Are we better off?

[Mavrick]

I don’t get it. I have been walking the face of this earth since Kennedy was president and I just don’t get it.

Each and every president of both parties has had his moments where they wish they had done something differently. Or even worse, moments of great stupidity yet here we are again. The Democrats seem to think we have the second coming of Hitler as our president. After all Hitler too started out as an elected head of state. Then we have the republicans, they seem to believe all of our country’s woos are a result of 8 years of Bill Clinton. If you want to keep score out of the last 36 years and change its republicans 28, democrats 8.

I’m sure someone will be happy to point out any errors I may make here but let’s review here, shall we.

Kennedy, by any number of accounts seemed to really enjoy women. Even ones not named Jackie. He decided the Bay of Pigs was a good idea and then when it became apparent this rag tag bunch of Cuban refuges didn’t stand a chance in hell of success he cut them off. He brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Let’s not loose sight of the fact that the missiles Russia planted 90 miles from the US in Cuba were in response to the US putting medium range missiles in Turkey 90 miles from the soviet border first. I wonder what his chances of political survival would be in today’s world. Would he have seen a second term?

Johnson, The escalation of the Vietnam “police action” doomed him, to carpet bomb or not to carpet bomb. This thing got out of hand because civilian leaders in Washington decided to micro manage instead of giving the military their objectives and sending them out to do what they do best.

Nixon, His official white house stationary was the plain white envelope full of cash. After all, burglars and political cronies have got to eat as well. The very definition of presidential stupidly has got to be Watergate. Not only are we going to break in and bug the Democratic National Committee we are going to tape record ourselves planning it. Gee, if he hadn’t resigned in complete disgrace you think he may have been impeached?

Ford, the Cuban’s at the Bay of Pigs had a better chance. He was screwed from day one. He inherits climbing gas prices, double digit inflation and he is from the most corrupt US administration that I know of.

Carter, the guy that gave democrats a stigma they are trying to shake 30 years later. His only shining moment was the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel to bring peace to Middle East. Well, that worked out well didn’t it?

Regan, the man who was going to balance the federal budget for the first time in years He managed to get the deficit to hit in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars before he left office. Thanks to some creative aids and some money they came up with by selling arms and spare parts to Iran in exchange hostages kidnapped in Lebanon He made sure the contras in Nicaragua were funded when it was illegal to so. Due to early stages of Alzheimer’s he didn’t recall any of it. Let’s not forget that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are offshoots of the Afghan Freedom fighters that we helped in order to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. .

George the first, two big problems the first one, “read my lips, no new taxes” then a short time later he finds that we need a new bunch of “user fees”. Second is a case of if we only knew then what we know now. Only 50 miles from Baghdad, the men and equipment were in place. The people of Iraq were glad to see us for the most part. But we had won big with very few (Less than 100 if I remember correctly) coalition forces killed. We actually had world wide support then. George the first wanted a huge victory with as little bloodshed as possible. The fear that the coalition would break apart and the US would be on its own also had a part in this decision. For anyone looking for the root cause as to how we got buried up to our necks in Iraq today here it is. We stopped 50 miles short and then we did the same to the Kurds as we did to the Cubans 25 years earlier. We encouraged them to rise up and fight Saddam and then we give them no support at all except to set up north and south no fly zones. That was easy to do seeing as how we had already shot down every thing that could fly. If it wasn’t shot down it got sent to Iran. This lack of support allowed Saddam to send troops into the Kurdish territories and increase his body count once again. The downturn in the economy and rising deficits again made a second term a no go.

Now we come to the republican’s lightning rod, Bill Clinton. Poor Bill 6 years later and he is personally responsible for all that’s wrong n the world today. Foley was in congress during Clinton’s term. Maybe he set him up with the teenage boys he was attracted to. No wait maybe Clinton made him become gay.

Monica, Somalia and Bin Laden, where do we want to start? What the hell lets take the easy one first, Monica. What do you think pissed off Hillary more? 1) Bills poor taste in women. (In my opinion), 2) The stained dress that Monica was saving as a keepsake. 3) Bill questioning whether oral sex was defined as sex during his deposition (I thought a Rhodes Scholar would know that one). Or last but not least her cheating husband was on the world’s stage as her cheating husband. As far as Somalia is concerned, if you are going in as peacekeepers make sure at least one or two of the people who live in that country want peace. If a country has no government, no army or police force your chance for success is severely hampered. If you choose to take on this challenge anyway make damn sure you have enough men and firepower on hand to take on a completely lawless state controlled by warlords. The biggie has got to be Bin Laden. He made no secret that he wanted the US brought to its knees. The bombing of several US facilities in the Middle East and the bombing of the USS Cole brought that home to us. The fact that Bin Laden was alive when Bill’s time was up I’ll bet has him wishing he had done something’s differently.

Before I start on George the second I want to make it clear I supported most of the actions that he took immediately following September the 11th. Also due to fact that Iraq was a haven for terrorists trying to destroy us and they were back in the weapons of mass destruction business I also supported the invasion of Iraq.

This is why I am writing this now. A short time ago I read a couple of posts by someone I don’t remember who, that stated that the Bush administration never said that Iraq had WMD’s or that Iraq was a supporter of terrorist only that they could have been. Now I have been around the block long enough to know that some people are going to support and defend the party they belong to come hell or high water no matter what. I have no problem with that just make damn sure you have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Bush himself stated this as fact in his state of the union address/axis of evil speech. Colin Powell even showed us pictures of trucks, plants and materials that he stated as POSTIVE proof of the production of chemical and biological weapons during his presentation to the UN trying to drum up support for this war. The administration also kept bring up the fact that one of the 9/11 highjackers had a meeting in Iraq a little while before coming to the US. This was also brought up by Powell at the UN. . It was later proved that Alta was nowhere near Iraq when this meeting was taking place. This was part of a government report. Not on some partisan web site or talk radio show. (By the way I’m on a car site not a political site now for good reason) At best members of this administration were incompetent and told George only what he wanted to hear and at worse we were lied to. I tend to believe the latter more than the former.

So where are we now? The Taliban has seen and learned from the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan blowing up again. We should have cleaned up that mess first. Iraq is escalating by the day they could be in the mist of a full blown civil war in 4 to 6 months. Iraq already has 600,000 (this is not a typo) civilian deaths since the start of this war. (This was part of a government report reported by the Associated Press or New York Times on 10/11/06. Sorry I can’t remember who off hand).In all the years Saddam was doing his thing he only managed to kill 250 to 300,000 (Sorry again, I can’t remember where I saw that number but I do remember seeing it) No WMD’s and no terrorist links until US forces showed up. But now thanks to us the terrorist have a place to go and practice their craft. From a pure dollar standpoint this war had a pre-war estimate of 80 to 100 billion dollars. Last number I heard was we are at 200 billion and climbing. In the mean time Iran and North Korea are progressing quite nicely with their nuclear programs thank you very much. If we are not very careful we are going to be looked upon the much same way Germany and Japan were after WWII by the rest of the world

On the domestic front, George the second has managed to take 7 straight years of budget surpluses during Clinton’s term and turn them into what at one time was a 500 billion deficit. This year it will be around 350 billion. Thanks for the tax cut that as a true member of the middle class I didn’t even notice. From what I hear the millionaires liked it. Oh well, I guess he is doing all he can to see to it that our next president will be a democratic women.

It’s with a great deal of pride that I currently have a son serving in the US Navy. I live and work in an area with a very large military presence. These men and women deserve our support. They also deserve to know that when we ask them to put their lives on the line it’s for a right, just and moral cause. I’m afraid we may have let them down this time. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t see this ending well at all. We have and are going to have to continue to pay a hell of a cost.

I am not republican I am not democrat. I am capable of independent thought and I know I am voting for a man or woman not a party. The world we live in is not black and white its filled with a whole lot of grey. It’s easy to deal with the back & white its how our leaders deal with the grey that gives us their true measure. It’s not up to me. It’s not up to a talk radio host or some web blog you need measure our leaders for yourself.

I will leave you with the question that got Regan elected to a second term. Are we better off today than we were 4 years ago?

 

[formerknown]

Better off in general; and we'd be even more better off if we banish political parties from this great nation. They do nothing more than play games with your freedoms, tax dollars, lives, and much more. Both parties are monopolizing your government and increasing it by the hour. I don't care who says what; they're all in it for the money. No party respresents "the people"- regardless of what they tell you. As it's been said in the past: loyalty goes to the highest bidder.

Republican, Democrat; same SH1T, different pile. Vote independent.

 

[fossten]

I would also say that we should break up the major media networks like the govt. did to Ma Bell. Maybe they would be more responsible if they had to tell the truth for a living.

 

[MonsterMark]

I don’t get it. I have been walking the face of this earth since Kennedy was president and I just don’t get it.

Too bad I have some stuff to get done today. I would be happy to help you 'get it'. You're just lost and need direction. I'll be back later to help.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Too bad I have some stuff to get done today. I would be happy to help you 'get it'. You're just lost and need direction. I'll be back later to help.

TRANSLATION: Hang around here long enough and listen to me and my other RWW friends fossten and Calabrio and we'll brainwash you into being another hardcore, ignorant shrubbie.

Mavrick, welcome. You've accurately articulated the sentiments of how the majority of rational thinking Americans feel today. :Beer

 

[fossten]

TRANSLATION: Hang around here long enough and listen to me and my other RWW friends fossten and Calabrio and we'll brainwash you into being another hardcore, ignorant shrubbie.

Mavrick, welcome. You've accurately articulated the sentiments of how the majority of rational thinking Americans [LOL where have I heard that phrase before? (See below)] feel today. :Beer

TRANSLATION: I get all my talking points from either DU, DailyKos, or Huff N Puff.

Mavrick, welcome to the site. I can see you've given this stuff a lot of thought. Don't mind johnny, he's just the resident hater troll know-nothing.

 

[Mavrick]

Better hurry and set me right MonsterMark. My BS meter is off the chart. When Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Matt Drudge are someone’s idea of fair and balanced reporting, when people are more concern with how the Foley news broke rather than who may have known what when, when people are using other peoples past indiscretions and what happened to them as justification for ignoring what may or may not have happened in Foley’s case, when people are blaming the teaching of evolution for school shootings my BS meter redlines.

I listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly from time to time but they are completely bias political commentators not news sources. Why give a damn how something that we think is or may be wrong is brought light? Just because someone in the past got away with something similar we should just let this go without checking into. One of the biggest lessons I tried to teach my kid is that two wrongs don’t make a right. You want to find out why people are shooting each other look at home. Since when did we turn over control of our kids to their teachers? I sent my kid to school to learn reading, writing and arithmetic. His moral compass and sense of right and wrong came from his mother and me not his teachers and sure as hell not from one subject taught at school.

From the few things I have looked over here I’m not going to change any minds. If you want a shot at changing mine go for it but you better hurry because when this thread runs its course my brief foray into the world of political bulletin boards will be over. My BS meter just can’t take it.

 

[fossten]

Better hurry and set me right MonsterMark. My BS meter is off the chart. When Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Matt Drudge are someone’s idea of fair and balanced reporting, when people are more concern with how the Foley news broke rather than who may have known what when, when people are using other peoples past indiscretions and what happened to them as justification for ignoring what may or may not have happened in Foley’s case, when people are blaming the teaching of evolution for school shootings my BS meter redlines.

I listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly from time to time but they are completely bias political commentators not news sources. Why give a damn how something that we think is or may be wrong is brought light? Just because someone in the past got away with something similar we should just let this go without checking into. One of the biggest lessons I tried to teach my kid is that two wrongs don’t make a right. You want to find out why people are shooting each other look at home. Since when did we turn over control of our kids to their teachers? I sent my kid to school to learn reading, writing and arithmetic. His moral compass and sense of right and wrong came from his mother and me not his teachers and sure as hell not from one subject taught at school.

From the few things I have looked over here I’m not going to change any minds. If you want a shot at changing mine go for it but you better hurry because when this thread runs its course my brief foray into the world of political bulletin boards will be over. My BS meter just can’t take it.

First of all, let's address Foley. He did the right thing and resigned. He's gone. So can we dispense with the details of his situation, since no more is being gained by discussing him? Fine. Second, the page program. Are the pages in danger of being exploited by people like Foley? Maybe, but the only way to find out is to discover how long people had the IMs in their possession before they released them. There is evidence that the IMs were held as far back as April. That sort of undercuts the argument that the motivation to release them was to 'protect the children,' doesn't it? If it was all about the "chirrun," shouldn't they have come forward sooner? And when they examined the emails (as distinguished from the IMs), even ABC's Brian Ross admitted there was nothing there worth reporting.

This raises another question. "Why DID they hold the information?" Do you approve of people holding back information that could expose a criminal, only because of political advantage? Doesn't that make the source an accessory? Doesn't that also mean that other children could be exploited in the meantime?

Furthermore, bringing up past miscreants on the other side isn't being done to excuse Foley's behavior. Rather, it's being done to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Yes, I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, but Pelosi doesn't have the right to cast stones either, since she's one of the biggest hypocrites. I say investigate everybody. Look at EVERYBODY'S IMs in the entire Congress. Let's sort the wheat from the chaff. I bet the Democrats cower in fear at the thought of that, and therein lies the falsehood that this is a Republican coverup.

Finally, aren't you the least bit curious if any Democrats had the information in their possession? Hastert has denied repeatedly that he knew about the IMs, but Nancy Pelosi hasn't even been asked. Wouldn't you want to know about that, in all fairness? What if she sat on the information, allowing this to go on without saying anything? Isn't that hypocritical? Just look at which party benefited from this incident. Are you really so naive as to think that the Democrats had no idea this was coming?

Another of your points: Nobody's disputing the claim that Rush is biased, but he consistently allows liberals to the front of the line when they call the program. O'Reilly has been fair to both sides, which is proven by the fact that I frequently disagree with him, and he more often than not has both sides represented when he debates, UNLIKE Keith Olbermann, who's too chicken to bring anybody to the right of Howard Dean on his program. And Drudge is pretty even-handed too. The point is that people like Rush and Hannity don't need to balance their programs, because their programs bring balance to the media as a whole, which is predominantly liberally biased. If you don't believe the media is biased, go visit newsbusters.org for a few days. The bias is thoroughly documented there.

 

[Mavrick]

First of all, let's address Foley. He did the right thing and resigned. He's gone. So can we dispense with the details of his situation, since no more is being gained by discussing him? Fine. Second, the page program. Are the pages in danger of being exploited by people like Foley? Maybe, but the only way to find out is to discover how long people had the IMs in their possession before they released them. There is evidence that the IMs were held as far back as April. That sort of undercuts the argument that the motivation to release them was to 'protect the children,' doesn't it? If it was all about the "chirrun," shouldn't they have come forward sooner? And when they examined the emails (as distinguished from the IMs), even ABC's Brian Ross admitted there was nothing there worth reporting.

This raises another question. "Why DID they hold the information?" Do you approve of people holding back information that could expose a criminal, only because of political advantage? Doesn't that make the source an accessory? Doesn't that also mean that other children could be exploited in the meantime?

Furthermore, bringing up past miscreants on the other side isn't being done to excuse Foley's behavior. Rather, it's being done to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Yes, I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, but Pelosi doesn't have the right to cast stones either, since she's one of the biggest hypocrites. I say investigate everybody. Look at EVERYBODY'S IMs in the entire Congress. Let's sort the wheat from the chaff. I bet the Democrats cower in fear at the thought of that, and therein lies the falsehood that this is a Republican coverup.

Finally, aren't you the least bit curious if any Democrats had the information in their possession? Hastert has denied repeatedly that he knew about the IMs, but Nancy Pelosi hasn't even been asked. Wouldn't you want to know about that, in all fairness? What if she sat on the information, allowing this to go on without saying anything? Isn't that hypocritical? Just look at which party benefited from this incident. Are you really so naive as to think that the Democrats had no idea this was coming?

Another of your points: Nobody's disputing the claim that Rush is biased, but he consistently allows liberals to the front of the line when they call the program. O'Reilly has been fair to both sides, which is proven by the fact that I frequently disagree with him, and he more often than not has both sides represented when he debates, UNLIKE Keith Olbermann, who's too chicken to bring anybody to the right of Howard Dean on his program. And Drudge is pretty even-handed too. The point is that people like Rush and Hannity don't need to balance their programs, because their programs bring balance to the media as a whole, which is predominantly liberally biased. If you don't believe the media is biased, go visit newsbusters.org for a few days. The bias is thoroughly documented there.

If you read what I said I never mentioned republicans or democrats. All I said is we should be interested in who knew what when. I really don’t care a lick if it’s a republican or a democrat that goes down IF someone needs to go down. Maybe the whole thing is a whole lot of nothing. I don’t know. Is the timing of this thing suspect? Maybe, if you want to investigate that as well, fine. Kenneth Star was brought in to investigate Whitewater but he was able to branch out to what ever floated his boat so go ahead and check into the timing. I really don’t care. IF you are correct in your assumption about the timing, yes I would find that disturbing. I just don’t see what the timing has to do with checking into this and finding out IF the proper measures were taken to protect these young men and women. IF they were, fine everyone can go about their business. We are talking about kids here and IF the proper measures were not taken or IF they were and are found to be inadequate wouldn’t we want to fix it? We have a whole lot of IF’s here I would like to see answered to my satisfaction. IF you’re satisfied good for you I’m not.

As far as Keith Olbermann goes, I don’t pay a bit of attention to him. I’ve heard Limbaugh a lot more than him. Maybe I’m giving myself more credit than I should but I stick to watching, listening and reading from multiple NEWS sources and try to come to my own conclusions. I have republican and democrat friends and family that that provide me with all the political commentary I need in order to show me the error of my ways. The only reason I found this part of this site was I couldn’t get to sleep one night a few weeks ago and was just kicking around the site and I ran across it. I have the Mark VIII part of this site programmed into my favorites because of the wealth of information and the willingness to share it with idiots like me who were smart enough to buy the car but too dumb to know a damn thing about it This is the first and I can say with a great deal of confidence the last political bulletin board I have ever read or chimed in on.

If any of you reading this has been one of the ones that have been so much help with the few issues I have had with my car I say thanks again and I hope you won’t hold what I have written here against me. If you do, I take it all back after all I care a whole lot more about if my car gets from point A to point B than I do if you disagree with what I have had to say here.

 

[MonsterMark]

I thought about trying to 'help' you but you are already biased to the Left. You 'try' to act like you run down the center but you need a front end alignment. Car is pulling to the Left pretty bad and your wearing your tires out.

(Notice all the references to cars just to keep you happy and tuned in?)

You drink at the trough of the Drive-By-Media and there is little we can do for you at this point.

Sorry!

You want help with the Foley situation.

The Republicans had a foggot on their team. Instead of throwing him under the train, they
practiced what you Libs love to hear and your boy Clinton invented... Don't ask, Don't tell! Isn't that what we do with gay people?

They had a talk with the guy and told him to give it a break. He obviously didn't listen. The fact that you have your trousers all twisted about this tells me EXACTLY where you are coming from. If this was a Dem that had done it, we wouldn't have heard about it or worse, we would have and the guy would be on some kind of pedestal. As a father of 4 boys, I have zero tolerance for gay man that preys on young boys. Too bad liberals celebrate this sickness as something that is normal. Go figure.

 

[Mavrick]

I thought about trying to 'help' you but you are already biased to the Left. You 'try' to act like you run down the center but you need a front end alignment. Car is pulling to the Left pretty bad and your wearing your tires out.

(Notice all the references to cars just to keep you happy and tuned in?)

You drink at the trough of the Drive-By-Media and there is little we can do for you at this point.

Yeah, it’s fair to say my car runs a little towards the left. As far as the Foley thing is concerned I would like to know more before any heads get slapped on the chopping block including but not limited to the house speaker. If we lived in a perfect world I wouldn’t mind if an investigation was conducted for the most part in private. I know something about reputations being smeared and later being shown as unjust. More important however is the fact that minors are involved. They and their families don’t deserve to have their lives defined by this. My only point was I think that we need to know if the proper protections are in place. I would be perfectly happy if I didn’t see, hear or read one more thing about this until the results of a fair and impartial investigation came out.

My second post was just to point out the fact that this political bulletin board thing was not my cup of tea but you had said you wanted to set me right on what I had to say on the post I put up to start this thread and I wanted to make sure you had your chance.
But unfornutly out of everything I had to write this is what we seem to have latched on to.

If you reread my first post you should find that yes while my front end may have alignment issues my tires are well balanced and wearing just fine. I have now participated in 7 presidential elections and my scorecard is 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 1 Independent.

I just wish I could get one good argument or debate on my original question “Are we better off than we were four years ago?” and taking it a step further how or why? But no, it seems that bitching about the media and attaching labels is the way points are made here. It’s too bad I was hoping for more.

 

[Mavrick]

Sorry, I put the same post agian and couldn't delete it.

 

[fossten]

I just wish I could get one good argument or debate on my original question “Are we better off than we were four years ago?” and taking it a step further how or why? But no, it seems that bitching about the media and attaching labels is the way points are made here. It’s too bad I was hoping for more.

I perceive that your question is related to the federal government and George W. Bush, and whether or not his general economic policies have been successful for the country overall. The answer I have is a resounding YES. The economy has exploded, growing in leaps and bounds. We have achieved new records in the stock market. Bush's policies have created millions of jobs overall in the last 4 years. The housing market has had sustained growth. We've covered these topics in another thread.

Well, you might say, but don't tax cuts increase the federal deficit? What about fiscal responsibility? Well, the answer to that is that despite the tax cuts, or rather because of them, the deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of time. Federal tax receipts for this year are tens of billions higher than expected. It seems that cutting taxes creates new jobs, which creates new taxpayers, which increases tax receipts.

What about these people that the media trots out, showing that they are struggling? It's possible for anyone, especially a reporter, to find a disgruntled person in any state who is not better off. They do it all the time. So to pre-empt any argument, I will cite various reasons why economic conditions across the country may vary on a personal level. You may have state laws, taxes, industries, and governors local to that state which may cause economic conditions to be more or less favorable to various people. But your question, when referring to a collective 'we the people of the United States', clearly deserves a YES answer.

 

[Mavrick]

I perceive that your question is related to the federal government and George W. Bush, and whether or not his general economic policies have been successful for the country overall. The answer I have is a resounding YES. The economy has exploded, growing in leaps and bounds. We have achieved new records in the stock market. Bush's policies have created millions of jobs overall in the last 4 years. The housing market has had sustained growth.

To start with, THANK YOU. This I can take. Well reasoned and makes sense to me for the most part. I think you give some of the media a little too much credit for the influence they have but they can and have got things wrong. I also know that it’s not below them to get carried away with certain stories. I’m also thinking that some computers have a media attack program installed at the time they were built. As far as busting up the media goes Ma Bell was one company that controlled every phone in America. Isn’t the media already broken up? To the best of my knowledge it’s not all controlled from one place, person or company. In fact with all the news radio, television and internet sources I would have thought it was in enough pieces already. Oh well, the genies out of the bottle on that one anyway and unless you tear up the constitution you haven’t a chance in hell of putting it back in.

The greater Seattle area may have been hit a little harder than some other areas as a result of the dot com busts of the late 90’s and with 9/11 and the hit that Boeing took. From your response here I guess the fact that we can’t get near an even half way decent fixer upper home for less than a quarter of a million is a good thing. Damn I just wasted the last year being bummed watching my hope for a new house climbing away. I make a better than average wage and it can’t keep pace the way housing prices are going up around here. But as much as I would like to say that’s Bush’s fault its not it’s a result of where I choose to live. I too, feel the economy is rebounding and is in better shape than it was four years ago. I did, albeit in a backhanded way, believe I gave Bush credit for cutting 150 billion from the deficit.

I may have made a mistake quoting Regan when I posed my question. I’m more concern with Bush’s foreign policy than his domestic. While I believe the world is a better place without Saddam in it. My reasons for initially supporting the invasion of Iraq were that we had been assured over and over again they were producing chemical and biological weapons and they had strong links to the very terrorist that wanted to destroy us. No WMD’s, no terrorist connections. Now as a result of us invading, Iraq is the Harvard for terrorist training. Training, they now are putting to use against us in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

I just think Bush the second was hell bent on invading Iraq no matter what. I don’t know maybe Saddam’s failed assassination plot against Bush the first drove him towards it. Dick Cheney also may have had his hand in the middle of his back pushing. I may be wrong but I think that Cheney was less than thrilled about stopping 50 miles away from Bagdad in the first gulf war. With each new month, with each new casualty, with each new milestone that is suppose to come and bring a decrease in the violence this administration seems to be changing its story as to why we are there. The thing is why isn’t even that important. We need to finish it. I just get tired of the story changing. I get tired of no one admitting that we made a mistake and now we need to clean it up. That I understand.

Of course with hindsight being 20/20 I just wish we had finished the job in Afghanistan instead of going after Iraq.

I also wish we had some idea as to what the conditions need to be before we can say mission accomplished. Or, and I really hope we don’t get to this point, what conditions need to be present for us to come to the conclusion that our presences is doing more harm than good and Iraq would be better off going it alone? With Iran on one side and Syria on the other if we are forced out before the Iraqis can defend themselves that could spell disaster for the Middle East. Because of the dynamics at work here it could be 10 or 15 or even more years to the end this.

As much as I now believe this was an ill fated war based on overzealousness or lies we’re the ones that made this mess and we need to fix it as best we can.

As far as I’m concerned we may be better off economically than we were four years ago. But the world has 6.5 billion people. Out of that 300 million are Americans. More and more of the other 6,250,000,000 don’t trust us, don’t like us or want to kill us. We are not any safer and each day more of our citizens are being killed because this administration screwed up.

So if the measure of being better off is my wallet yeah, ok. If it’s my countries choice of armed conflict, as a country, feeling safer or being any closer to the end of this war I would have to say no.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Oh well, the genies out of the bottle on that one anyway and unless you tear up the constitution you haven’t a chance in hell of putting it back in.

Careful there, don't want to give fossten any more fodder to persue his ultimate goal.

I agree with most everything else you said. About the only thing I'll add is that our current economic status is financed on the backs of the lowest wage earners of this country. Additionally, we are just now getting back to where we were 4 years ago. IMO, this says more about the strong US economy in general than anything BuSh may have done to help it get there. While some may argue that his tax cuts to the rich has helped boost the economy by encouraging investment in new jobs, it has also caused a temporary setback in the overall position from where we were. Also, be careful believing the numbers coming out of the White House, they've been known to spin the facts as you know. The original projections were overly gloomy, so now the actual results look great in comparison. The national debt remains at or near an all time high, which means our children will eventually have to pay the price. Bottom line: Our economy IS stronger now than it was 4 years ago, but it's a stretch to give BuSh all the credit for that. But like you, this is of minor concern to me compared to the security of our nation and our position in the world. We are NOT safer than we were on 9/10/01 or 10/16/02. While the GWOT is indeed a noble cause, it has been poorly planned and executed by the current administration and the GOP led houses have not held BuSh & co. accountable for these gross errors. For these reasons, they all need to get booted from office.

 

[fossten]

To start with, THANK YOU. This I can take. Well reasoned and makes sense to me for the most part. I think you give some of the media a little too much credit for the influence they have but they can and have got things wrong. I also know that it’s not below them to get carried away with certain stories. I’m also thinking that some computers have a media attack program installed at the time they were built. As far as busting up the media goes Ma Bell was one company that controlled every phone in America. Isn’t the media already broken up? To the best of my knowledge it’s not all controlled from one place, person or company. In fact with all the news radio, television and internet sources I would have thought it was in enough pieces already. Oh well, the genies out of the bottle on that one anyway and unless you tear up the constitution you haven’t a chance in hell of putting it back in.

The greater Seattle area may have been hit a little harder than some other areas as a result of the dot com busts of the late 90’s and with 9/11 and the hit that Boeing took. From your response here I guess the fact that we can’t get near an even half way decent fixer upper home for less than a quarter of a million is a good thing. Damn I just wasted the last year being bummed watching my hope for a new house climbing away. I make a better than average wage and it can’t keep pace the way housing prices are going up around here. But as much as I would like to say that’s Bush’s fault its not it’s a result of where I choose to live. I too, feel the economy is rebounding and is in better shape than it was four years ago. I did, albeit in a backhanded way, believe I gave Bush credit for cutting 150 billion from the deficit.

I may have made a mistake quoting Regan when I posed my question. I’m more concern with Bush’s foreign policy than his domestic. While I believe the world is a better place without Saddam in it. My reasons for initially supporting the invasion of Iraq were that we had been assured over and over again they were producing chemical and biological weapons and they had strong links to the very terrorist that wanted to destroy us. No WMD’s, no terrorist connections. Now as a result of us invading, Iraq is the Harvard for terrorist training. Training, they now are putting to use against us in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

I just think Bush the second was hell bent on invading Iraq no matter what. I don’t know maybe Saddam’s failed assassination plot against Bush the first drove him towards it. Dick Cheney also may have had his hand in the middle of his back pushing. I may be wrong but I think that Cheney was less than thrilled about stopping 50 miles away from Bagdad in the first gulf war. With each new month, with each new casualty, with each new milestone that is suppose to come and bring a decrease in the violence this administration seems to be changing its story as to why we are there. The thing is why isn’t even that important. We need to finish it. I just get tired of the story changing. I get tired of no one admitting that we made a mistake and now we need to clean it up. That I understand.

Of course with hindsight being 20/20 I just wish we had finished the job in Afghanistan instead of going after Iraq.

I also wish we had some idea as to what the conditions need to be before we can say mission accomplished. Or, and I really hope we don’t get to this point, what conditions need to be present for us to come to the conclusion that our presences is doing more harm than good and Iraq would be better off going it alone? With Iran on one side and Syria on the other if we are forced out before the Iraqis can defend themselves that could spell disaster for the Middle East. Because of the dynamics at work here it could be 10 or 15 or even more years to the end this.

As much as I now believe this was an ill fated war based on overzealousness or lies we’re the ones that made this mess and we need to fix it as best we can.

As far as I’m concerned we may be better off economically than we were four years ago. But the world has 6.5 billion people. Out of that 300 million are Americans. More and more of the other 6,250,000,000 don’t trust us, don’t like us or want to kill us. We are not any safer and each day more of our citizens are being killed because this administration screwed up.

So if the measure of being better off is my wallet yeah, ok. If it’s my countries choice of armed conflict, as a country, feeling safer or being any closer to the end of this war I would have to say no.

Note that many of your points about what you believe, such as that Bush supposedly was hell bent on invading Iraq no matter what, have been spawned by Democrats and Media types. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he wanted that, and in fact, there is evidence to the contrary.

Look at the time line. Eighteen months of UN resolutions. Repeated resolutions and urgings by Congressmen, Democrats included, telling Bush that Iraq was a clear and present danger, the fact that Iraq had WMDs and had USED WMDs in the past, the fact that we HAVE found WMDs in Iraq, the fact that Hussein had threatened us, the fact that Hussein had refused to comply with UN inspectors for eighteen months, all contributed to Bush's reluctant decision to go into Iraq.

It is easy to look with hindsight at North Korea and Iran, but at the time, if you recall, Iraq was the most imminent threat. If you're not going to hit everybody that threatens you all at once, then you've got to deal with the nearest threats first. Not only is the world safer without Saddam in power, but Iraqis and Americans are safer.

You are right that much of the world hates us. But what should we do about it? Surrender to the rest of the world? Ludicrous. Isn't it Bush's job as commander in chief to protect us from threats? I vehemently disagree with the notion that we should have to change our culture so the rest of the world will like us. The world would be down the sh!tter if it weren't for the United States of America, and even haters like Johnny can't deny that.

Because of our culture, we are able to send BILLIONS of dollars of aid around the world, helping starving, stupid, malevolent societies that can't feed themselves because they are ruled by fascist dictators and despots. North Korea is no exception. In fact, when Bush realized that the aid that Clinton agreed to send North Korea was being used to build nukes, he cut that money off. What would you have done? Talked to them about it?

Clinton and Albright talked to NK for eight years, and all that accomplished was NK cheating and lying and continuing to build up nukes. Guess talking doesn't always work. My point is that sometimes you've got to think of our own American citizens' rights and safety before you worry about what the rest of the world thinks. Maybe that means the Frenchies won't like us, but who gives a crap about them anyway? They've never been anything but ungrateful for us bailing them out of two world wars.

Don't believe everything you see on CNN.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Note that many of your points about what you believe, such as that Bush supposedly was hell bent on invading Iraq no matter what, have been spawned by Democrats and Media types. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he wanted that, and in fact, there is evidence to the contrary.

You are either lying or living in a State of Denial (pun intended). These proven facts have been paraded under your nose many times here on this forum, yet you refuse to believe those facts. I'm done wasting my time on your ignorance.

 

[fossten]

You are either lying or living in a State of Denial (pun intended). These proven facts have been paraded under your nose many times here on this forum, yet you refuse to believe those facts. I'm done wasting my time on your ignorance.

Does this mean you're leaving? Good, I can feel the IQ of this forum rising already.

Maybe now we can get back to debating the issues instead of personal attacks.

You make the other libs on this forum look like nice people, Hater.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

blah blah blah

Speak up, the only thing coming out of your mouth is "blah blah blah". Did you say something that might be considered comprehensible?

 

[fossten]

Mavrick, I apologize for Johnny. In addition to being the resident know-nothing hater on this site, he is also a thread hijacker and name-caller extraordinaire.

Pay no attention to the lizard behind the curtain.

 

[MonsterMark]

I just wish I could get one good argument or debate on my original question “Are we better off than we were four years ago?” and taking it a step further how or why?

Here's why I feel we are better off....!!!!!

Budget:
Deficit reduced to 248 billion, 3 years ahead of schedule. Only 1.9% of economy, which is lower than 18 of the past 25 years.

· Reduced Marriage Penalty
· Doubled Child Tax Credit
· Trying to eliminate death tax
· Cut tax rates on small business which create 70% of all jobs
· Cut taxes on dividends and capital gains. 50% of all Americans now own stocks
· Economy has grown for 37 straight months after suffering the Clinton recession and 9-11
· 6.6 million new jobs added since August 2003
· Unemployment down to 4.6%
· Tax revenues INCREASED by $253 billion in 2006. 11.8% increase
· LARGEST back-to-back INCREASES IN TAX REVENUE EVER and largest % increases in 25 years
· Cut non-defense, non-homeland discretionary spending

Education:
No Child Left Behind. Actually forces teachers to teach kids. Imagine that. We need school vouchers and privitazation to eliminate the 'tenure' infection that hurts all our kids. We need to weed out the bad teachers, not reward them for life because of a chosen profession.

Energy:
The Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative
· $1.1 Billion to build new plants. Now 16 companies, instead of 2 are interested.
· $44 million for wind energy research
· $150 million for solar technology, 75% more than is currently being spent

Global Warming:
What happened to all the hurricanes that were supposed to crush us this year? Oopps. Maybe were are actually global cooling now. Bush didn’t fall the Kyoto accord, which would have put us at a disadvantage for the next 30 years. Point is...Act rationally. Don't listen to the wackos.

Health Care:
On Aug 22nd, Bush signed an executive order to increase the transparency of the health care system. A good 1st move. We do not need national healthcare. We already have that.

Homeland Security:
Need I say more. We haven’t been attacked for over 5 years in America. Not even a fart in a subway, We took the fight to the enemy overseas which has kept us safer at home.
· Passed the Patriot Act
· Passed the Safe Port Act

Immigration:
We will get immigration reform once we get the Demwits out of the way. Heck, even China is building a wall next to North Korea. We don’t need a wall, we just need to get rid of Democrats that want to give licenses and free health care to anyone that will vote for them.

Jobs:
· 4.6 % Unemployment
· Nominal wage growth increasing 4.1% which is equal to that of the ‘90’s when anybody could get a job at an ‘internet’ company making stupid money.
· Productivity has increased more over the last year than the averages of the last 3 decades.
· Dow hits a record high which means we finally wiped out the Clinton legacy.

Judicial:
We added Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court, moving it closer to the middle. With a Republican victory in ’08, we’ll finally be able to move it over the tipping point into a conservative mode which will be good for all Americans and stop most of the nonsense that is going on. Plus dozens being confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals that lessens the liberal grip on many fronts. About time.

Medicare:
Passed the Presciption Drug Plan.

Now we need medical liability reform to save us from the costs of the ridiculous and sometimes frivolous lawsuits that have infected this land.

Middle East Policy:
If we stay the course, we win in the Middle East. Yes, it is painful, but it is the right thing to do. We need to adjust our tactics, but this is not the time to flinch. We pullout, the world loses.


Patriot Act:
Thank God we had a Republican in office. Bush signs the PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act. Dims would have killed this off and we would be less safe without it.

Social Security:
We need private saving plans. Social Security is a joke as it is and will not be there when my kids would be ‘entitled’ to it. Let people save the 12.4% that is taken from their paycheck and give them several choices for better long-term returns. Then, the money will be there when ‘they’ need it. Privatization is good for ALL income brackets.


That’s the best I can do in a short time. Hope it helps.

 

[Mavrick]

Here's why I feel we are better off....!!!!!

[Homeland Security:
Need I say more. We haven’t been attacked for over 5 years in America. Not even a fart in a subway, We took the fight to the enemy overseas which has kept us safer at home.
· Passed the Patriot Act
· Passed the Safe Port Act

.

Welcome back to the thread MonsterMark. I thought we may have lost you for a while. You have some solid stuff here a good portion of it I can see your point or even, now sit down for this, even agree with. I’m glad you brought up the Safe Ports Bill. Living very close to the Port of Tacoma (I think it’s the second or third largest on the west coast) I have watched this one with great interest over the last several years. You may find this kind of interesting.

Sen. Murray can sleep well now that port security bill is law
MATTHEW DALY; The Associated Press
Published: October 14th, 2006 01:00 AM

WASHINGTON – It took five years, but a bill to improve security at ports in Tacoma, Seattle, Portland and across the country is finally law.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., began pushing for the law shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, figuring the measure would be enacted within months.
“I thought the nation would rally ’round, understanding the danger,” Murray said, noting that all but a few of the 11 million shipping containers that enter the nation each year are uninspected.
“That didn’t happen,” she said Friday after President Bush signed the so-called SAFE Port Act, or Security and Accountability for Every Port.
The law calls for radiation detectors at most big ports and requires background checks for port workers. It also approves development of high-tech inspection equipment so customs agents can check cargo containers for dangerous materials without having to open them. And it authorizes up to $2 billion over five years for risk-based grants for training and exercises at ports.
“This has been a long haul,” Murray said. “I was surprised I had to fight the White House” for a pilot program in 2002 that tested enhanced security at several U.S. ports, including Tacoma and Seattle, she said.
At one point, Murray held up a Bush administration nominee to ensure that the ports program, dubbed Operation Safe Commerce, received full funding.
The ports bill finally gained traction after Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, took an active interest in it, Murray said. Collins visited Seattle in February, in the midst of a congressional outcry over a buyout that put a company in the United Arab Emirates in control of some operations at six U.S. ports.
The Dubai company, DP World, promised it would sell the U.S. operations to an American business. The sale is pending.
“Frankly, the Dubai ports deal got the nation’s attention,” Murray said, adding that the need for improved security was clear years before the controversy.
Murray said she was especially pleased that Bush signed the bipartisan bill “in an extremely political month,” with midterm elections just a few weeks away. She was the only Democrat in attendance at the signing ceremony.
“This is really a great day,” she said at a White House news conference. “Since September 11th I’ve been worried about what would happen at one of our seaports should a terrorist attack occur.”
The new law “is going to make a difference. Tonight, for the first time in many years, I’m going to sleep well,” she said.
Collins called the bill landmark legislation that will help close “a dangerous gap in our homeland security.”
Each of the 11 million containers that enter U.S. ports has the potential to contain a squad of terrorists, a nuclear device or a biological or chemical weapon, Collins said.
“The bill that the president signed and that we all worked on makes that far less likely,” she said.
Washington is among the clear winners under the new law, Murray said. Not only does the bill require more cargo screening, but also it puts into place specific procedures to resume trade if a terrorist attack should occur.
“That is critically important,” she said.
Mark Crosby, chief public safety officer for the Port of Portland, said the law will let his port to join others on the West Coast in adding screening equipment to detect radioactive material.
“I’m happy to report that Portland will now be getting those monitors in the summer of 2007,” Crosby said.
He said the law also will encourage the Department of Homeland Security to conduct more exercises and training with local authorities.
“In any kind of security event, the response and recovery will involve multiple jurisdictions,” Crosby said.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

I appreciate all of the thoughts and ideas that are being traded here. I hope that we can all agree to disagree but more importantly I hope we can all agree that we have human beings running our political parties as well as our nation. As such, they are not mistake free and should not be blindly followed without question. That was what I was trying to point out when I started this thread.

I know that a lot of my comments here over the last several days do tend to lean more left than right but hey they’re the ones in power. Besides, you have a lot cars running down the right hand shoulder here that can stand to be nudged a little closer to the center line.

I have to get going on my honey do list or my commander and chief here at the house will have my ass in a sling. Thanks again, most of the post over the last couple of days are a lot closer to what I was looking for.

 

[fossten]

Speaking of Patty Murray...

This is a couple of years old, but still important.


Thursday, September 30, 2004, 12:00 a.m. Pacific

Ad watch: Television ad claims Murray weak on terror

By Jim Brunner
Seattle Times staff reporter

In the sharpest attack of his campaign, Republican U.S. Senate candidate George Nethercutt launched a television ad yesterday using video of Democratic incumbent Sen. Patty Murray's controversial comments about Osama bin Laden to portray her as weak on terrorism.

The new ad — which Murray and fellow Democrats quickly denounced as lies — juxtaposes images of bin Laden and the smoldering World Trade Center ruins with video of Murray speaking to high-school students in Vancouver, Wash., in December 2002. During that talk, Murray attributed bin Laden's popularity in parts of the world to his generosity toward the poor.

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their lives better. We have not done that." Murray said, in the portion of her comments replayed by the ad.

The ad closes with Nethercutt saying, "Winning the war on terror means fighting terrorists, not excusing them."

Murray denounced the ad.

"George Nethercutt's ad is a lie, and he knows it," she said during a conference call with reporters. "I have always said Osama bin Laden is an evil terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.

"We need to track him down, bring him to justice, dismantle his terrorist network and protect our nation from further attacks," Murray said.

Ad watch


Title: "Different"


Candidate: George Nethercutt, Republican running for U.S. Senate


Time: 30 seconds


Images: Osama bin Laden. World Trade Center wreckage. Patty Murray addressing students. George Nethercutt.


Audio: Announcer: When most Americans think of Osama bin Laden, they think of this. (Image of World Trade Center ruins.) Patty Murray has a different view of Osama bin Laden. Patty Murray: He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their lives better. We have not done that. Announcer: He's made lives better? George Nethercutt: I'm George Nethercutt and I approved this message — because winning the war on terror means fighting terrorists — not excusing them.

Analysis: The ad is accurate to the extent that it uses Murray's own words against her, but it stretches the truth to say Murray was somehow "excusing" Osama bin Laden's terrorist attacks when she made these comments to a high-school class in 2002. Murray was trying to explain why people in some countries have been attracted to the terrorist's message and to suggest the U.S. could do more to build goodwill in poor countries. Still, her comments were puzzling. Some bin Laden experts say the senator was flat wrong to suggest the al-Qaida leader had built schools or day-care facilities. They said his appeal lies in his anti-American terrorist ideology, not any acts of philanthropy. Murray so far has refused to say any of her comments were inaccurate, only that she should have provided "more context."

— Jim Brunner

Murray declined to say she had made any error in her statements about bin Laden cited in the Nethercutt ad. But she did acknowledge that if she had to do it over again, she would "provide more context."

Murray was joined on the conference call by former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran who lost his re-election bid two years ago after GOP ads blasted him for voting against a homeland-security bill.

Cleland called the Nethercutt ad the work of a "Republican slime machine." He lost to Republican Saxby Chambliss after GOP ads paired Cleland's face with images of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Nethercutt defended his ads, saying the war on terrorism is a "defining issue" of the campaign and that Murray's comments were fair game.

"Does she really believe her assertions? I defy her to find a day-care center that Osama bin Laden has built," said Nethercutt, who has represented the 5th Congressional District since 1995.

He added that it was "absurd" to say the U.S. had not been involved in international aid. Nethercutt tried to draw a line between Murray's statements and some votes she cast in the 1990s to cut the defense budget.

"What's her strategy in winning the world on terror? Is it to understand the terrorists or appease them or help them in some way, or is it to fight it?"

Murray said the ad left out the context of what she had told the students — that she was merely trying to get them to think about bin Laden's appeal in the Arab world "and what we might do to combat that."

Prior to the comment excerpted in the Nethercutt ad, Murray had told students, "We've got to ask why is this man so popular around the world? He has been in many countries that are riddled with poverty. People don't have homes, no sewers, no roads, no schools, no health care, no facilities just to make sure their daily lives are OK," according to a transcript of her appearance.

Following the remarks featured in the Nethercutt ad, Murray summed up by telling the students, "Your generation oughta be thinking about whether or not you believe that perhaps we should be better neighbors out in other countries so that they have a different vision of us."

Her campaign yesterday pointed to parts of the 9/11 commission report that call for the U.S. to become more engaged in economic development in nations at risk of breeding terrorists.

Murray's aides also have pointed to a State Department fact sheet that says bin Laden helped build roads, hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan during the guerrilla war against the Soviet Union.

A leading expert on bin Laden said yesterday there was "a germ of truth" in Murray's comments about the al-Qaida leader.

But Peter Bergen, a journalist and author of a book on bin Laden, said there is no evidence bin Laden had built day-care facilities or schools, as Murray suggested. "There's no evidence bin Laden was involved in anything like that," said Bergen, author of "Holy War Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden" and an adjunct professor at the Advanced School of International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

While bin Laden had been involved in building roads, and a $3 million mosque in Kandahar, Afghanistan, Bergen said it was "silly" to suggest his popularity in the Arab world stemmed from his philanthropy. Rather, his allure stemmed from his anti-American political views, Bergen said.

However, Bergen said Murray was correct to suggest that the U.S. could have been more generous over the years in its aid to poor nations of the world. The U.S. has consistently ranked lowest among industrialized nations in terms of the percentage of its gross national product devoted to foreign aid.

As the quick reaction made clear, Murray's campaign had been anticipating such an ad for months. But Republicans had played coy until yesterday.

Last month, Sen. George Allen, R-Va., chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was asked at a Bellevue press briefing whether the GOP planned an ad using bin Laden's image alongside Murray. He replied: "We haven't figured out all of the ads. I really can't imagine such an ad as you describe."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002049971_murray30m.html

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

This is a couple of years old, but still important.

Yep, still important to highlight how low the GOP goes to take statements out of context to smear their opponents. Why am I not suprized that this tactic tickles your fancy?

And since you harp on non-contributions to threads, how was this a contribution to this topic?

 

[fossten]

bzzzzzzzzz....bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Sounds like a gnat. (swat)