so, is it too early to pass sentence on dubya Bush yet?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BlockSender

Member
Jun 4, 2001
39
0
0
Ack, I killed the thread! haha Time to light a new fire.

Anyway, doesn't anyone have anything good to say about ole GWWW? All I've seen so far is "He's a good man" "He really IS intelligent" "He has good morals"..Save me the sanctimonious BS.
Here is what I accrued from some intelligent discussions. "It's not his fault the economy sucks." Ohh kay. Right..So it's all clintons fault? or was he the victim of a naturally occuring business cycle as most presidents are? I can say this much in Clintons defense, he instilled my pocket book with a sense of confidence which is more than Georgey boy has done. When you tell the American public "We're bracing for a recession" at the same time Clinton was saying "I have faith in the economy and the American public. Things always look down before they look up." There is a massive polar effect there. (By the way the clinton quote was from a CBS interview on January 10th). Call me ignorant to the facts, but I liked Clintons wording a lot better than, "Oh SH!!, We're goin down a Texas sized pit of despair! It's not my fault!!!"
And the Kyoto treaty, okay, he backed out of a treaty that didn't make perfect sense. India and China should sign it too but thats not a great reason to pull out. You have to start somewhere. USA was looked up to as a forerunner the last 8 years in technology, economy, and foreign politics. Now people are afraid of our technology (Nuclear Defense), our dwindling economy(not GW's fault?) and our lackluster foreign politics. Perhaps instead of dropping the Kyoto treaty dead we should have identified the aspects of it that needed working on, and pledged to stick with it when the treaty looks beneficial to everyone. And that crap about it ruining the economy if we sign it, what have we got to lose?
As for the energy crisis, Perhaps he could have acted sooner. I understand a lot of the "crisis" isn't so much the "lack" of energy, there is no shortage, it is the electric companies whining because they dont have enough $$$ to sustain operations. What kinda crap is that?
I don't see Bush himself sitting down w/ Israel and Palestine at -Kenny Bunkport-, I see him sending our "war hero" Mr(Gen) Powell to "Fix this situation."

Please, show me something outstanding he has done? And really, don't bring up the taxation issue. I like paying taxes for government programs. I would much rather that $300 bribe im getting be put towards a new interstate, or a veterans fund, or something worthwhile.

"Figures don't lie but liars can figure"
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< I like paying taxes for government programs. I would much rather that $300 bribe im getting be put towards a new interstate, or a veterans fund, or something worthwhile. >>



Wow, aren't you the rare bird.

[sarcasm]I'm sure you'll not cash or spend that tax refund check the government sends you either. [/sarcasm]

Quite frankly, anyone who says they LIKE paying taxes, well, i think has a few screws loose...
 

BlockSender

Member
Jun 4, 2001
39
0
0
Welp, taxes in part paid for my education. Taxes helped my mother pay for her cancer treatments. Taxes helped keep my economics teacher afloat while he got his BS and PhD. Taxes made the interstates you drive on. Well pretty much any paved surface you drive on. Taxes keep the airways safe(r). Taxes also raise a lot of money that could/should be spent in other areas vs where it's going right now. Don't show me a tax cut, show me spending reform, and if its feasable to give me some moneyback, cooool. If not, I'm glad to see its all being used appropriately.

About that 300 I'm getting. I have bills to pay just like everyone else in here. If the gov'ment doesn't want my money anymore fine, Ill put it towards something else, but I still protest. I do not WANT that 300 dollars to be sent to me in the form of a bribe check. If anything it upset me.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
BlockSender The post was about the supposed Reagan deficits and I proved my point! Democrat spending ballooned the defict AFTER Reagan.

Once again proving that if Liberals disagree with the message they just shoot the messenger.

Taxing and spending IS a bribe! That is how big Government controls you!
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
As I sit here thinking about the last 6 months that Pres. Bush has been in office, I am trying to think what Clinton did that was so great to compare to. Somehow, I just can't think of anything Clinton did besides the obvious scandals that he will be remembered for.


BS(BlockSender) somehow you initals do seem apropiate ;)

&quot;Taxes also raise a lot of money that could/should be spent in other areas vs where it's going right now. &quot;

You mean besides the people earning the money deciding what it should be spent on? Since when is a $300 tax refund a bribe? If you would research it a little further you would also know that that &quot;bribe&quot; was a democratic idea. Pres. Bush's plan was to reduce rates and this initial refund was not part of his plan.

Clinton may have installed you with false confidence regarding the economy but Pres. Bush called it correctly. We are in an economic downturn. Whether it is the result of Clinton or just a regular cycle working off the excesses of the past 10 years is yet to be seen. In either case it is too soon to blame it on Pres. Bush unless you know absolute nothing about economics.

While you are talking about Pres. Regan you can also think him for some part in the ending of the USSR. You can also blame the democratic congress that did not cut spending as they had promised for the budget deficits. But you should know this already if you have studied any history of the time.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,698
6,257
126
Those who wrote Bush off a year ago were ahead of their time. How much time do people here need to realize Dubyah is not only a weak President, he has little to no support? His own party is backing away and although they will never attack him relentlessly like they did Clinton, when his term is finished, he'll have accomplished less than Clinton did.

Just watch, Florida and coastal oil drilling is going to embarrass Dubyah greatly. Suddenly, Dubyah will flipflop and stop it for environmental reasons. New pressure will be asserted concerning Alaska and that idea will be nixed as well.

Anyone wonder why the US government is now begging Saddam Hussien to produce more oil? Oil and the Oil Industry has the US by the balls! Only a true leader would prevent that from happening, Dubyah is merely a puppet.


******Highlighted text retracted******
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0

&quot;..and Bush votes represented more than 80% of the landmass in the United States&quot;

And just why does that matter? All it means is that Bush's supporter live in the country, and Gore's (generally) live in more populated urban areas. How the hell does that matter?



And tominator-your zogby/rueters defense in light of being shown you didnt have a clue what you were talking about is absolutely ridiculous. Admit you had your figures wrong. Jeez!
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
sandorski

If we check the record,GW ran on a platform he created with a plan to deal with opec because he knows how to deal with oil barons. He was goingto use tough talk to get the US out of the oil problem and high prices. That was very important in his campaign becuse Clinton raided the reserve for 30 million barrels to try and bring down prices. That little peckerhead hasn't done a damn thing since shooting his mouth off on that one. The marketplace and public opinion has taken care of the oil and gas prices. He could have done what he said,but that would have enterfered with the oil companies raking in the largest profits and margins in the history of oil production. It's called paying back your chits for getting elected. Hell,its still going on. The only ones who don't see that are these myopic apologists for the republican poster boy.;)

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,568
6,711
126
Geez, sandorski, that's the good news about Bush. He gives up on bad knee jerk ideas.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
sandorski

Bush already has Clinton beat on his accomplishments.


Luckster

IF you insist on looking at the CNN polls only....OK, I was wrong.

Tripleshot

You've not been able to see for some years now.;)
 

BlockSender

Member
Jun 4, 2001
39
0
0
Tominator, will you please look at the site I posted. If you notice, yes spending DID increase, and for 2 years after clinton took office the deficit did grow, and you know what happened in 97 when the deficit was already reduced to only 23 billion? (Down from 302.5bil in 1992 (1991's fiscal budget would have dictated this result)? It turned into a big fat surplus of 311bil. Now what were you saying? Our expenditures more than tripled (wooohoo) while our receipts climbed even faster! What was your point again?

Just a little statistical analysis for you. In 80 at the beginning of reagans term, spending was at 812.0. It rose to 1,641.6 this was over a %100 increase in spending.
Clinton took office in 1992 with 2,046.9 in expenditures. In 2000 the spending was 2,739.8
Now any idiot fresh outta highschool can crunch those numbers and it will NEVER add up to even HALF of the spending increases during the Reagan era. But that point is moot. I dont really care about spending in this case, what is important is that we got a surplus NOT a deficit from it. I said before, Im all for spending reform but clearly when he proposed this bill he had his head on straight.

And about taxation and spending, uh..Duh, thats how the government controls the nation and rescues it from complete anarchy and hostile takeovers from other countries. So you don't want any taxes at all or what?


<< Bush already has Clinton beat on his accomplishments. >>

that must be the most assinine statement you have made thus far. How could someone possibly be in office for 8 years and have done less than someone in 6 months. For posterity lets be the LEAST BIT logical here. Your ignorance is shining bright as your republican ego.


etech

<< As I sit here thinking about the last 6 months that Pres. Bush has been in office, I am trying to think what Clinton did that was so great to compare to. Somehow, I just can't think of anything Clinton did besides the obvious scandals that he will be remembered for. >>

How many times must you be reminded of our glowing foreign policy during those 8 years? How about the DEFICIT BEING TURNED INTO A SURPLUS. Clinton didn't one-arm his way into the economy in his shining knight suit, but he is the one who proposed a balanced budget agenda. And it worked! *gasp*
Sure clinton rode the economic success of this country. If it weren't for the computer-boom, I don't think the US or the world economy would have been so good. But you can't deny the fact that it happened, and it happened 4 years longer than it should have.

Quite frankly I don't care if it was a republican invention or democrat invention, the $300 rebate was stupid.



<< In either case it is too soon to blame it on Pres. Bush unless you know absolute nothing about economics. >>

Please do find for me where I blamed the economic downturn on Bush? I simply stated that Clintons charisma kept me spending through his years. Even up to the last day he was president. Since then I've started to hold back a lot.

As far as the USSR goes, Reagan simply outspent them. We ran their country into bankrupcy. But I never criticized him. I don't even care about his Reaganomics. That isn't the issue at hand.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Tominator

I see just fine my friend.;) What I don't do is blindly follow a partyline support of a baboon called GW who some think is the president of the US. In this thread,you have maybe 2 or 3 who think like you do, and the rest see that Gdub isn't all he's cracked up to be or what you would like us to believe.

If he was doing the right stuff,acting and looking Presedintial,&quot;uniting instead of deviding&quot;, listening to the people and doing what is right for all americans, and not just the special interests that helped groom him for this election,then even the conservitive side of me might get to suport him. But in the 6+ months he has been in office,he has shown me nothing.And the polls say the same thing. What is so difficult for people like you and Etech to understand that?:confused: This isn't pulled out of thin air. It's on the news everywhere. You keep trying to defend this guy. He shouldn't need anyone defending his record,if he had one.

Thats why his popularity is in the toilet and why he is already a lame duck president. He doesn't have much more to offer anyone after the supposed tax cut. I will never understand how he thinks $300,$500,or$600 for a couple is going to win him votes when this time next year he will probably repeat his Daddy and raise taxes to pay for the government programs the people want and need. The tax cut was to get a boost in his popularity. I don't think he got the desired results. 95 million people will get zip for a tax refund. Alot of those are Rush Limbaugh republicans too.

But you can keep doing those cut and paste jobs from fox news and Rush. Most here understand you are lacking in the critical thinking department,and we find you quite amusing now.:D
 

soapdish

Senior member
Nov 20, 2000
251
0
0
Ahh, tominator. your truths do blind me... NOT!


According to what I just read at Time, Bush's even 50% approval rate is the lowest of any president in the last five years... Makes you wonder how a sleeze bag like Clinton, with his phallic cigars, could have a higher approval rating than a born again (so he says) christian? Maybe it's because you republican troglodytes care more about a prezidents sex life than you care about the issues. Or is is because you are just jealous that he is getting some tail...

Hey, 9 out of 10 ex-presidents agree... Liberals get more tail!


Seriously though, Bush's problem is he came in like he had a mandate, which he most definitely did not. Other than the tax package, which he beat to death in the primaries and run up to election, he should have tread like a freakin churchmouse on eggshells. Instead, he wanted to pay back his &quot;investors&quot; and this is the sh!t we have left to deal with.

Don't you think for one instance that Enron would have pulled the crap they did with Cali if they hadn't thought that since Bush-Lite was their man, they could get away with it. Hopefully, what they reap they will sow, and maybe down will come the POS compassionate conservatives. Man, compassionate does not belong in the same sentence as the word &quot;conservative&quot;. Mutually exclusive terms there. It's like &quot;Nazi&quot; and &quot;Racially Tolerant&quot;.

The US is waking up from a post election hang-over. It is only down hill for him. You have a man, leader of the freakin world, who works a 9-5 job... WTF! Clinton worked 8-10, and got more done. Bush-Lite's honeymoon is all about over, and if he doesn't start listenting to people, and addressing their concerns, most notably on the environment (other than his contemptable placating remarks), he is going to bring down the repubs in 2002! Just watch...
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
*bump* - to show my support for Tripleshot. I have been very wary of every decision dubya's made, from taxes to the environment to education, and have been dead against every one. He's far too arrogant and right-wing as far as I'm concerned. And dangerous.
 

soapdish

Senior member
Nov 20, 2000
251
0
0
One more thing, Kyoto fans...


Europe and Asia wanted the US to take the lead on Kyoto, and we balked.


THEY ARE PROCEEDING WITH RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY, WITH OR WITHOUT US.


But since we are the biggest polluters in the world, they offered us the chance to redeem ourselves a bit... but according to Bush-Lite logic, &quot;Gee, if India and China don't sign, neither will we!&quot;


Hey losers, the treaty is about cleaning up our own backyard, not theirs. Just because our neighbor doesn't take his trash out 3 times a week, doesn't mean we shouldn't. This is like third grade lunch room logic... &quot;Gee, just because jimmy isn't eating his spinach, I am not eating my spinach, regardless of how good it is for me.&quot;

We get a few more presidents like Bush-Lite, and we will all be dead from cancer in 30 years.

Wait... That might not be bad after-all ;)
 

soapdish

Senior member
Nov 20, 2000
251
0
0
Tominator,


Man, what is up with you?

http://a802.g.akamai.net/7/802/2068...chart.Par.0001.ImageFile.MDEwNjI4MTgxMjQ3.jpg


Do you see the words &quot;www.rushlimbaugh.com&quot; in there? I have no idea why you offered that piece of crap up for evidence...

Did you notice that the 1993 figures, the first year of Klinton, had the word &quot;estimate&quot; next to it? Don't you think that by 2001 that would no longer be an estimate? Can you say 'BOLD FACE LIE'.

Then they jump to 1998... Gee I wonder why? Because nothing between 1992 and 1998 supported the assinine suggestion you made?

Jesus Christ! Can't you see your own purported &quot;Truths&quot; are at best weak lies, or even perhaps &quot;true&quot;, but only from the most narrow point of view?

And as Far as Her Limbaugh is concerned...


Rush Limbaugh is to the Republican Party what Joseph Goebells was to the Nazi party. Replace the word &quot;liberal&quot; with &quot;Jew&quot; in his radio progam, and they sound identical.

He is a propoganda artists, who appeals to those people whose views of the world are simplistic. People who believe in black and white situations. The world is too diverse. People are not qualitative. We must adress every person on the individual level, and not resort to mass generalizations and prejudices.

The republicans, who once were this nations progressive party, have forgotten this. No doubt, Lincoln would weep if he saw them now.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Sandorski, I really don't expect liberals to make sense but you are carrying it a bit far.
Anyone wonder why the US government is now begging Saddam Hussien to produce more oil?

Proof?

Oil and the Oil Industry has the US by the balls
If the oil industry had the US by the balls you would expect their profits for the last ten years to be at the top of the charts wouldn't you. Do you want me to find the numbers for you. Or ask Tripleshot, he suggested the same thing once and never returned to the thread, want to guess why?

If Clinton was such a great leader would someone explain the energy policy he developed for the US please.

soapdish
The Kyoto treaty did not deal with pollution. It dealt with CO2/greenhouse gas emmissions. Do a search on this board and educate yourself on why it was such a bad idea for the US and why Europe and China wanted the US to bind itself to it legally. Once you have a clue as to what the Kyoto treaty dealt with come back to this thread.

TS, if you were not so full of BS, there would be no reason for Tominator and other conservatives to defend PRESIDENT BUSH. (say it a few times, you'll get used to it over the next 7 years). It would not matter what he did, you would attack him anyway.
TS, you also might want to educate yourself on the tax cut. You seem confused again. The $300,500 600 is a refund for the first half of this year only.

BlockSender
I simply stated that Clintons charisma kept me spending through his years. Even up to the last day he was president.
Mental note to self, Do NOT let BlockSender have anything to do with my finances. Basing financial decisions on &quot;Clintons charisma&quot; has to be the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a long time. How old are you BS? That sounds like the way a teenager girl would think. Are you an intern by any chance?

Luckster
And just why does that matter? All it means is that Bush's supporter live in the country, and Gore's (generally) live in more populated urban areas. How the hell does that matter?
Would you like to make a guess where the most people that are dependent on government handouts are located?
 

soapdish

Senior member
Nov 20, 2000
251
0
0
Hey eDick,

I know what Kyoto is about. It's about pollution, whether CO2, or other.



Guess what, Carbon Dioxide pollution is still POLLUTION! And is still a problem.



The US has to suck up a bitter pill, and my attitude is the sooner the better. Putting off this problem isn't helping anyone... oh, wait, that's right... the oil/coal/auto industry benefits... Silly me!


You know, if even a single brain cell of yours divides... well, then you will have twice as many!
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
You are so funny Etech! I'm full of BS? If so,why are you about the only idiot left suporting this ignoramous you think is going to be around for 7 more years? Have you got proof? F no. Your just a blowhard windbag fat ass sitting at your computer searching for any rightwing drival you can find to support your pathetic idealism or attempt to bring down anyone that doesn't buy your bullsh!t!

Do you really think you are impressing anyone when you go on the attack the way you do? Someone said it earlier. You sound like a kindergartner arguing in the sandbox not getting along with others.

Tell me your income bracket, brightboy. Lets see what makes you such a good republican benifactor of this adminstration. The republican party is for the rich.How rich are you,Etech?

I've spent a lot of time in OK,bubba.You do not have bragging rights on welfare there. Your welfare tab is right on target with the rest of the nation. You think that just because you post something,everyone should do your bidding and bring up some kinda of proof to support their ideas? Who the Fvck do you think you are? You don't have emperical proof of half the crap you post. Just a bunch of ideas supported by the same right wing wacko sources your buddy Tominator uses.

Go back to home schooling your kids.You can't infect anyone else here that way. And they won't back sass you like I will.;)
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0


<< The Kyoto treaty did not deal with pollution. It dealt with CO2/greenhouse gas emmissions. >>



So what do you think pollution is, etech? is CO2 released into the atmosphere from coal-burning not considered pollution? Does a substantial source of artificial CO2 actually belong there?

A person might &quot;educate&quot; oneself on what the Kyoto treaty is, but see, if you have an ounce of reason driven by the &quot;heart&quot; described in your sig, you'd have a vague idea why Kyoto makes sense. As Soapdish mentioned, you're too narrowminded to follow anything outside of 3rd grade logic. Why should we possibly even think about obligating ourselves to the hardships involved in reducing emmissions when our neighbors don't have to? Are you so used to your rigid apathetic pridefully &quot;American&quot; perspective that you refuse to openly recognize that we as Americans have all been dealt a hand far better than others? Because you know, that if you and the other conservatives openly admit such an obvious point, it leaves only one right thing to do - to concede some of your rights and your freedoms, for the sake of those less fortunate; in this case, by not demanding that they match your contributions.

You may also recall, the other well-known sticking point was regarding pollution credits. Didn't we balk at the idea of not being able to sell or trade those things? Another piece of evidence that big corps are sticking their collective paws up dubya's arse... And we're just along for the ride.

I'll say it again. there's nothing wrong with being conservative, but to follow dubya's line of reasoning, you've got to be too proud and arrogant a redneck to even consider the possibility that the livelihood of someone living outside the US can possibly be of any significance.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
OMG, I should just quit debating right now. I'm obviously way overmatched. Anyone who could change etech to eDick must be a mental giant. That is just so overwhelming, what can anyone say after a repartee such as that? The discernment you display is magnificent. The ingenuity you show is masterful. I am awed just to be allowed to read you silken words on this screen.

What are you, 12 years old?

BTW, stop exhaling, you are emitting CO2.

CO2 is thought to be a greenhouse gas. It is far from the worst of them.
soapdish
We get a few more presidents like Bush-Lite, and we will all be dead from cancer in 30 years.
Increased CO2 has nothing to do with the ozone layer or cancer.

The Kyoto treaty as it was written would not have reduced greenhouse gases. All it would of done is take industries out of the industrialized nations and moved them to China and India. Would you like to bet on whether the pollution laws are more stict in the US or China? Pollution would have increased, CO2 would not have been decreased and the US economy would have been destroyed. China would of course back that proposal.

TS, when you &quot;back sass&quot; me I just consider the source and smile.

Isle of the Dead
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0


<< All it would of done is ... >>



Haven't heard &quot;would of&quot; since second grade myself... lol

anyway, you're right, Etech. CO2 is the least effecting of the &quot;greenhouse gasses&quot;. Sulfur dioxide, methane, and trace amounds of CLO and CO do more. If we're talking one-to-one. But there's so much more CO2 than any of these other gasses put together, such that its effects are substantial.

But you're actually right, eTech. CO2 does nothing to cause us cancer directly. Ozone depletion by chlorine does. But both are only parts of a larger issue, that of a global irresposibility to the environment. Supporting Kyoto, or a compromised version of it, is an attempt to reverse that.




<< Would you like to bet on whether the pollution laws are more stict in the US or China? >>



Thats apples to oranges. You should compare China now, in its industrial revolution, to the US at the turn of the century.

Good thing eTech wasn't a British guy living in 1900, right guys? He woulda hounded the US incessantly as well, saying its not fair we get to pollute and all...
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
>>. All it would of done is take industries out of the industrialized nations and moved them to China and India.<<

More of those &quot;facts&quot; you are so famous for.

You should quit now,your just making a fool of yourself. You are pathetic the way you try and get cutsy with your flamming rhetoric.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
busmaster1
anyway, you're right, Etech.

We shouldn't get into a grammar fight or I would have to point out your lack of capitalization. ;) Poor TS wouldn't even be allowed in if grammar was a requirement for posting. your just making...

What percent of the CO2 emitted is the result of human activity? What percent of that would Kyoto have reduced?

Is there still doubt among scientists that CO2 is actually warming the earth? If the money and resources are spent on reducing CO2 does that not also reduce resources that could be used to feed the poor, improve education and health care and so forth. Does it not behoove us before we spend billions of dollars on unproven science to insure that it is being spent in the most beneficial way?
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
>>Does it not behoove us before we spend billions of dollars on unproven science to insure that it is being spent in the most beneficial way?<<

Tell us ,Mr. Wizard, if scientists didn't raise this issue to begin with,then who did? The Democrats,I presume?

Your call for proof on everything is boring at worst and disengenuous at best. What Billions of dollars are you talking about? The ones Rush Limburger told you about?

You have been given logical arguments for doing the right thing in this thread numerous times,yet you still blindly choose to support your argument with a scan image of a newspaper article from an unknown author who has bias and editorialized his article.

Keep trying.Maybe someday you will get it right. When you do,I'll be sure to congratulate you.;)