you guys see this?

[lotas]

If ou know anything about Pearl Harbor in fact, you know the name Mitchell, an the story of his dismissal for theorizing the japanese would hit us, when, and where before any of it came to pass.

That name doesn't ring a bell, but I don't know that much about Pearl Harbor...was his theory correct, but he was dismissed for "theorizing" or something?

[lotas]

Bush takes a lot of flack, but I'd be damned if I'd ever want the two presidential terms he's had. He's been handed lemons. We were beginning a recession right as Bush got elected, thus he takes the blame for that one. Clinton rode on the ".com" bubble and the economic boom that Reaganomics created, while Bush got the resulting downfall of both internet and brick and mortar retailers due to Clinton's tax increases and failure to stimulate economic growth. Top that off with a terrorist attack, natural disasters, rising oil prices, and all kinds of other assorted crap, things don't look good to the 90% of sheep out there that don't understand that what a President does for the economy won't really be seen until the next term or even 2 terms after (depending on the changes that are made). Bush has began fixing the economy, but it's a slow, steady growth and the results will be seen a couple of years from now, probably just in time for the next president (probably a democrat) to get all the credit for it. While he's not the best president I've seen in my lifetime, despite his downfalls I do feel he's handled himself admirably with what he's been given.

I love it, and I wish more people would see that. My favorite line was,
"...things don't look good to the 90% of sheep out there..."

The funny part is 90% of them don't know they're sheep :)

[Bwcad1]

wow... i never met so many people who have the exact samethinking as i do... im so tired of everyone blaming bush its total bs... jordan i know your reading this and pissing your pants but face the facts (jordan {eaglflrys} is hard core democrat and bush hater) they have been posted above... now i want to here your argument.

[MobileAudio219]

I refuse to be labeled when it comes to politics, both parties have their ups and downs... IMO though, Bush won the election the 2nd time around by playing the anti abortion card, by doing so he won the religious vote... Notice though, he's done nothing to stop it?

Would Kerry have been any better? Maybe, maybe not...

With that being said, I don't really care for or trust Bush...

If H. Clinton runs next term I will be voting for her, most won't like me for that but oh well...

[sinister audio]

i think if i was old enough at the time and registered i would of voted for ross perot i know alot of people didnt like (cause he didnt win) but i think he would of actually done some stuff right. i know that was kinda off topic.

[Jonathan]

Clinton released oil reserves before the 96' election to lower gas prices and make the economy seem better.

All politicians are crooked, no getting around it.

[MobileAudio219]

[quote="JonathanAll politicians are crooked, no getting around it.[/QUOTE"]

I agree...

[William from NOLA]

Yea, even more so down here. I'd say more sidewards than crooked...

[kevinberry1]

Lotas, the notion of a "Liberal Media" is baseless and an outright myth. Have you ever read the book "What Liberal Media" by Eric Alterman? I would highly suggest it. He provides a lot of evidence to disprove this and how many conservatives make this claim without any substantiation. His determination, based on historical evidence, is that the media is neither more conservative or liberal, but that it tends to follow what is popular and what people are interested in; pure capitalism at work. He provides numerous examples of the media's facination with recent and past events that are in direct conflict with the liberal media myth.

Also, are you aware of who controls 90% of the media in the United States, including television, radio, magazines, and newspapers? Fewer than 5, and they are all white males and almost entirely conservative (and extremely wealthy). Their monopoly has flourished under the current administration with the conservatively controlled FCC allowing them more power with outright violations of U.S. anti-trust legislation.

I believe the real concern in our country is not how liberal or conservative the media is, but how the 2-party system is ruining politics. I was very hopeful that Bush would protect civil liberities and limit the role of the federal government when elected to office, since these were issues paramount to his campaign. However, much of what he has done in office has contradicted this, by going against the longtime republican platform of preferring states' rights versus federal involvment. Of course that was only important when democrats were in office, but now that republicans control the exectutive and legislative branches, the role of the federal government has been expanded. See the Patriot act and the Terry Shaivo case as examples of this, not to mention the huge increase in the federal governments expansion. Bush has increased the number of Federal programs, employees, and expenditure. The democrats did the same thing in office and now ironically are pressing the issue of "states' rights" because they have limited federal power and control.

In my opinion, it doesn't really come down to an issue of democrats versus republicans, but rather citizens versus politicians becuase whomever is in power appears to make an attempt to increase their party's power, influence, and control of citizens. Both parties favor certain groups, and they will say and do anything to retain and expand their control, power, etc. The sooner we realize how corrupt both paties are, and stop pointing the finger "across the aisle", our country will be much better off...

[Jonathan]

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."
-Oscar Wilde

That pretty much sums it up.