• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bush sacrifices the future to keep his job

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Yup, just blame Bush for everything that's wrong in the world. It might rain today, STUPID BUSH. A bird crapped on my car, STUPID BUSH. Yea, let's just start pointing the finger at the guy right in front of you instead of looking at who CAUSED the problem in the first place.
 

RobCur

Banned
Oct 4, 2002
3,076
0
0
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
At least, even only 2 years after 9/11, no one asks why Bin Laden is still showing up in videos, rather than sitting on death row in a US prison. So Bush managed to distract people well enough.
Not to mention he stole the presidency, most don't believe this because the news have been used to hide the truth. I guess words don't get out enough that the voting booth was rigged in his favor to begin with during the 2000 election campaign?
Its funny how most believed it was the other guy al gore making trouble trying to take the votes from bush is now saying that bush is now a bad president, very silly people.
Like i say, "we told you so".


 

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Yup, just blame Bush for everything that's wrong in the world. It might rain today, STUPID BUSH. A bird crapped on my car, STUPID BUSH. Yea, let's just start pointing the finger at the guy right in front of you instead of looking at who CAUSED the problem in the first place.
Its not going to do any good to do any finger pointing at people who are no longer in office or power. Its time that somebody took some responsibility for our spending. And if you had read any of my posts, you would notice that I put just as much (if not more) blame on Congress than on Bush. If you would stop being so SUPER BUSH you would realize that some real conversation and debate is taking place, and focus on that instead of fueling the bashers.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Oh, but I suppose corporate entitlements are OK, Cad? Would you defend your main-main Iacocca who had to be bailed out by the U.S. gov't to the tune of $1.5 Billion in the 80s? What about the airlines post-9/11? How many billions did they get? $5 Billion? Up to $18 Billion? Where's the personal responsbility for corporate America?
Have you listened to anything I've said? Was it not me who was pointing out Boeing's sweetheart deals?(dual purpose though;)) Yes, corporate welfare needs to be put in check. As with someone else who tried to ASSume my position on Farm subsidies - you are wrong.

OK - say Chrylser hadn't secured 1.2Billion in loan guarantees in 1978-9 - how would you liked to seen the unemployment lines;) Remember Iacocca had just been fired from Ford by HenryII in 78, the year that Chysler had just reported its worst earnings ever. He secured funding (and some tax concessions;)) and rebuilt that company providing hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yeah - I guess the gov't shouldn't have guarenteed the loan though.

Amok - Yes - you are right on "incentives" not "entitlements" for business;)

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Oh, but I suppose corporate entitlements are OK, Cad? Would you defend your main-main Iacocca who had to be bailed out by the U.S. gov't to the tune of $1.5 Billion in the 80s? What about the airlines post-9/11? How many billions did they get? $5 Billion? Up to $18 Billion? Where's the personal responsbility for corporate America?
Have you listened to anything I've said? Was it not me who was pointing out Boeing's sweetheart deals?(dual purpose though;)) Yes, corporate welfare needs to be put in check. As with someone else who tried to ASSume my position on Farm subsidies - you are wrong.

OK - say Chrylser hadn't secured 1.2Billion in loan guarantees in 1978-9 - how would you liked to seen the unemployment lines;) Remember Iacocca had just been fired from Ford by HenryII in 78, the year that Chysler had just reported its worst earnings ever. He secured funding (and some tax concessions;)) and rebuilt that company providing hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yeah - I guess the gov't shouldn't have guarenteed the loan though.

Amok - Yes - you are right on "incentives" not "entitlements" for business;)

CkG
Good. Just want to make sure we're on the same page ;)

By the way, didn't Iacocca preside over Ford during the whole "Pinto exploding gas tank" fiasco? Shortly after Iacocca became president he almost immediately began a rush program to produce the Pinto. Safety and quality were thrown out the window in order to rush this crapbox to market. For seven years the Ford Motor Company sold cars in which it knew hundreds of people would needlessly burn to death.

Didn't Iacocca also divorce his 2nd wife Peggy Johnson? Family must have been a top priority there.

Leaving Ford and heading over to Chrysler, didn't Iacocca beg the federal government to bail out his company? Yes, he did. Should the government force taxpayers to subsidize a company whose products do not meet the market test? The answer becomes clear: No. Why should taxpayers have to pay to keep a firm in business?

Wow, that's some role-model you got there.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: amok
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Yup, just blame Bush for everything that's wrong in the world. It might rain today, STUPID BUSH. A bird crapped on my car, STUPID BUSH. Yea, let's just start pointing the finger at the guy right in front of you instead of looking at who CAUSED the problem in the first place.
Its not going to do any good to do any finger pointing at people who are no longer in office or power. Its time that somebody took some responsibility for our spending. And if you had read any of my posts, you would notice that I put just as much (if not more) blame on Congress than on Bush. If you would stop being so SUPER BUSH you would realize that some real conversation and debate is taking place, and focus on that instead of fueling the bashers.
Maybe you are more objective, but look at some of the other people around here.
No, it doesn't do good to point the finger at someone who isn't in office anymore. They can screw up the country, then leave office and let the next guy take the blame. Why blame them?

BTW: I am not SUPER BUSH. It's just easy to be labeled that when everyone else is so anti-Bush.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Oh, but I suppose corporate entitlements are OK, Cad? Would you defend your main-main Iacocca who had to be bailed out by the U.S. gov't to the tune of $1.5 Billion in the 80s? What about the airlines post-9/11? How many billions did they get? $5 Billion? Up to $18 Billion? Where's the personal responsbility for corporate America?
Have you listened to anything I've said? Was it not me who was pointing out Boeing's sweetheart deals?(dual purpose though;)) Yes, corporate welfare needs to be put in check. As with someone else who tried to ASSume my position on Farm subsidies - you are wrong.

OK - say Chrylser hadn't secured 1.2Billion in loan guarantees in 1978-9 - how would you liked to seen the unemployment lines;) Remember Iacocca had just been fired from Ford by HenryII in 78, the year that Chysler had just reported its worst earnings ever. He secured funding (and some tax concessions;)) and rebuilt that company providing hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yeah - I guess the gov't shouldn't have guarenteed the loan though.

Amok - Yes - you are right on "incentives" not "entitlements" for business;)

CkG
Good. Just want to make sure we're on the same page ;)

By the way, didn't Iacocca preside over Ford during the whole "Pinto exploding gas tank" fiasco? Shortly after Iacocca became president he almost immediately began a rush program to produce the Pinto. Safety and quality were thrown out the window in order to rush this crapbox to market. For seven years the Ford Motor Company sold cars in which it knew hundreds of people would needlessly burn to death.

Didn't Iacocca also divorce his 2nd wife Peggy Johnson? Family must have been a top priority there.

Leaving Ford and heading over to Chrysler, didn't Iacocca beg the federal government to bail out his company? Yes, he did. Should the government force taxpayers to subsidize a company whose products do not meet the market test? The answer becomes clear: No. Why should taxpayers have to pay to keep a firm in business?

Wow, that's some role-model you got there.
Yes - I do believe some of the Pinto fallout may have played a roll in his quarrel with FordII.;)
Yes - the Quote from Iaccoca in my sig is from AFTER he lost his family because of his job;)
Yes - 1.2Billion in Gov't guaranteed loans which were repaid. The tax revenue that was gained(ie. not lost if Chrysler would have dissolved) in a few short years easily makes up for the tax concessions that were made in the first few years of Chrysler's rebuilding.

Yes - He is a role-model for ALL Americans. He proves the fact that you can take CRAP and make it into CRAP that sells;)...the American dream:D

CkG
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
If they (Democrats and liberals) weren't for FORCING me to pay for everyone else with their entitlements and "feel good" programs - they might have a shot at getting my vote. I will not apologize for that stance, because I feel that we should all willingly help those who can't help themselves
Very welll said.

Go out, get a job, and work for a living like everyone else.
 

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
Maybe you are more objective, but look at some of the other people around here.
No, it doesn't do good to point the finger at someone who isn't in office anymore. They can screw up the country, then leave office and let the next guy take the blame. Why blame them?

BTW: I am not SUPER BUSH. It's just easy to be labeled that when everyone else is so anti-Bush.
I apologize then. There's just something about posts with lots of capitals in them that make my blood boil a bit. I can just picture that person standing a foot away screaming at me ;).

Perhaps I should have also clarified my point regarding pointing fingers back down the line. Knowing the past is helpful in understanding what brought you to the present, but we shouldn't waste time blaming people for it. Instead, focus on correcting those mistakes or pressuring those currently in power into preventing further decline along a negative path. I fall prey to it as well, but bickering over the past makes it hard to focus on the solutions of today and tomorrow. It can also lead to justifications for people not doing what they should.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY