Do you think Bush will get re-elected in 2004 if the economy still sucks in 2003? Or will it not matter for 2003?

[IGBT]

You really want Al Sharpton or Liberman for pres??

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Shaftatplanetquake
No. He is stupid. I believe he is getting our country into a lot of trouble.

How so?

Millennium,
This is a typical response from an uneducated democrat. One that has nothing to back that up, so he doesn't. It's good to see that democrats haven't changed.

KK

I'd rather like to see if Shaftatplanetquake has the mental capacity to verbalize more than the grunts he has made so far also.

Shaftatplanetquake, can you explain your reasoning any further or is that as far as your limited grey matter will take you?

 

[EXman]

I'll vote for GW.

democrats have no leadership and no agenda.
and they are still pissed off about how such a straight shootin simple man like GW is president

ditto!

I like Bush he's got Balls and he won't sit back and let the world go down the tubes right in front of him like old Slick Willy did...

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Shaftatplanetquake
No. He is stupid. I believe he is getting our country into a lot of trouble.

How so?

Millennium,
This is a typical response from an uneducated democrat. One that has nothing to back that up, so he doesn't. It's good to see that democrats haven't changed.

KK

Psst...on average Democrats are more educated than Republicans.

 

[classy]

There's is one way to get people to not like you. If they ain't making any money. And no he will lose bigtime if the economy is still bad and this war stuff goes sour.

 

[brtspears2]

I dont think many people take the time to think about their vote choice. They pick who they like, a la high school prom king/queen style.

But I'll vote for Bush.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm afraid Bush will dig us a hole so deep we man not climb out at all. His selection was a disaster.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well if you ignore the return to deficits, unbounded corporate scandels (not including his Cabinet or himself), and the Lincolnesque abridgements of civil rights . . . he's certainly restored honor to the White House.

 

[JEDI]

what is fuxored?

 

[Moonbeam]

What I don't get is everybody who was screaming about what fools the American people are for liking Clinton. Clearly they are the same fools who like Bush.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What I don't get is everybody who was screaming about what fools the American people are for liking Clinton. Clearly they are the same fools who like Bush.

When you can come up with an impeachable offense that George Bush commited I'll jump on your anti-bush train.

 

[LAUST]

Oh it's gonna continue to suck, no doubt about that.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Hopefully people will be intelligent enough to realize that even if the economy IS better, he didn't do it.

Viper GTS

I still don't understand why people even equate the two.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What I don't get is everybody who was screaming about what fools the American people are for liking Clinton. Clearly they are the same fools who like Bush.

When you can come up with an impeachable offense that George Bush commited I'll jump on your anti-bush train.

Indeed. Also, Who, with an even somewhat-developed political mind, would like Clinton AND Bush??

I didn't like Clinton, but I like Bush.

 

[LAUST]

.

 

[flavio]

It is pathetic if we can't come up with better choices than Bush/Gore for the next election It's an embarassment to the country.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

I still don't understand why people even equate the two.

I don't know, it began in early 2000, I remember reading the Denverpost article, talking about how Rhythms and like 18 other Denver based companies looked like they would not survive, Covad announced bankruptcy a month later, we then laid off 400 people in 1 day and proceeded that way until the doors closed, many others did the same... Clinton was the president at that time. He overhyped the economy... what goes up that fast, will crash just as fast.

So... his being the president killed those companies and the economy.

I see.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Hopefully people will be intelligent enough to realize that even if the economy IS better, he didn't do it.

Viper GTS

I still don't understand why people even equate the two.

They equate the two because there IS a correlation. If you think the president has nothing to do with the economy, you are mistaken. He might not be directly responsible for for passing laws and igniting consumer spending, but indirectly he does have an effect. One example being national security. People will not spend money if they don't feel secure. IMHO, if you fix the Hussein and N. Korea problem, that would be the best economic stimulous package Bush could offer.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Hopefully people will be intelligent enough to realize that even if the economy IS better, he didn't do it.

Viper GTS

I still don't understand why people even equate the two.

They equate the two because there IS a correlation. If you think the president has nothing to do with the economy, you are mistaken. He might not be directly responsible for for passing laws and igniting consumer spending, but indirectly he does have an effect. One example being national security. People will not spend money if they don't feel secure. IMHO, if you fix the Hussein and N. Korea problem, that would be the best economic stimulous package Bush could offer.

That's like blaming the maintenance guy because you don't like the current color.

 

[LAUST]

.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Hopefully people will be intelligent enough to realize that even if the economy IS better, he didn't do it.

Viper GTS

I still don't understand why people even equate the two.

They equate the two because there IS a correlation. If you think the president has nothing to do with the economy, you are mistaken. He might not be directly responsible for for passing laws and igniting consumer spending, but indirectly he does have an effect. One example being national security. People will not spend money if they don't feel secure. IMHO, if you fix the Hussein and N. Korea problem, that would be the best economic stimulous package Bush could offer.

That's like blaming the maintenance guy because you don't like the current color.

Color of what?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Thanks for all things considered. You forgot that two buildings fell on 3000 people. You also forgot that the executive branch isn't on the Board of Directors for every US corporation. You also forgot that Civil Rights was predominantly supported by Bush's party.

Sorry for the takedown, but that's two shots and the ball on the side.

Don't assume . . . at best you attempted to shoot a leg and now I'm going to give you a guillotine.

Well if you ignore the return to deficits, unbounded corporate scandels (not including his Cabinet or himself), and the Lincolnesque abridgements of civil rights . . . he's certainly restored honor to the White House.

The President and his Party controlled the US budget (spending bills start in the House). They passed a tax cut (which decreases revenue regardless of wishful future returns). In the absence of fiscal discipline by BOTH parties we continued to spend with abandon . . . a pattern which began during Clinton's reign (while the Congress was fully under GOP control).

The etiology for corporate malfeasance is greed but the bipartisan opposition during Levitt's tenure at the SEC to appropriate regulation allowed it to occur. In the face of mounting scandal our President appointed and continued to support Harvery Pitt (industry whore) . . . I wonder where he is now?

Bush's replacement for the Pitts is William Donaldson who among other activities opposes Regulation Fair Disclosure. Bush's Pitt bull's response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was to recommend William Webster SEC investigation, who also happened to be Bush's preference. I wonder where Webster is now?

Don't even get me started on Bush before he came to the White House . . . Harken stinks far worse than Arkansas swamp land.

Try reading history that doesn't emanate from trite GOP mantra about the Party of Lincoln and you will realize that past Republican support for civil rights eroded once blacks were denied rights b/c drumroll . . . the vast majority of voting blacks were Republicans. Democrats fiercely opposed voting rights and civil rights. Once the head of the Democrats, Truman and Johnson triumphed civil rights . . . the fierecest advocates for keeping the status quo left the Democratic Party and became . . . drumroll . . . Republicans.

9/11 does not excuse gross abridgement of civil liberties. Lincoln's un-Constitutional acts during the Civil War were not excused b/c he felt the need. Ends NEVER justify the means.

I could ride you forever . . . if you like . . . or I can just go ahead and pin you.

 

[Staples]

Bill O'Reilly doesn't think he will be re-elected if the economy is bad.

I won't vote for him just like I didn't last election.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Bill O'Reilly doesn't think he will be re-elected if the economy is bad.

I disagree. I think the economy will not be sparkling but Bush can still be re-elected. For all his boils . . . many people still like him. Even worse, they trust him. I think the jobless recovery will continue into early 2004. Bush will blame the economy on the war with terrorism and Iraq, while saying the only reason it wasn't worse was his great fiscal policy of tax cuts.

In the absence of a domestic terrorist attack he will claim it was his administrations efforts that made it possible despite the poor preparation of his predecessor. If an attack happens he will blame Democrats in the Senate for holding up Homeland Security in 2002.

Like every President before him, Bush will take credit for anything marginally positive and deflect blame for everything bad. I have no faith in the press to expose the truth or political opponents to provide a substantitive alternative.

The only way to derail the Bush train would be a bad outcome in Iraq. As much as I despise Bush policy . . . I have no choice but hope for success b/c failure in Iraq will be ugly . . . really ugly.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Hopefully people will be intelligent enough to realize that even if the economy IS better, he didn't do it.

Viper GTS

I still don't understand why people even equate the two.

They equate the two because there IS a correlation. If you think the president has nothing to do with the economy, you are mistaken. He might not be directly responsible for for passing laws and igniting consumer spending, but indirectly he does have an effect. One example being national security. People will not spend money if they don't feel secure. IMHO, if you fix the Hussein and N. Korea problem, that would be the best economic stimulous package Bush could offer.

That's like blaming the maintenance guy because you don't like the current color.

That doesn't make sense. And I'm not sure how you can actually believe the president has NOTHING to do with the economy.