GW Bush

I've always felt that GW Bush was a decent man, someone you would love to have at your barbecue, and a loving father. I just don't know how he got and held the job of president.

Comment removed.

Good. This is off-topic. To not offend my very Republican wife and the conservatives out there let me say this. I think Dubya was a president who ran the office like an absent CEO. He had faith and I think generally he was likeable but it was clear from the morning that he kept on reading the book to the kids in that classroom that a group of people other than him was running the show.

Comment removed.

Given the topic, a poll choice should have been "Flame War starting in 5, 4...." :P

Yeah I am going to stay away from this one. Otherwise, we may see random computer generated paragraphs being taken seriously.

Comment removed.

Quote: pacomartin

I just don't know how he got and held the job of president.

Nepotism?

If you want an honest to god Bush lover, I'm here. Since nobody has really attacked him significantly, I don't see a reason. True, hardcore, hatred of Bush is bred from political ignorance. Reasonable problems with his policies is politics.

Quote: ahiromu

If you want an honest to god Bush lover, I'm here. Since nobody has really attacked him significantly, I don't see a reason. True, hardcore, hatred of Bush is bred from political ignorance. Reasonable problems with his policies is politics.

It always struck me as odd that the "love everybody" crowd who likes to defend dictators and murderers dreamed up Bush assassination movies and hated the man with such a passion. I think Obama's policies are doing a lot to keep America from growing and getting out of the recession, and giving more control to an already bloated federal government, but I don't HATE him personally. I will work to ensure his defeat at the polls, but I don't wish him ill whatsoever.

Exactly, cclub79, that has become the issue with politics in general. Instead of strong, well-thought arguments for or against any issue or any person, the other side (whoever it is) increasingly uses attack tactics that don't belong in good debate. There is a class of people who have decided over the years that they do not work for their constituents but for their party, their largest donors, special interests, and in the interest of perpetually remaining in Washington. What we need from both parties are citizens going to Washington and then coming home after a couple of terms; we have for far too long accepted people who shouldn't even be able to win a race for dog-catcher...hopefully, this will change and both parties will be called to task by their constituents this fall. We'll see...

I have been for and against various policies of every President I can remember. I have never wished any ill upon them.

Hopefully I have made my point without speaking for or against any particular person. I don't want to get into my political opinions other than the lack of decorum in politics in general. It is a lack of respect for each one of us, even though we pay the bills.

Quote: boymimbo

Good. This is off-topic. To not offend my very Republican wife and the conservatives out there let me say this. I think Dubya was a president who ran the office like an absent CEO. He had faith and I think generally he was likeable but it was clear from the morning that he kept on reading the book to the kids in that classroom that a group of people other than him was running the show.

Please give us a break on the "reading the book" thing. It is a stupid observation. Don't you think it is likely that the person whispering in his ear said something to the effect of, "Mr President, we need to evacuate but because it is an emergency and unexpected we need about five minutes to clear the roads and airport. This is the safest place for you so don't disturb things, I'll signal you when all is ready."

I mean, don't you think this is what most likely happened? I'm more of the idea it went like this than to believe Michael Moore who also said it would have been smarter to have AF1 on the ground.

I think "force of evil" is too strong; "tool of forces of evil" is better. We've had some great conservative presidents; I have no problems with conservatism, and I am a dedicated and forever capitalist. Every time I take those little surveys that tell you where you are on the political spectrum, I answer honestly and I always wind up as centrist, with the dot moved somewhat toward libertarian. For many things I think the conservatives are correct; for some things I think the liberals are right. And for lots of things, I think the liberals and conservatives should leave us the hell alone.

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. There's no point in trying to convince anyone otherwise over the internet.

Quote: Mosca

I think "force of evil" is too strong; "tool of forces of evil" is better. We've had some great conservative presidents; I have no problems with conservatism, and I am a dedicated and forever capitalist. Every time I take those little surveys that tell you where you are on the political spectrum, I answer honestly and I always wind up as centrist, with the dot moved somewhat toward libertarian. For many things I think the conservatives are correct; for some things I think the liberals are right. And for lots of things, I think the liberals and conservatives should leave us the hell alone.

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. There's no point in trying to convince anyone otherwise over the internet.

I took that baseball-diamiond poll and it made me a conservative-libertarian. "In the middle" people are probably libertarian though not realizing it. But libertarianism will never get elected because while in a middle gorund it pulls too much form both sides. People who want to be left alone to run a business don't get along with people who want to be allowed to "enjoy" drugs.

But John Stossel sounds better and better all the time.

Quote: AZDuffman

Please give us a break on the "reading the book" thing. It is a stupid observation. Don't you think it is likely that the person whispering in his ear said something to the effect of, "Mr President, we need to evacuate but because it is an emergency and unexpected we need about five minutes to clear the roads and airport. This is the safest place for you so don't disturb things, I'll signal you when all is ready."

I mean, don't you think this is what most likely happened? I'm more of the idea it went like this than to believe Michael Moore who also said it would have been smarter to have AF1 on the ground.

9:06am Card whispers into Bush's ear about the 2nd plane.
9:16am Bush still reading to students...
9:29am Bush still at school to talk to nation about the attack.
9:43am Bush on Air Force 1.

America is under attack, he knows it, the nation knows it, and Bush reads a book to school children. So no, I feel, in my opinion, that Bush's reaction to hearing about the attack is germane to the comment I made about him being an absent CEO. That was his moment to lead, and for me, it seemed like he was way too relaxed and was following orders rather than making them.

But I don't want to get into an argument with you, AZ.

Quote: boymimbo

9:06am Card whispers into Bush's ear about the 2nd plane.
9:16am Bush still reading to students...
9:29am Bush still at school to talk to nation about the attack.
9:43am Bush on Air Force 1.

America is under attack, he knows it, the nation knows it, and Bush reads a book to school children. So no, I feel, in my opinion, that Bush's reaction to hearing about the attack is germane to the comment I made about him being an absent CEO. That was his moment to lead, and for me, it seemed like he was way too relaxed and was following orders rather than making them.

But I don't want to get into an argument with you, AZ.

The Germans got nothing to do with it!

Not trying to get into an argument. I'm saying leaders don't lose their heads. I'm saying that leaders process information. By your own numbers Bush was responding in 23 minutes. To me, that is very good. It takes time to set up satellite feeds; it takes time to get a briefing ready; all of this was happening at a speed unseen in history. Anyone can monday-morning-quarterback months and years later (see Michael Moore's hit piece.) I think your critque is more to do with that you don't like Bush, his policies, or both.

For balance, there is word Obama was watching basketball during the final arm-twisting to get votes yesterday (on which I won't even comment.) Isn 't that the same thing?

I voted force of evil. Its definitely a little too strong, but it is probably the closest to how I feel about GW Bush. It is also the way I feel about Tony Blair, for pretty much the same reasons.

Both Bush and Blair went to war in Afghanistan, to try and get Osama and Al-Quaida. I understand that. I respect that. The war on terror in principle is a good Idea. Its the way these leaders went about it that is causing me problems. Their legacy is that we are still fighting a war ten years later that we still seem to have no chance of winning.

I understand making a strong statement of intent, but the planning seemed wanting, as did the equipment.Its not the Idea, its the method.

I equate GW Bush with Tony Blair, and this whole period of war. War cannot be good for anyone.

Quote: Croupier

I voted force of evil. Its definitely a little too strong, but it is probably the closest to how I feel about GW Bush. It is also the way I feel about Tony Blair, for pretty much the same reasons.

Both Bush and Blair went to war in Afghanistan, to try and get Osama and Al-Quaida. I understand that. I respect that. The war on terror in principle is a good Idea. Its the way these leaders went about it that is causing me problems. Their legacy is that we are still fighting a war ten years later that we still seem to have no chance of winning.

I understand making a strong statement of intent, but the planning seemed wanting, as did the equipment.Its not the Idea, its the method.

I equate GW Bush with Tony Blair, and this whole period of war. War cannot be good for anyone.

Well, what other "way" would you go about it? Not trying to be a smart@$$, but for serious discussion. Without changig an unchangable (ie: you still only had months to plan and the same equipment) what would you as a general?

The war on terror is not just a good idea "in principle"...it is something that must be done. Whether we like it or not, there is a faction of a religion out there that hates everything we stand for (UK or US, among many) and that is willing to kill anyone to bring about change in the world. What change do they want? Their stated goal is to bring a type of Sharia law to the world that is intolerable to everyone who believes in individual rights and freedoms...if they had their way completely, you'd either be Muslim or dead. War is not good for anyone, but this is not a war we "decided" to fight...it is a war brought to our shores by people who want to kill us.

There will be mistakes in war and it will take time. Just because the way the war was initially pursued may not have been perfect, it doesn't make anyone on our side of it a "force of evil"... It is so interesting to hear everyone talk about the free elections in Iraq and contrast that to all the "Bush lied" stuff. Maybe the intelligence was wrong, but I sure remember Hussein gassing his own people. I also think there where reports from outisde sources (the UN) saying he had WMD. Bush may have been wrong, but he was not evil.

It is a war we must fight. Singing Kumbaya and making nice will not change their intentions.

The war is not against "normal" peaceful Muslims...it is against radicals.

For the record, I think Obama is wrong. I don't think he is evil. I just think he wants to give away too much of what I may have or get to people that would just as soon lay on their fat butts rather than get out and work. His policies may lead to more people riding the wagon than pulling it. It chaps my a$$ to see people pull up at the free medical clinic, having no insurance, that drive a freakin' hummer and iPhones and designer clothes. I think Obama's policy will lead to more of that and not less.

What I meant to say is that I uderstand the reasoning. I would not have launched into a war like that so soon. Which Is why I'm not in charge of an army or a country.

I personally would have taken more time. I wouldnt call the time factor an unchangeable. You are going into someone elses back yard, and fighting on their terms.

With regards to equipment (and I refer to the Britsh Army here, as I have no idea regarding any other countries equipment) we were issued with weapons unsuited to the conditions, not enough body armour mor the number of soldiers out there, and vehicles that offered nowhere near enough protection from bullets never mind IEDs. This was actually stated in a report by the head of armed forces for the UK in Afghanistan, shortly before he resigned.

Part of the problem with fighting radicals, is it reinforces their beliefs. Its a difficult issue. As the the Israeli/Palestinian question.

I was trying to be diplomatic. No I didn't like Bush's policies, but I didn't mind the person. I actually supported his actions into attacking Afghanistan and although I was doubtful about Iraq, I didn't think that the Administration would resort to essentially building the case that Iraq had WMD by using such flimsy evidence and supported Bush then.

A health care vote is not an emergency. Being attacked on home soil is. At that point in time, the president had no idea whether there were other planes in the air or not. His location at that point in time is *known* and was being broadcast on television.

Obviously, the attacks on the Pentagon and the hijacking of Flight 93 were designed to take out command and control (the Pentagon, and probably either the Capitol). So for Bush to sit in one place for 23 minutes while is nation is under attack shows a lack of leadership. And I've thought that since September 11, 2001, not months or years after.
If your parents were involved in a bad car accident, would you sit at your desk and wait 1/2 an hour to figure out what to do, or would you get up and get your ass to the hospital or the accident scene? More immediately, if the national weather service indicates that there is a tornado warning in your hown town, do you sit and read a book or do you take cover and hope that the tornado doesn't hit your house?

AZ, this is the problem with America today... this incredible amount of polarization between right and left, between Conservative and Liberal, Republican and Democrat, and the lack of truth in reporting that exists on both sides. If you watch Fox News, you're a right-winged nut job who believes that Obama was born in Kenya and is going to turn the United States into a muslim Communist Republic. If you watch CNN, you're a Facebook/Twittering wanna-be-hipster twit, and if you watch CNBC, then you're a bra-burning, abortion loving, murderous, God-hating liberal. If you watch PBS, read the newspaper, or watch network news, then you're also part of the "mainstream liberal media".

The truth is somewhere in the middle of all of this. Fox News is not entirely right, and neither is CNN, or CNBC. What is really sad is that you can't watch a news program without having bias or being accused of having that bias. I mean, if CBS reported today that Man landed on Mars, you would get Fox News claiming it was a financial boondoggle initially planned by the last republican president, CNN would have a multitude of polls and opinion without actually reporting on it and conclude that 45% thought it was a waste of money, while JoeBobbutt31 twittered, "Awesome, man", and CNBC would remark it was the conceived by Carter. Objectivity is gone. Even stories that do report with actually objectivity based on real facts is called biased by one news organization or another.

The only way that America is going to survive is to roll up its sleeve and work together to get meaningful legislation and its debt under control. I know this sounds like Obamaspeak, and it is. When you look at the piece of watered junk that was passed last night in Congress, I think that the bill could have been so much better if people just looked at it for its true content rather than thinking about the funding they'll receive based on their vote or the next election result. Maybe then, something meaningful would have been passed.

Flame... now.

Quote: Croupier

What I meant to say is that I uderstand the reasoning. I would not have launched into a war like that so soon. Which Is why I'm not in charge of an army or a country.

I personally would have taken more time. I wouldnt call the time factor an unchangeable. You are going into someone elses back yard, and fighting on their terms.

With regards to equipment (and I refer to the Britsh Army here, as I have no idea regarding any other countries equipment) we were issued with weapons unsuited to the conditions, not enough body armour mor the number of soldiers out there, and vehicles that offered nowhere near enough protection from bullets never mind IEDs. This was actually stated in a report by the head of armed forces for the UK in Afghanistan, shortly before he resigned.

Part of the problem with fighting radicals, is it reinforces their beliefs. Its a difficult issue. As the the Israeli/Palestinian question.

Well, here is how I see it. You don't get to choose things in war very often. Could they have taken a few more months? Maybe. But ever watch "The Sopranos?" Somehting happens Tony would say, "If I do anything, how is it going to look?" Bush understood what Tony understood, you wait too long and both domestic pressure will build plus you look weak internationally (something Obama needs to learn fast!)

The things you cite on the British Army are close enough to what was cited here that I will generalize. Not enough body armor and vehicles without enough protection from bullets, mines, and IEDs was a problem. However, in war you must fight with what you have and not what you want. Troops modifying things in the field is as old as time. In WWII the tanks were unable to get thru hedgerows, so they took the barriers the Germnans put up and welded them to the tanks.

In other words, no general can project all needs. We were unprepared for all we needed in WWII. In the cold war we prepared for a war on the European Plain. Well, we got a different war. So we adjust tactics. The next one will be different yet and we will adjust yet again. The same complaints will be made in the next war about "preperation." Generals can only analyze and predict (guess?) what they will need. Most guesswork goes out the window at the beginning of any war.

BTW: War is the normal, peace is the abberation. While that sounds bad it must be dealt with.

Quote: RonC

....Their stated goal is to bring a type of Sharia law to the world that is intolerable to everyone who believes in individual rights and freedoms...if they had their way completely, you'd either be Muslim or dead.

Now see, here is where I have a problem. Because there are religious people here in America whose stated goal is to bring a type of Christian law to the world that is intolerable to everyone who believes in individual rights and freedoms, and if they had their way you'd either be Christian or dead. Not that they'd kill you, but they wouldn't stop trying to convert you until you were Christian or dead.

Now, I understand that the history of Islam is one of violent conversion; but that isn't really Islam, that is the culture of the Arab peoples both before and after Islam; violent death to outsiders. But the history of ALL religions that originated in the Mideast is one of intolerance.

The problem isn't in knowing that we need people with differing opinions to figure out ways to reach agreements for the good of the country and not just certain groups, it is translating that into actually coming up with and electing those people...and then having them not cave when they get into power.

Actually, your comment about rolling up sleeves and going to work to reduce the debt is surely not "Obamaspeak"--he has doubled down on all the excess spending of the Bush era with programs that spend even more. Do we need health care reform? Of course. Do we need jobs created? Sure do. We just don't need more government to be pronounced as the solution to every issue.

The US is a center-right country based on many reported observations. We need center-right solutions that are compassionate yet based on individual accountability. We need a safety "trampoline" not a safety "net"...nets catch things and keep them; trampolines will help people spring back.

We need citizens going to represent us, not career politicians. Prime example is Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). I have known of him for 37 years, since I went to a function he spoke at when I was in Boy Scouts. He has basically been a politician the whole time. No one should be able to live on politics for that long. Not one of them, either side, is that good. Did we really need to send Mr. Nelson up on the shuttle or should that space have been reserved for a scientist?

Quote: Mosca

Now see, here is where I have a problem. Because there are religious people here in America whose stated goal is to bring a type of Christian law to the world that is intolerable to everyone who believes in individual rights and freedoms, and if they had their way you'd either be Christian or dead. Not that they'd kill you, but they wouldn't stop trying to convert you until you were Christian or dead.

Now, I understand that the history of Islam is one of violent conversion; but that isn't really Islam, that is the culture of the Arab peoples both before and after Islam; violent death to outsiders. But the history of ALL religions that originated in the Mideast is one of intolerance.

Here is where my problem comes in. Everytime we see something violent in Islam we are told, "this isn't Islam." Yet Islam is the only religion that is in shooting wars with every neighboring religion (Christian, Jewish, Hindu) whereas all of those neighboring religions exist mostly peacefully with oneanother. All religions anywhere have a certain amount of intolerance, but only one is killing people over it.

At some point you have to decide for yourself "is this violence really Islam" for yourself. I'm not saying all muslims are violent murderers. But not all Germans were radical nazis. Did that make nazism any less of an issue?

Quote: RonC

The war on terror is not just a good idea "in principle"...it is something that must be done. Whether we like it or not, there is a faction of a religion out there that hates everything we stand for (UK or US, among many) and that is willing to kill anyone to bring about change in the world. What change do they want? Their stated goal is to bring a type of Sharia law to the world that is intolerable to everyone who believes in individual rights and freedoms...if they had their way completely, you'd either be Muslim or dead. War is not good for anyone, but this is not a war we "decided" to fight...it is a war brought to our shores by people who want to kill us.

9/11 was perpetrated by 19 individuals and orchestrated by a small group of radicals who hated the United States and its ideals and morals. Now we have a "War on Terror". Give me a break. What has this cost the American Citizen?

- About $2 trillion
- The loss of 3,000+ soldiers in Iraq and the permanent disability of tens of thousands of others.
- The death of about 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens
- loss of civil freedoms due to the Patriot Act.

Killing innocents in war will only breed a new cycle of hatred towards Americans and will create a new breed of terrorists. The philosophy that American took of being the single dominant superpower will fail because it had to borrow heavily to do so and now the interest payments on your debt,the reluctance to do anything about getting away from foreign oil, and the failing to raise taxes to cover expenses has dug the United States into a very very deep hole.

My feeling is that the response should have been more moderate, concentrating on Afghanistan and working with Pakistan to remove the remainder of radicals.

Quote: Mosca

Now see, here is where I have a problem. Because there are religious people here in America whose stated goal is to bring a type of Christian law to the world that is intolerable to everyone who believes in individual rights and freedoms, and if they had their way you'd either be Christian or dead. Not that they'd kill you, but they wouldn't stop trying to convert you until you were Christian or dead.

Now, I understand that the history of Islam is one of violent conversion; but that isn't really Islam, that is the culture of the Arab peoples both before and after Islam; violent death to outsiders. But the history of ALL religions that originated in the Mideast is one of intolerance.

Mosca, I am just as against anyone who is Christian and would want everyone "Christian or dead" as I am against anyone who want want everyone "Muslim or dead". I said that it wasn't all Muslims. We are fighting a war against people who would blow you and I up in a casino, a shopping center, a trade center, etc. who also happen to be radical Muslims. I would stand equally against radical Christians coming to our country and doing the same things the radical Muslims did and continue to plan to do.

Quote: boymimbo

9/11 was perpetrated by 19 individuals and orchestrated by a small group of radicals who hated the United States and its ideals and morals. Now we have a "War on Terror". Give me a break. What has this cost the American Citizen?

- About $2 trillion
- The loss of 3,000+ soldiers in Iraq and the permanent disability of tens of thousands of others.
- The death of about 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens
- loss of civil freedoms due to the Patriot Act.

Killing innocents in war will only breed a new cycle of hatred towards Americans and will create a new breed of terrorists. The philosophy that American took of being the single dominant superpower will fail because it had to borrow heavily to do so and now the interest payments on your debt,the reluctance to do anything about getting away from foreign oil, and the failing to raise taxes to cover expenses has dug the United States into a very very deep hole.

My feeling is that the response should have been more moderate, concentrating on Afghanistan and working with Pakistan to remove the remainder of radicals.

Thats kind of what I was trying to say. For a guy who wants to be a writer I seem to have trouble getting my thoughts out. Maybe its because its hard to verbalise emotion. Boymimbo has summed up my feelings well.

Quote: AZDuffman

Here is where my problem comes in. Everytime we see something violent in Islam we are told, "this isn't Islam." Yet Islam is the only religion that is in shooting wars with every neighboring religion (Christian, Jewish, Hindu) whereas all of those neighboring religions exist mostly peacefully with one another. All religions anywhere have a certain amount of intolerance, but only one is killing people over it.

At some point you have to decide for yourself "is this violence really Islam" for yourself. I'm not saying all muslims are violent murderers. But not all Germans were radical nazis. Did that make nazism any less of an issue?

Oh, I agree that they are violent whackos, but it isn't the Islam that made them that way. They would be violent whackos regardless; they would be violent whacko Christians, if they were Christian.

Perhaps the distinction is irrelevant. But the sets are not the same; one is a subset of the other, or they are intersecting, or something. I think that making the distinction is at least part of solving the problem.

Quote: Mosca

Oh, I agree that they are violent whackos, but it isn't the Islam that made them that way. They would be violent whackos regardless; they would be violent whacko Christians, if they were Christian.

Perhaps the distinction is irrelevant. But the sets are not the same; one is a subset of the other, or they are intersecting, or something. I think that making the distinction is at least part of solving the problem.

No, I disagree they wouldn't be violent anyways. There are not Christian< Jewish, or Hindu homicide bombers and terrorist attacks. The closest thing would have been the IRA which was as much about colonialism as religion.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, I disagree they wouldn't be violent anyways. There are not Christian< Jewish, or Hindu homicide bombers and terrorist attacks. The closest thing would have been the IRA which was as much about colonialism as religion.

I just picked Christianity to make a point; they would be violent whacko atheists, or Jainists, or whatever. The culture itself is what is violent, and whatever religion they were would be twisted to fit that culture. The set of "Muslims" and the set of "violent terrorist whackos" are not the same set, is what I mean.

Quote: Mosca

I just picked Christianity to make a point; they would be violent whacko atheists, or Jainists, or whatever. The culture itself is what is violent, and whatever religion they were would be twisted to fit that culture. The set of "Muslims" and the set of "violent terrorist whackos" are not the same set, is what I mean.

Well, what "culture" do you mean? There is muslim violence from West Africa to East Asia. Lots of cultures in there.

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, what "culture" do you mean? There is muslim violence from West Africa to East Asia. Lots of cultures in there.

Arabic culture, I guess I could say. I've only just started reading that history, prompted by reading The Race for Timbuktu, about European exploration of northern Africa. I need to know more before I feel confident discussing it in more detail, but I do feel confident in writing that these tribes and people were violent well before 600AD. And absolutely; the culture from West Africa through at least the Middle East. It isn't Islam that united them to violence, IMO.

But, show me I'm wrong, I'll change my mind. I might need to be shown it step by step, that these were peaceful coexistors until Mohamed, but if the facts are there then they are what they are.

Edited to add that I believe that the war on terrorism is a good thing, but right now it is being prosecuted in a very inefficient and counter-productive way. I wish I had a better answer, for how to do it, though; if I did, then I'd be more than another moke with a keyboard.

Quote: Mosca

Arabic culture, I guess I could say. I've only just started reading that history, prompted by reading The Race for Timbuktu, about European exploration of northern Africa. I need to know more before I feel confident discussing it in more detail, but I do feel confident in writing that these tribes and people were violent well before 600AD. And absolutely; the culture from West Africa through at least the Middle East. It isn't Islam that united them to violence, IMO.

Well, here is the thing, Arabic Culture is just a part of the Islamic World. Iranians are not Arabs, for example. Plenty of black Africans are also Muslim. Ditto Indonesia. But the violence is in all of these places. Thus my comment it is the religion of Islam causing the problem. BTW: There used to be a signifigant Christian Minority in plenty of Arabic countries. No more.

Quote: Mosca

I need to know more before I feel confident discussing it in more detail, but I do feel confident in writing that these tribes and people were violent well before 600AD.

European culture was pretty violent that long ago. The entire Roman civilization was at war for most of their existence. Julius Ceaser was one of the greatest genocidal mass murderers in history.

Hmm, I'm thinking more like "good intentions/force of evil"...

I know this is an old thread...but the "lies" Bush told are now being acknowledged as true:

The New York Times has finally admitted what conservatives have been saying for over a decade — that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime possessed weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations resolutions and international law.

http://conservativetribune.com/nyt-wmds-in-iraq/

Of course, every Liberal-leaning outpost is trying to downplay or deflect...

Bush...the one sure thing we can say is that he was better than Obama.

Quote: RonC

Bush...the one sure thing we can say is that he was better than Obama.

No... you can't.

Quote: ams288

No... you can't.

Well, just about unemployment, economic growth, respect around the world, dignity of the office, just those sorts of things.

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, just about unemployment, economic growth, respect around the world, dignity of the office, just those sorts of things.

The thing is people like me (the ones who couldn't care less about politics, and doesn't pay attention to whats going on) only judge the president over what effects them in their daily life. I personally would rank the last few Obama, Clinton, then Bush. Not because of their overall job but because of the few key points that actually affect my life and that I care about. I am not going to mention what those issues are but they are important to me.

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, just about unemployment, economic growth, respect around the world, dignity of the office, just those sorts of things.

You still can't.

Unemployment. Nope.



Economic growth. Nope.

Quote: ams288

You still can't.

Unemployment. Nope.



Economic growth. Nope.

You do realize that the unemployment rate stops reflecting the actual number of people that do not have jobs or are not fully employed as people drop off the official unemployment rolls, don't you? I've spoken of it before; it happens based on the way they determine the unemployment rate.

200,000 dropping off the roles lower the number of people shown as not having jobs...but job creation and a robust economy, if you hold the President as being responsible for those, are not a reality for most.

Quote: RonC

Quote: ams288

You still can't.

Unemployment. Nope.



Economic growth. Nope.

You do realize that the unemployment rate stops reflecting the actual number of people that do not have jobs or are not fully employed as people drop off the official unemployment rolls, don't you? I've spoken of it before; it happens based on the way they determine the unemployment rate.

200,000 dropping off the roles lower the number of people shown as not having jobs...but job creation and a robust economy, if you hold the President as being responsible for those, are not a reality for most.

So.... has unemployment secretly gone up under Obama? More than the 3.6% net rise during the Bush presidency? What am I missing here? Have 9+ million people dropped off the roles, so the private sector job growth number is really negative (like Bush's)?

Quote: ams288

You still can't.

Unemployment. Nope.

Nope for Obama.

Quote: RonC

You do realize that the unemployment rate stops reflecting the actual number of people that do not have jobs or are not fully employed as people drop off the official unemployment rolls, don't you? I've spoken of it before; it happens based on the way they determine the unemployment rate.

200,000 dropping off the roles lower the number of people shown as not having jobs...but job creation and a robust economy, if you hold the President as being responsible for those, are not a reality for most.

Quote: ams288

So.... has unemployment secretly gone up under Obama? More than the 3.6% net rise during the Bush presidency? What am I missing here? Have 9+ million people dropped off the roles, so the private sector job growth number is really negative (like Bush's)?

Did I say that? No, I did not. I have said before that the unemployment rate was not an actual reflection of the number of unemployed folks under either flavor of President--R or D.

"The American economy is experiencing the slowest recovery in 70 years. In addition to persistently high unemployment, labor force participation has fallen sharply since the recession began in December 2007. Today, 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or looking for work. This drop accounts for virtually the entire reduction of the unemployment rate since 2009 because those not looking for work do not count as unemployed."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/not-looking-for-work-why-labor-force-participation-has-fallen-during-the-recovery

I'm sure you'll attack the source but look at it as I do instead of as a partisan--the unemployment rate, whether a R or D is in office, is not a reflection of the whole picture...it never has been...

Quote: AZDuffman

Nope for Obama.

mmhmm. So, unemployment went up under Bush and has gone down under Obama. Isn't that the opposite of the point you're trying to make?

Edit: also, cute how that's cut off in 1/2013. Data after then doesn't exactly support your point, eh?

Quote: rdw4potus

Quote: AZDuffman

Nope for Obama.

mmhmm. So, unemployment went up under Bush and has gone down under Obama. Isn't that the opposite of the point you're trying to make?

Uh, no. Unemployment will always ebb and flow. But it has been higher under Obama than Bush, far and basically always higher.

And as has been pointed out, most of the decline under Obama has been because of more and more people refusing to work.

Business is way up for the guy selling ink to the Food Stamp printing concession, however.

Quote: ams288

Have 9+ million people dropped off the roles, so the private sector job growth number is really negative (like Bush's)?

Labor force participation rate is at its lowest since 1978.




If the same number of workers were in the workforce as were there in 2008 the unemployment rate would be a little above 10%.

I would think the things that Bush did would cause the unemployment issues for the few years after he left, just like the numbers a few years after Obama should reflect on him. It takes time for things to happen, not just 1 month because a president change.

The U1 measure is a better measure of employment.

I would suggest though an even better measure is %age of population that are net or even contributors to the tax pool.