President Bush in Australia

[Marcus Telcontar]

You might be aware, Mr Bush is doing a SE Asia tour and today, on the last stop came to australia and addressed the Parliment.

In other threads, I said Bush is a good man, badly advised. After listening to his speech, I am more convinced of that. He was articulate, funny, pointed and I think the aussie style of listening - shut up and listen until done - worked well for he got a good flow on and warmed to his task.

while some of the speech rankled, one point stood out and deserves comment. He was being heckled by a member of Parliment. The member was called and was to be ejected (under Parlimentary rules, the speaker has the floor and may not be interjected or heckled), when in the turmoil, Bush shouted "I love free speech!".

Stunned silence, then laughter and a standing ovation. The member stayed and was silenced by what I think was one of the best comebacks I've ever heard in Parliment.

So, I can now understand why he's popular. A much better speaker than expected and much quicker on his feet than given credit for.

[Sanis Prent]

I enjoy his speeches. He doesn't have the eloquence of Ronald Reagan, but he's funny, and definitely doesn't mind having a laugh at himself.

[Darth Viscera]

Glad to hear he handled it well.

Something similar happened when he was visiting Germany, perhaps it was a year ago. He was speaking to a large audience of regular Germans, and all of a sudden he was heckled by a German audience member. He kept his cool, lifted his hand up like he was about to do a jedi mind trick and said something similar to "Just a moment, let me finish speaking", then continued his speech, and the heckler shut up.

I admire any person who can keep their composure in such a case. If I were up there speaking, I'd either lose my train of thought or just start yelling randomly like a lunatic.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Popular? With whom? Most of the country cant stand him.

[Sanis Prent]

o rly?

[Sejah Haversh]

Well then, tell me why his approval rating is still above 55%, meaning more than half the country likes him.

There can be as many books on how he lied to us as they want to have at Barnes and Noble, but I still feel he's done a good job, especially in his education reform stuff. He's a personable guy, and has a down-home feel. I like him, and will probably vote for him again.

[Sanis Prent]

I don't know if I'll vote for him this time (didn't vote for him last time), but I think he's done a decent job as the big chief.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

I dont think hes done much of anything and I dont like him. Didnt vote for him first time and I hope theres no chance for anyone to vote for him a second.

[Darth Viscera]

Meaning what, that you hope that he's assassinated before November 2004? It's stupid statements like that which make me think that the radical extreme leftists in this country are far closer to fascism than the regular joe conservatives whom they denounce daily as such.


Originally posted by Daiquiri Van-Derveld
Most

Wrong!

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

6 Recent Polls:
Approve/Disapprove (of the job Bush is doing as a President)

54/36
50/42
52/37
53/42
56/40
51/42
______Avg
52.66% / 39.83%


Originally posted by Daiquiri Van-Derveld
Popular? I'd bear his children! Most of the country approves of the job he's doing as President.

Fixed :)

[AmazonBabe]

Popular? With whom? Most of the country cant stand him.

I don't think this is entirely acurate (as Visc's post shows).


Didnt vote for him first time and I hope theres no chance for anyone to vote for him a second.

I for one will be voting for him next term. :D

[Master Yoghurt]

There is a difference between liking and approving though

[AmazonBabe]

^ Very true.

The way I read that, one is a feeling, the other is logic.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
There is a difference between liking and approving though


This is the correct answer.


I tend to believe that most people like Bush alright, although a greater number don't necessarily approve of what he is doing. He still has a approval rating in the mid-50 percentile range, which considering some of the current problems (economy, criticism over Iraq, war on terrorism, etc.) isn't too bad. The election in 2004 will be close, especially if the Democratic Party manages to stop fighting amongst themselves and actually galvanize around one nominee.

Kind if like Marcus said... I feel Bush is a good man, and someone that can be very likable. He just has been feed bad information at times and steered into some things that haven't turned out so well. That being said, there are some decisions he has made that I agree with completely. So... just like any other president, I agree with him sometimes and disagree other times. Such is life.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

I dont approve or like him.

Vis, I wouldnt bear another if I could - which I cant :D

Polls are worth only the paper theyre printed on and we all know that. Noone Ive spoken to cares for him, regardless of what party theyre registered under.

I voted for Poppa George and liked him immensely but his son is a twit.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Daiquiri Van-Derveld
Polls are worth only the paper theyre printed on and we all know that. Noone Ive spoken to cares for him, regardless of what party theyre registered under.



No offense, but your small sampling straw poll isn't any more valid or accurate than any unscientific poll. There are certain polling methods which can be supported by statistical analysis.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

No offense taken, Fig :)

It will take time but down the road I really feel that this Bush will be shown to be one of the more ineffectual presidents. Ive been left with a bad taste in my mouth ever since the election and I highly doubt anything he does/can do will change my mind of that.

[Sejah Haversh]

Oh yes, because we all know that Gore would have been a shining example of...

Of...

Um, I think the same things would have happened, but Gore would just be a lot more boring.

[Figrin D'an]

That is of the unfortunate inevitabilities of this presidential term. Because of the closeness of the 2000 election, people prejudged Bush because they felt that the he stole the election. Honestly, if Gore had won, many people would have been saying the same things about him. The reality of that election, and many of the worldly realities that have since come to pass, would likely have played out very similarly regardless of the sitting administration. For that reason, I feel it unfair to mearly say, "The election was a sham, therefore I'm going to be ticked off for the next four years regardless of what happens."

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Oh, no...its more than that......I just dont like anything about him. Gore was alright but I wasnt a big supporter of his, either.

[Ardath Bey]

Bush has wreaked nearly everything Clinton built. I don't like him. Iraq is turning into a sham of foreign policies and the only good thing about it was deposing Saddam. Junior wants to fight his papas' enemies. Don't misunderstand me, I know the importance of the war on terrorism.

[Sanis Prent]

Deposing Saddam is enough for my support in the matter.

And what exactly has Bush wrecked? If you say the economy, I will shoot you in the face with a bazooka, because thats an unfounded, plebian take on the way things happen. You'd be suprised how little a president (or any other person) controls the economy.

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Deposing Saddam is enough for my support in the matter.

And what exactly has Bush wrecked? If you say the economy, I will shoot you in the face with a bazooka, because thats an unfounded, plebian take on the way things happen. You'd be suprised how little a president (or any other person) controls the economy.

Bullhookey, what are you talking about? We nearly single handedly financed the war on Iraq and now we may single handedly finance it's reconstruction. All about budget spending ya know!

Here is an interesting from MSNBC today:





Hard fight for U.S. at Iraq meeting
The ruined 28th of April shopping center in Baghdad, named for Saddam Hussein's birthday, is one example of the widespread destruction in Iraq.
Oct. 23 — The U.S. delegation is under no illusion that it will be able to get what it wants. NBC's Pat Dawson reports.
_ _
MSNBC NEWS SERVICES_ _ MADRID, Spain, Oct. 23 — _ U.S. and Iraqi officials pleaded for billions to rebuild Iraq at a donors conference that opened Thursday with calls for generosity and warnings that they might not get all they need right away.

Oct. 23 — Sen. Bob Graham joins Sen. Charles Grassley in a discussion about the rebuilding of Iraq.
_ _ _ _DESPITE THE APPROVAL last week of a new U.N. resolution setting out the course of Iraq, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged that lingering divisions over Washington's role in running the country might deter some donors.
_ _ _ _But in his opening remarks Thursday, Annan urged that such concerns be set aside, saying, "The long-term challenge of reconstruction has to be faced by all of us."
_ _ _ _Security remains a primary constraint "both now and into the foreseeable future," he said.
_ _ _ _"But a start to reconstruction cannot be deferred until that day," he said. "It demands our urgent attention now. I appeal to donors to give and give generously."
_ _ _ _
GULF STATES UNDER PRESSURE
_ _ _ _Attention was focused on Iraq's fellow Gulf states, which are expected to announce their pledges Friday. A senior delegate said Arab donors were being pressed to provide specificfigures.
_ _ _ _"This pressure to get numbers works for the Europeans who have prepared their numbers weeks ago, and while there may be big money from these [Arab] countries, you have to be able to compare," the official told Reuters.
_ _ _ _The representative of the U.S. Iraqi Governing Council, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, said nations that pitched in would benefit in the long run.
_ _ _ _"We inherited a ruined country ... that starts from well below zero," al-Rubaie said at a news conference. "People who help us in this difficult time are going to be rewarded in one way or another."
• A look at the United Nations
_ _ _ _But Annan and Secretary of State Colin Powell sought to lower expectations that Washington would come away with the entire $35.8 billion through 2007 it hopes to raise to jump-start Iraq's economic recovery.
_ _ _ _Powell acknowledged that "it may take time to meet the goal" of more than $55 billion set by the World Bank, which includes the Bush administration's pledge of nearly $20 billion.
_ _ _ _"I don't expect governments to announce everything they are going to do for Iraq in the future tomorrow," Annan said Wednesday night. "But tomorrow and the day after will be an important beginning."
_ _ _ _
CONCERNS CITED
_ _ _ _France and Germany, the leading opponents of the U.S.-led war, have refused to pledge any new money now, citing concerns about the slow pace of restoration of sovereignty in Iraq. But a top Iraqi official countered that significant donations would speed that process.
_ _ _ _"Obviously, the precarious security situation does not encourage people to put money into Iraq," said the official, Adnan Pachachi, a prominent member of the Governing Council who was Iraq's foreign minister before Saddam Hussein seized power in 1968.
_ _ _ _"But an improvement in the economic situation will also improve the security situation," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "People have to have some faith. I believe Iraq will rise from the ashes."
_ _ _ _Pachachi denied that donations would be controlled by the United States, which is another widespread concern among potential donors. He pointed to a new trust fund to be managed by the United Nations, the World Bank and the Governing Council. The Council, he said, would not pander to U.S. interests.

_ _ _ _"We are not a rubber-stamp group," he said. "We will be asserting our role and our independence progressively as time goes on."
_ _ _ _In London, meanwhile, a British aid group alleged Thursday that the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority governing Iraq had failed to account for billions of dollars allocated for rebuilding the country.
_ _ _ _The group, Christian Aid, said in a report that the authority had explained publicly only how it had spent $1 billion of the $5 billion it had been given for Iraqi development. The funds include $1 billion from the former U.N. Oil for Food program, $2.5 billion in assets seized from Saddam's former regime and $1.5 billion in oil revenues, the group said.
_ _ _ _In Baghdad, the authority said it was "adhering fully" to the U.N. resolution that established it and was working with international agencies to set up a monitoring board. Once it is established, the board will audit all transactions of the Development Fund of Iraq, the authority said.
_ _ _ _
'SERIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS, NOT LOANS'
_ _ _ _Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said his country was looking for "serious contributions in funds and not loans" when pledges were announced Friday, adding, "The sooner the better."
_ _ _ _Fears about safety and stability in Iraq, where U.S.-led coalition forces are coming under daily attack, should not be an obstacle, Zebari told The Associated Press.
_ _ _ _"It is our belief that reconstruction contributes to improving security conditions," he said. "These funds will create job opportunities and in an indirect way will contribute to consolidating stability and providing more confidence."

After Saddam
_ _ _ _He also said he expected Arab Gulf states to contribute, adding that it would be "shameful" if they did not. Kuwait promised a "generous" package, but it did not specify how much.
_ _ _ _Talking to reporters as he flew to Madrid from Egypt, Powell also set his sights on Iraqi assets held in Syrian banks, saying he might take the matter up with Syrian delegates.
_ _ _ _An estimated $3 billion is reported to be in Syrian banks, but Powell said he had not "heard a number quite that high."
_ _ _ _But he said that there were "certainly numbers of significant magnitude" and that it was "Iraqi money and we would like to get it back to the Iraqi people."
_ _ _ _
UPBEAT DESPITE FEW PLEDGES
_ _ _ _Although pledges announced so far total just a few billion dollars, the host of the conference, Spain, tried to sound upbeat.
_ _ _ _"The Iraqi people are looking to us," Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said in her opening remarks. "We won't let them down."
_ _ _ _So far, Japan has pledged $1.5 billion for 2004, South Korea has agreed to $200 million and Canada has promised $150 million. The World Bank has said it will lend Iraq $3 billion to $5 billion over the coming five years.
_ _ _ _Spain pledged $300 million through 2007 and Britain promised $439 million for 2004-05. Both were firm supporters of the war.
_ _ _ _The European Union's head office has limited its contribution to one year, promising $233 million.
_ _ _ _A separate $20 billion package now before Congress would go mainly toward security in Iraq and resurrecting its oil industry.
_ _ _ _Pressed why the Bush administration was not counting on Iraqi oil revenues to pay for reconstruction, Powell said the infrastructure "was more damaged than we expected, and not as a result of the war, but as a result of 30 years of abuse by this dictatorial regime."
_ _ _ _"We'll have to see how Iraqi revenues start to generate in a couple of years' time after we make the initial investments that get the oil infrastructure built," he said.
_ _ _ _The United States also wants foreign troops to help subdue guerrillas who are supporters of Saddam, but for now it is concentrating on getting support for less controversial work such as rebuilding electrical lines, water supply and other infrastructure, such as courts, post offices and schools.

[Sanis Prent]

Yes, because war spending is the doings of one man, and is of course going to ruin the economy.

There isn't a roll-eyes smiley big enough for you.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
There is a difference between liking and approving though

Just as there's a difference between disapproving and not being able to stand him

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Ardath Bey
Bullhookey, what are you talking about? We nearly single handedly financed the war on Iraq and now we may single handedly finance it's reconstruction. All about budget spending ya know!



If you are attempting to place the recent economic environment on financing reconstruction in Iraq, you are grossly oversimplifying the matter. The current economy is a moreso a result of the dot com fallout and corporate misappropriation than it is the war on terrorism and funding the rebuilding of Iraq. Both of those things aren't exactly under the control of the executive branch.

Bottom line... the economy started to tank before the 2000 election took place. Whomever took office was going to be blamed for it. Just like how Hoover took all the political and social blame for the the 1929 crash and the evolution of the Great Depression, even though it was set up by the "laissez-faire" policy of inaction by the Coolidge administration. People have short memories, and blame only what is presently in front of them.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
If you are attempting to place the recent economic environment on financing reconstruction in Iraq, you are grossly oversimplifying the matter. The current economy is a moreso a result of the dot com fallout and corporate misappropriation than it is the war on terrorism and funding the rebuilding of Iraq. Both of those things aren't exactly under the control of the executive branch.

Bottom line... the economy started to tank before the 2000 election took place. Whomever took office was going to be blamed for it. Just like how Hoover took all the political and social blame for the the 1929 crash and the evolution of the Great Depression, even though it was set up by the "laissez-faire" policy of inaction by the Coolidge administration. People have short memories, and blame only what is presently in front of them.

And thanks to Figrin for the eloquent follow-through.

Good grief, there's about a billion and a half forces at work on an economy. Singling one of those out is impossible even in the most dynamic of times.

[imported_Eve]

The other thread talked about the economy and who's fault people think it is. I suggest you post in that thread, rather than repeat arguments here.

We all know I love Bush, his dad, and the Reaganmeister. I'd vote for Bush again next term, for sure (so the Daiqarooney has spoken to someone who loves the man :) ). His approval is on the upswing. It will get better and better by the election.

People trust him moreso than someone less known. This isn't time to screw around. You have to have a leader who is strong, knowledgable, and who knows what the score is.

Bush has stood true through all the criticizm which would befall any president. He has kept his word, and only acted in the US's best interest. He is born of a family and circle that has been part of our leadership for a long time. People will have more confidence in putting Bush back in.

Time will show (and it is) that he was right.

That, or you can vote another unfaithful womanizer in.

As in everything, character counts. Bush has tons of it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't like Bush and I won't vote for him at all, I dislike his politics, I think he has ruined other things, the environment and the arts (primary our national museums is what I am talking about). Those are the biggest two reason why I don't like him there are plenty of others I just can't vote for him and will never like him but that is my opinion. As for who will win, who knows I can't predict the future it is impossible there are so many things that can happen that is impossible to see.

[Ardath Bey]

THE ONE, THE ONLY, THE WEBSITE ...




BUSH TIMES (http://www.bushtimes.com)




Your best source of comprehensive news on the Texas bad boy himself. Page upon page full of media, political, and economic articles gathered from all over the globe. (Read the economy page BTW.)

I just wanted to lighten as well as enlighten. I adore this page. Hope you all enjoy! :)


PS. I am not going to vote Bush either!

[imported_Eve]

JMC... oh man. You're saying he ruined the environment and the arts? I can't even dignify that with a response.

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by Eve
JMC... oh man. You're saying he ruined the environment and the arts? I can't even dignify that with a response.

Check out the link in my last post above, on where Bush stands on these issues!!! :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Ardath Bey
Check out the link in my last post above, on where Bush stands on these issues!!! :)

That site is someone's idea of trolling. I'm just a dumb Aussie and even I can see that. They should get a life and do somethign worthwhile.

[Ardath Bey]

:lol Nothing wrong with lightening things up a bit!

[Jedi Master Carr]

He has cut museum spending that and so jobs have cut that will hurt museums in the long run. Also with the enviroment the EPA has been cutted in and some environment protection laws have been repealled, and their is still talk that they might repeal sections of the clean air act that to me shows where we are going with environmental laws.

[Sanis Prent]

I'm of the opinion that some of the EPA's laws should be repealed.

Then again, I'm one of those "bad guys" who values the jobs of 6000 workers over the life of a stupid owl.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

I sympathize with the animals, since they cant speak for themselves and are considered 'dumb'. Humans are the ones with the supposed intelligence and should be able to figure out a way to keep habitats intact and still keep their jobs.

[Darth Viscera]

Ahhh, the poor animals :rolleyes

screw the animals! They were making meals out of humans for 8 million years, and no diar wolf ever brought up the issue of "human rights" in their congress. If they hadn't been so keen on eating us all, we wouldn't have become so smart. Earth belongs to humans for the next 10,000 years (or however long it takes for us to move to the nearest inhabitable planet made of gold and home to various species of Orion playmate twins), and they better either get used to it or become domesticated and cute like Hermes. No amount of animals is worth the job of a human. Do you want to be part of the family that becomes impoverished because the head of the household lost his job as a door-to-door deer soap salesman?

No siree, they can go back to eviscerating each other and licking their butts when we're done with the place. They'll just have to get along the best way they can until then.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The animals have nothing to do with it, if we keep poluting the air with noxious fumes it will eventually cause damage to humans. Repeall the Clean Air act and people will be dropping in major cities, especially the elderly, the young and the sick. That is why I am an enviromentalist because what do to the environment effects the future, I would rather have people unemployed then doom future generations with toxic waste and killing millions (I am talking over several decades) with acid rain, smog, and other forms of pollution. All of which could one day kill off the human race.

[CMJ]

Layton, you know I love you, but you're an alarmist. ;)

On the otherhand I think Viscera is *way* on the other end of the spectrum. As with most issues, I find myself somewhere in the middle of the 2 polarizing American political parties.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well it is true that before the Clean air act people died from the smog in cities like LA. Mostly the old and the Young because they were putting all kinds of junk in the air. Really before Bush came into office I was happy with the laws that we had, and didn't think we needed any new ones but the epa has been inching to repealing a lot of the old laws including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act those are important because without them companies can dump what ever they want into the air and teh water. And sure I admit I am alarmist but we need people like me to look out for people.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by CMJ
On the otherhand I think Viscera is *way* on the other end of the spectrum.

:D brings a smile to the old face when I get that extra little pair of asterisks which have been tacked on for emphasis. Means you guys are paying attention to my wild, basketcase rants.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Maybe I am not such an alarmist ;)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031024/ts_alt_afp/us_environment_climate_031024133656

To me that is not good if the ice caps melted this world would become like Waterworld. At the very least you are looking at beachfront property coming in a lot closer in the next couple of hundred years. I live 3 hours from the Ocean and this might be a beach within the next two centuries.

[CMJ]

Ocean levels rise and fall every few centuries anyways. Are we to blame for the ice caps melting? Probably, BUT they might be melting anyways. The world's climate is not really a stable thing. It's shifted dozens of times throughout the course of the lifespan of the planet.

One thing more Layton. I read an excellent study a year or two ago that argued(quite rightly IMHO) that our air is cleaner NOW than it was a century or so ago. The coal refineries of the late 1800's(with no scrubbers) actually DARKENED some northeasten cities in the US(not just some observable brown haze).

That said, I do hope for cleaner air. But "bad" air is by no means new.

[Jedi Master Carr]

But it is cleaner now because of the Clean Air act, in the 60's our air was awful. About the Ice caps, this is coming from NASA and they are the guys I would listen to, I think it is a problem and something needs to be done about it, not sure what.

[CMJ]

If the air was so much worse in the 50's and 60's(which is probably was) then why are the ice caps shrinking more now? Those are the kind of questions I have to critically ask.

It may not have anything to do with global warming, and just a cycle of the planet. Hell the poles have shifted during the lifespan of the planet - we have nothing to do with that.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I have no answers for that I leave that NASA it is their job to solve these problem. Also how much of it the US? True US and Western Europe has cleaner air, but the Third world is a mess it could be their fault for the problem maybe they are causing it. I am just guessing here I am not sure how bad the situation as far as the environment is in the Third World.

[imported_Eve]

The problem with the environment was here before Bush, and you contribute to it just as much as any other human being does.

Your lil computer alone won't decompose for hundreds of years.

By the way, when you're done posting, don't mind never throwing anything away again because you're killing us all.

Also, stop driving your car - use the Nike express. Oh wait, Nike's don't decompose for a billion years. Okay, go shoeless. But then you may get something in your foot and have to go to the doctor.

When they perscribe you antibiotics for the infection, the container won't decompose for another billion years, because of the type of plastic it is - so you better forget that.

You could carry around the antibiotics in your pocket except alot of pollution was created to make your pants and ship them to your local store. Maybe you better stop wearing pants.

So, put the pills in your wallet. No wait! Your wallet killed a cow! No, no we musn't do that. Get rid of your wallet. Plus your pants are gone, and thus your wallet pocket.

Better yet, get rid of your money, because a couple million trees died to create your annual income.

Maybe you can beg for food since you can't use money anymore. Just don't sit on the concrete or pavement because alot of pollution was created to make the sidewalk or street.

But perhaps someone will come along on a dirt road, and give you some Mickey D's.

No no, you can't eat that. The packaging alone killed more trees and because of its consistency it will never decompose in a hundred lifetimes; the food killed some innocent earth creatures, and the energy used to run the dang place created more air pollution.

Maybe someone can bring your some roadkill, and you can skin it yourself. But wait, viscious cars which create tons-o-pollution killed that animal. How can you eat it, when it died so nonsensically?!?

Until you're prepared to give up alot of your everyday life, you can't possibly pin pollution blame on ANY one else without taking responsibility yourself.

And it isn't NASA's job to solve the problems - it's everyone's (and dozens of environmental agencies that exist, including the EPA).

[Sanis Prent]

<3 Eve. You steal my thunder, yet I love you for it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That is not what I was after its the laws that already exist, Bush is getting rid of them they have been talking about ditching the Clean Air act for a few months. If we get rid of that people will die and that to me is what I am after it has nothing to do with what you are talking about, first off there are simple things one can do recycle which helps the environment, etc but that is up to people. Still the air and the water are the big picture for now if we don't have clean air and clean water people will die, how many who knows but it is right for 100 to die because some dumb oil company is putting pollutants in the air.

[Figrin D'an]

There are parts of the Clean Air Act that are rather stupid and nonsensical, and should be altered. There are other parts that have been rather important and successful in curbing certain pollution souces. The main problem is that it is about 25 years old, and major parts of it are already outdated. Not to mention that there are hundreds of loopholes.

Ideally, I like to see the whole thing re-written to be more applicable to today. Keep parts of it, toss others and just revamp the language of it in general. Ditching it all together, though, isn't a great idea.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah that would be ideal, IMO as well but we might not get that at best we might just keep it as is.

[JediBoricua]

What mainly bugs me about Bush is his 'closeness' with big businness (specially oil and defense companies). All of his main cabinet members have had a background in the oil industry, the poorest of them being multimillonaire Condoleza(sp?) Rice, who has a supertanker named after her.

Whether the war was for oil or not (not going to revive that debate), the fact is that oil companies are getting billions already in contracts for the rebuilding of the iraqi oil industry.

Also, his hundreds of millions in campaign contributions from big biz and special interest groups (granted the Dems play the same game), and his tax cut for the rich. The tax cut that in no way helped the economy or injected income to middle class families who are the ones that move the chains. Yeah, according to some neo-economists here the government has nothing to do with the economy, right..., and true it's not W's fault that the economy is bad (blame the tech bubble and the Wall Street Scandals, IMO), but he hasn't taken the right steps to fix the problem and the War on Iraq has proven to be a brake on the forecasted recovery that should have taken place in 2003.

Unemployment is at record levels, the value of the dollar is at record low, and other factors that may be or not fault of this administration are making headlines (approval rates are still relatevily high, but are far below than they were with Bush Sr. at this time, after a war with Iraq). Factors that in the end could mean relection.

Whether Bush is a good man, a noble man, or an evil corporate snob (take your pick, I tend to agree with Marcus, he has a horrible gabinet) wont matter, because what matters "is the economy, stupid".

[Sanis Prent]

Did I say the government had nothing to do with the economy? Read my posts again next time.

Also, I have no idea what I'm talking about, obviously. I only minor in economics, after all.

[JediBoricua]

I understand what your saying, but downplaying the whole issue and saying Bush has nothing to do with it or now way to influence it is giving his administration too much of a break.

[Jedi Master Carr]

yeah the president always gets blame for the economy look at California and Davis that is why he got recalled that is just the way it is the people figure its the president fault.

[Sanis Prent]

^^^

Bingo.

Its less a matter of accountability and more a matter of ignorance in the voting population.

Gray Davis was a moron, but it wasn't because of CA's economy.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
^^^

Bingo.

Its less a matter of accountability and more a matter of ignorance in the voting population.



Exactly.


Bush has his flaws, and he has done certain things that have not been conducive to improving the current economic climate. But I can't stand the "OMG Bu$h ru1n3d th3 3conomy" ignorance that is perpetuated by some. I'd have the same stance if it were any other president in office, Republican, Democrat or otherwise.

[JediBoricua]

Agreed. You wont hear me saying that, nor will you hear me saying that Clinton was a genius because he governed over years of prosperity and was solely responsible for the good economic years, because in part he got lucky with the tech boom of the nineties and had, IMO, a correct policy towards the economy.

I just don't agree with Bush's economic policy because I consider it the wrong course of action to tackle present economic woes.