the Texas Rangers equal "repeatedly running companies in the ground without ever running one successfully"? WTF, over?

Opinions are welcome, bull$h|t is not.

 

[CRUM]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I He displays qualities i would look for in a leader.

Oh yeah, he displays well. But I always wonder what is happening behind that contented "I just farted" face he uses when in front of the cameras. Something tells me he is probably thinking, "I just farted and what does that word say? I wish they'd use capitals. Those small letters all look the same. You know what, my butt itches and uh oh, that's a long word. Remember what Lara said, now sound it out....."

Even if that (the devoid consequences) were the case, could that be an advantage in looking at things objectively?

In GW's case I certainly think it's an advantage. Having no clue is quite helpful when treading where angels are afraid to.

I dont think you could get to the whitehouse a "less than average man" regardless of your connections.



Speaking for myself, I know I couldn't. I'm about as connected as a Jewish lox salesman on vacation in Mecca. But judging from the talent we seem to love to elect, having a big ego, being able to breathe and who's yer daddy are all that's really needed.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by $tinkle
Opinions are welcome, bull$h|t is not.

I'm not going to search for links right now, but the failure to show up for duty (either AWOL or desertion, possibly fraudulent enlistment too) is well-documented and cause for dishonorable discharge or at the very least severe discipline that he never recieved.

The coke habit may have just been "use." How do you draw the line between habit and use? Beats me. He has pretty much admitted to it though (lots of question dodging, answers like "when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible" and "I would have passed federal tests for the last seven years.." etc). I don't know or care if he ever detoxed.

There are also arrests, but as stated the records are sealed so we'll never know what they were for.

edit: forgot about the business side. If I get a couple minutes, I'll check out his bio and remind myself of the names of the companies he ran either very unsuccessfully or into the ground. If I recall, most were oil ventures related to his Dad's business.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ohio
I'm not going to search for links right now, but the failure to show up for duty (either AWOL or desertion, possibly fraudulent enlistment too) is well-documented and cause for dishonorable discharge or at the very least severe discipline that he never recieved.

When he graduated from Yale in 1968, the draft was in full swing so he took the air force's officer exam for the Texas Air Nation Guard. In the pilot's aptitude test he scored a 25% which is the lowest possible grade. His name would have been below every other candidate that scored higher than him. Some how he ended up at the top of the list.

He joind the TANG became a pilot and served normally until 1972 (4 years into a 6 year commitment). This is where it gets dicey. He asked for a transfer to an Alabama Guard unit so he could take a job on Winton Blount US senate campaign. The local unit approved the transfer however, the higher ups didn't. He went to Alabama anyway. Eventually, he was transferred from the Texas unit to another Alabama unit (one that he didn't request orginially). There is no record of him ever showing up to any Guard duty in Alabama. When he eventually returned to Texas in December of 72, he never told anyone until he requested a discharge in late 73 that he was back. Which he was granted.

It is obvious that Daddy's influence made much of his orginial induction happen and subsequent "mistakes/misunderstandings" go away. To think otherwise is to ignore the obvious.

From personal experience the military is very selective about desertion charges, they go out of their way to not charge anyone with this. They do throw a ton of AWOL charges with punishments ranging from Article 15s, dishonorable discharges and/or jail time.

In my mind this probably more of an error of youth but one that he never had to pay for unlike most that did what he did.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Ohio just has to be a disgruntled Algore supporter who thinks the Pres. Bush stole the election... cuz he's got way too much hate in him.

He reminds me of all the nutty 'black helecopter' fruits who railled against clinton... e.i., like anyone could smuggle drugs into and outta the Mena, AR airport... without anyone knowing it...

 

[llkoolkeg]

Beat that dead horse, folks.

PROS:

He is decisive.

He does not come across like smooth-talking BS artist.

He is realistic about his talents and delegates well.

He frightens our enemies.

CONS:

Low frustration tolerance.

Take-it-or-leave-it attitude is polarizing.

Didn't ever have to struggle except with cocaine.

If you look closely enough, you can see the strings.


Summary: He's no Reagan, but he's no Al Gore either.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
CONS:

Take-it-or-leave-it attitude is polarizing.

i'd put that in the PRO column, meself. You know, that whole, "evil goes here, good goes there". Yes, it oversimplifies, but does cut down on collateral damage.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Beat that dead horse, folks.

I couldn't help it. Burly called him "smart."

I'd grudgingly agree with your list, but I think you also need to add "lack of basic economic understanding," (con) and "extremely secretive" (con in my book, but arguable)

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ohio
I couldn't help it. Burly called him "smart."

I'd grudgingly agree with your list, but I think you also need to add "lack of basic economic understanding," (con) and "extremely secretive" (con in my book, but arguable)

Lack of basic economic understanding is an understatement (?). He got to the part about spending with Daddy's credit card and then all other lessons got skipped. It is a lesson that he apparently still lives by today.

I think the statement that you were looking for was

An utter and complete lack of fiscal discipline or responsibility.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by DRB
Lack of basic economic understanding is an understatement (?). He got to the part about spending with Daddy's credit card and then all other lessons got skipped. It is a lesson that he apparently still lives by today.

I think the statement that you were looking for was

An utter and complete lack of fiscal discipline or responsibility.

But how is it that his advisors are missing this message too...???

Or do they think that as the US economy rebounds that the money will start to roll in as it did in the 90's and erase the deficit?

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by N8
But how is it that his advisors are missing this message too...???

My personaly belief, which is in no way verifiable, is that they either:
A) don't care. the effects won't hit until mid to late second term, at which point it's the next guys problem.
B) believe the cyclical boom along with some second term tax reform (raise) will wash it away, like you said. this may work, but it will be at the expense of a much larger boom that otherwise could occur.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
But how is it that his advisors are missing this message too...???

Or do they think that as the US economy rebounds that the money will start to roll in as it did in the 90's and erase the deficit?

Yeah but he is the chief which makes it his responsibility. I'll explain this really slowly for you.

When you spend more than you take in you are working in a deficit situation. No matter how hard you work you will never catch up.

Why government was able to erase the deficit was that they did not spend more than they were taking in. It had nothing to do with the economy rebounding. It had to do with fiscal responsibility. If I make X dollars, I can only spend X dollars.

If you are going to increase spending to pay for stuff then don't go cutting taxes. Which is what Dubya has done. The improved economy is based almost completely on the super low interest rates we have right now. Most economists (non-partisan ones) are especially worried what the effect is going to be when the rates are raised (which they will have to be). The main thought is that those sectors will dry up and the economy will struggle again.

 

[N8 v2.0]

O..k... ace...

Do we eliminate the funding for Homeland Security and drastically cut back spending on the US military (to the point of choking them off) like Clinton did to achieve balance? Do we eliminate the new Medicare Drug Act for gray hairs....???

Or do we just stop the tax reduction and levy increases?

 

[narlus]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Beat that dead horse, folks.

PROS:

He frightens our enemies.

CONS:

he frightens our constituents.

btw, i concur re: ohio's comments about ivy league schools. getting in IS the hardest part. having a parent/grandparent who went and donates $ helps yr cause immensely, no matter how much of a moron you might be.

i didn't have that in my favor, but still got in somehow.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
O..k... ace...

Do we eliminate the funding for Homeland Security and drastically cut back spending on the US military (to the point of choking them off) like Clinton did to achieve balance? Do we eliminate the new Medicare Drug Act for gray hairs....???

Or do we just stop the tax reduction and levy increases?

See even you figured out the answer but then again Bush ain't as smart as you. Cutting taxes was the dumb move not the increased spending. The whole homeland security thing is going to be a money pit if they don't realize that we are paying 3 or 4 separate agencies to do the samething. But nonetheless the spending was mostly needed. So cutting taxes when all of this was going on was simply irresponsible.

Maybe with your conservative leanings you could get in his administration and start making an impact on his policy decisions.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by DRB
See even you figured out the answer but then again Bush ain't as smart as you. Cutting taxes was the dumb move not the increased spending. The whole homeland security thing is going to be a money pit if they don't realize that we are paying 3 or 4 separate agencies to do the samething. But nonetheless the spending was mostly needed. So cutting taxes when all of this was going on was simply irresponsible.

Maybe with your conservative leanings you could get in his administration and start making an impact on his policy decisions.

Weren't the tax cuts passed by Congress and signed into law prior to 9/11? I can't recall....

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ohio
B) believe the cyclical boom along with some second term tax reform (raise) will wash it away, like you said. this may work, but it will be at the expense of a much larger boom that otherwise could occur.

That actually might be a good thing. The problem with any Admin is that they don't seem to want to temper any boom leading to an explosive bubble. Greenspan did an awesome job for a long time to temper it, but it appears those days are over. So, maybe the current crazy spending will slow the bubble? Kinda like Keynesian economics... which, granted focused on spending as a way to bring the US out of the great depression, but still has usefulness.





PS: Don't discuss economics with N8 until he reads up a bit (sorry N8, just frustrated with you throwing econ-bs around without any seeming attempt to know what you're talking about, nor listening to what others respond with.)

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Don't discuss economics with N8 until he reads up a bit (sorry N8, just frustrated with you throwing econ-bs around without any seeming attempt to know what you're talking about, nor listening to what others respond with.)

Humm... I took Engineering Econ but that was a long time ago and dealt specifically with figuring out if large scale construction projects were viable.

Haven't taken anything beyond that....

U an 'xpert?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by DRB
See even you figured out the answer but then again Bush ain't as smart as you. Cutting taxes was the dumb move not the increased spending. The whole homeland security thing is going to be a money pit if they don't realize that we are paying 3 or 4 separate agencies to do the samething. But nonetheless the spending was mostly needed. So cutting taxes when all of this was going on was simply irresponsible.

Maybe with your conservative leanings you could get in his administration and start making an impact on his policy decisions.

i happen to (indirectly) do work for homeland sec. Our funding has had a shot in the arm thanks to that. Where you assert 3 or 4 sep agencies are being paid to do the same job, this is transitional, not permanent. The gov't will always be a failure when it comes to "hot swapping" one widget for another, and thusly takes bloody ages, especially around the holidays (mid nov - mid jan).

Keep in mind millions (a real number) of people just like me are getting paid due to HS, who in turn pay taxes, stimulate the economy, take out loans b/c they have a stable gig for the next 15 yrs, etc.

If you'd like, i can send micheal jackson over w/ some hot milk & cookies to lull you further. Also, the dow is up to 10,200 right now, unemployment numbers are down AGAIN!

I have a good bit of faith in this here economy. I'm just sayin....

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
Weren't the tax cuts passed by Congress and signed into law prior to 9/11? I can't recall....

Yes most of them were but each could have been postponed or frozen when the increased funding requirements were realized.

The best part if they were to freeze them now or when this happened the bulk of the cuts for middle and lower income brackets would have been realized. The ones that hit after 2002 were mainly aimed at the higher (really the highest) brackets which is what is going to cost the government an even bigger slice of revenue than the first 2 years of it did.

Congress was ready to pass such legislation, even many Republicans but Bush never stepped to the plate.

My beef was not that he was cutting taxes. Because he orginially said that we are going to get spending under control, increase military spending marginally and cut taxes. All while maintaining a balanced budget or near enough. Which was all well and good. BUT 9-11 happened and that changed things drastically. The need for government spending went up as did the need for government revenue BUT the revenue side was never addressed. Actually as we increased spending we were decreasing revenue.

There was a hard choice to be made but no one made it. To me that shows as a serious lack of fiscal discipline.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by DRB
Yes most of them were but each could have been postponed or frozen when the increased funding requirements were realized.

The best part if they were to freeze them now or when this happened the bulk of the cuts for middle and lower income brackets would have been realized. The ones that hit after 2002 were mainly aimed at the higher (really the highest) brackets which is what is going to cost the government an even bigger slice of revenue than the first 2 years of it did.

Congress was ready to pass such legislation, even many Republicans but Bush never stepped to the plate.

My beef was not that he was cutting taxes. Because he orginially said that we are going to get spending under control, increase military spending marginally and cut taxes. All while maintaining a balanced budget or near enough. Which was all well and good. BUT 9-11 happened and that changed things drastically. The need for government spending went up as did the need for government revenue BUT the revenue side was never addressed. Actually as we increased spending we were decreasing revenue.

There was a hard choice to be made but no one made it. To me that shows as a serious lack of fiscal discipline.

Caveat: I am no econ xpert*

Is it up to Pres Bush alone to halt the tax rebate? Doesn't congress have a lot of say since it is a matter of public law?

Wouldn't increasing the revenue into the government (ending the rebate/increasing taxes) and cutting Homeland Security and reducing military spending be political sucide at this point? Wouldn't this would leave a huge hole for the Democrats to exploit in their presidential run?


*Lord O'pie, 18 Dec 03

 

[BurlyShirley]

I wont call myself a hobby-economist, but one thing i did notice was that when the economy was doing badly, people were out to hang Bush. People here on RM were posting graphs of how he made it all happen.
Now that the economy is doing alot better, it must just be all part of a big cycle right? I mean, how could Bush have anything to do with it being the moron that he is.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by N8
Humm... I took Engineering Econ but that was a long time ago and dealt specifically with figuring out if large scale construction projects were viable.

Haven't taken anything beyond that....

U an 'xpert?

I'm glad you didn't take too much offense. Nope, not an expert and I only have a BA in economics with a focus on Macro. I think the Eng.Econ you took was micro-economics based.

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Now that the economy is doing alot better, it must just be all part of a big cycle right? I mean, how could Bush have anything to do with it being the moron that he is.

The PotUS has limited influence on economics. NO PotUS should take too much blame or credit, but like a QB of a football team, that's part of his job. More importantly, the average person has zero understanding of economics and it's the average person who votes. When there's a problem with the national economy, you blame the national leader, when it's local (like CA), you blame the Governor (like they did), or perhaps your Mayor. The local economic scene is more affected by the local leader tho.

Also, we're in a much more global economy now, so that's a factor people don't consider.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i happen to (indirectly) do work for homeland sec. Our funding has had a shot in the arm thanks to that. Where you assert 3 or 4 sep agencies are being paid to do the same job, this is transitional, not permanent. The gov't will always be a failure when it comes to "hot swapping" one widget for another, and thusly takes bloody ages, especially around the holidays (mid nov - mid jan).

Keep in mind millions (a real number) of people just like me are getting paid due to HS, who in turn pay taxes, stimulate the economy, take out loans b/c they have a stable gig for the next 15 yrs, etc.

I have a good bit of faith in this here economy. I'm just sayin....

Transitional? Not good at "hot swapping". They aren't even good at cold swapping. So no it's probably closer to permanent. And the failures that occurred with turf wars in the past will continue into the future. At least I get my daily color alert.

There are all sorts of problems with economic up turn based almost completely on low interest rates. And much of what you are seeing is just what you said "faith in the economy". Watch what happens when the interest rate goes up. Plus not once did you mention tax cuts. But that's not what I was talking about.

The totals simply don't add up with government spending. Right now the government is due to cuts its revenue substanially over the next 2 to 3 years based on the tax cuts in the pipe, all the while increasing spending over that same period. The difference is increasing not decreasing and no one in Bush's administration seems to give a damn about it.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
Caveat: I am no econ xpert*

Is it up to Pres Bush alone to halt the tax rebate? Doesn't congress have a lot of say since it is law.

Wouldn't increasing the revenue into the government (ending the rebate/increasing taxes) and cutting Homeland Security and reducing military spending be political sucide at this point? Wouldn't this would leave a huge hole for the Democrats to exploit in their presidential run?


*Lord O'pie, 18 Dec 03

Again you found the answer all on your own. He based his decision on not freezing the tax cuts on politics alone.