Kinda makes ya think

[Jonathan]

edit: *double post

[Jonathan]

As sad as it is to say, Captain may be right. This war like all others everyone must remember is about politics. Pure and simple. If America would have went in and did a clean sweep quick and easy it would have sent a message to all the other countries that we are still on top and can do what we want (Bargaining Power).

We did as much of a clean sweep on the fighting side of it as possible. But now it's delicate because you're dealing with civilians, terrorists, militia, instead of an actual military. The only way to win a war without opposition would be to kill every last one of them, which clearly isn't an option morally.

[OnYrMrk]

And to add to Jonathan's post above, morality is something that the current president believes in. He is a God-fearing man who is different from Clinton. You see, Clinton would rather have someone on their knees to help him out.
Bush gets on his knees and asks for the strength to help me resolve issues in politics.

[kevinberry1]

I suppose that you can completely turn a country around overnight? Foolish Americans blamed Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression when it was actually Calvin Coolidge that caused it, because Hoover was the one that was in power at the time. Like said above, it was the easy way out.

Three points:

1: It takes YEARS to turn an economy around. The state of the economy now reflects upon what was done DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. We were in a recession before Bush was elected, primarily due to increased taxes and a failure to stimulate what was at the time a booming economy due to the "dot-com era" as well as seeing benefits of Reaganomics taking effect (<-like it or not, it works). It's finally starting to turn around now, but it'll be stitched up just in time for the next president to take credit for it because people are sheep. If things take a turn for the worse and the economy tanks during the next presidential term, that's when you can blame Bush.

2: A president can in no way control gas prices or crude prices. ALL politicians are tied into and supported by oil companies. Bush can't wave some magic wand and say jack the prices up. A president can, however, release oil reserves to increase supply, thus temporarily lower cost. Clinton did it to get his approval up before the 1996 election, actually. The reason gas is high is that all the oil companies met up and decided to be greedy assholes simultaneously. Crude is going up, any change in pricing is the perfect opportunity to increase your profit margin. On top of all other excuses, having a President blatantly tied in with oil industries is the perfect excuse, right? Hey, it's working, just blame Bush for it all. One man can do it all, apparently.

3: The war, that is Bush and the congress of that time. Have a field day on it. It needed to be done, not necessarily in the manner taken forth, but it had to happen sometime after being neglected for so long.

I typically don't get into Democrat vs. Republican because it's like asking if you'd rather be shot in the head or the chest, where the the ideal outcome is neither, but it's not an option. Given the choice I tend to prefer Republican for the benefits to the economy plus the fact that there are a lot of liberals that support things I don't agree with morally. But the party system is the #1 problem with our government.

I agree that bipartisism is a serious problem in this country with the Dems and Reps worried more about their political gain than the country as a whole. That is one of the reasons I am a moderate, and also because I hold some very conservative and some more liberal views on issues. I am a proponent of fiscal conservatism and limiting government programs; however, the example you provide in #1 is one of the biggest economic myths in existence. It is interchangeably and conveniently used by Republicans and Democrats as 'evidence' of who is responsible for the poor/good economy depending upon who was/is in power.

Reaganomics i.e. supply-side/trickle down economics only succeeds in enhancing corporate profits within a capitalistic society. The theory predicts that they will reinvest in the economy through increasing purchases, creating new companies, thereby creating more jobs for the middle and lower class. But statistically that reinvestment is not an accurate assumption. Providing the wealthy with more money does not guarantee that they will put that money back into the economy in the form of purchasing goods and services, consequently, the wealthy are more inclinded to save their money, which is probably why they are wealthy in the first place

The working middle class is much more likely to reinvest any increased income or tax rebates by purchasing goods and services; they are the crux of any capitalistic economy. Strict supply-side economics is the main reason why the division between the rich and poor (decline in middle class) grew so quickly during the 1980's and declined in the late 90's. And it is increasing again due to the current administrations policies. It does take some time for changes in tax policy to impact the greater economy, but nowhere near 6 or 8years in today's economy.

Bush's economic policy of deficit spending it going to create some consequential long-term problems for this country. We went from having a budget SURPLUS to the biggest deficit in the history of our nation, and he did this in just a few years! Just wait for that impact on our society. And who is going to repay all of that debt? The middle class.

Americans really need to think carefully about the qualifications of our next president because he or she is going to inherit some serious problems. If politics can only be ignored and we vote for the most qualified person rather than by party affiliation (either republican or democrat) we may be okay.

[Chris from MI]

When I first viewed the thread I was thinking it was going to get interesting. Time to get the popcorn and enjoy! Lol

****I am just kidding you all are making valid points and opening my eyes to many things I don't think about*****

[kevinberry1]

And to add to Jonathan's post above, morality is something that the current president believes in. He is a God-fearing man who is different from Clinton. You see, Clinton would rather have someone on their knees to help him out.
Bush gets on his knees and asks for the strength to help me resolve issues in politics.

Bush's self-proclaimed morality is nothing but a facade. He envoked the fear of our entire nation to invade a country under false pretenses. He was directly informed by the CIA not to mention any of the 'evidence' of Iraq attempting to acquire uranium from Africa, and he did so anyway using this information in his State of the Union address to justify the Iraq invasion. To me that is much more 'immoral' than cheating on your wife, but I'd be a fool to state that Billy Boy was a very moral person, lol.

[OnYrMrk]

I see nothing about your post that challenges the Morality issue that Bush has.

First and foremost, the only person he has to answer to is Jesus. Only when he is at the Judgement, will his actions have weight. When a president openly discusses his faith to a faithless nation...that speaks very highly of him. Is he lying, only God can judge that. None of us can. Lest we be judged too.

The fear of a nation??? Where did that come from? The nation first supported his action...and the media then reported no WMD's...yet there is first hand knowledge of that here on this website by soldiers there IN the battle. Now the country hates him...they first supported him, then they turned his back on him as soon as some fat hollywood director showed media propaganda rather than posting the truth, cause quite frankly...Truth is boring.

I got a big kick out of that video for one reason only. To show that even in the highest ranking profession of this country...Presidents are human too. I am sorry that your "perfect" country is now scared shitless..I really am, but if the country grew a pair rather than chopped them off, maybe the country I love would be worth living in. I am just biding my time...and if Hilliary or Obama is President....we are packing up and going to Europe. At least there, the only tree huggers are squirrels retrieving their nuts.

[ZeroAccess]

Ok guys, not to burst anyones bubbles or anything.
Its hard enough to talk about politics without making a debate turn into bickering. Lets leave religion out of it.
If you'd like to have a debate on rather or not Bush is a God fearing man or if God even exist lets do so in another thread.

[Darthness]

a few things.... first of all, during the clinton administration we had budget surpluses for the first time in years.. now that we're in war, obviously, defecit spending is at an all time high. but would it be this bad if we hadn't gone into iraq? probably not..

2nd thing... i'll probably get bashed for this... why is iraq our problem? ok, sadam is a bad guy, had many people killed, and should of been put out of power. but why is it up to US to do it? i don't see how its our responsibility.

and for all of usu that think that this war is all bush's fault, there were plans made up in ~97 that included a few reasons why sadam should be put out of power.

i dislike bush.. but i do agree with some of the republican ideas.. like privatised social security.. but some dem's are shooting for a "universal health care" type plan that i think would be great.. now if we could have that and free/cheap college education paid by the government, that'd be awesome.

but we can't afford either without huge tax hikes because half of the gov'ts budget goes to old people (a guy in my economics class suggested we kill all the old people to solve our budget problems. sounds like a plan to me, hey!)

[ZeroAccess]

I just wish that we could have taken all the money and spent it on defense

I don't want to shut down from the outside world. Wasn't it Japan that did that way back in the day when Europe was exploring everywhere. I just wish we worried about what happened here instead of everywhere else.