OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

Re: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

greego wrote:
> On May 2, 5:09 pm, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:
>
>> So do you endorse business before people?
>
> The question is flawed - individual liberty leads to voluntary trade
> that is generally beneficial to society. It's government intervention
> that I don't endorse.
>
>> BTW, what is your answer to the question in the subject field?
>
> I don't think it's an important question but I'd say he's one of the
> worst - Woodrow Wilson would probably be my no.1 for introducing the
> income tax and creating the Fed.

Ron Paul, the quintessential anti-fedder isn't going to get elected, so
here's reality-

Fed Chairman Bernanke was one of the all-time great economics students
at Harvard, one of the most precocious and brilliant Ph.D. candidates at
MIT, and the head of the Princeton economics department. He wrote a
well-regarded macroeconomics text.

Greenspan left a pile of shit in Bernanke's lap. He has inherited a very
difficult environment to navigate. The government keeps two sets of
books: the one we hear the most about that says there was only a $318
billion deficit in 2005, then the one that comes out from Treasury
[following standard accounting rules, not special government ones] that
no one talks about, which shows a deficit of $760 billion. And if you
include Social Security and Medicare liabilities…

We are piling on debt after debt, and we are depreciating our currency.
Under Greenspan the dollar lost 50 percent against other currencies, and
it's continued.

GWB is considered a failure by almost 75% of the U.S. public (this
doesn't come from NPR..,it comes from a Wall Street Journal / NBC News
poll. The article is on the cover of the WSJ Th. 5/1/08).

The IRS *is* a total mess. A nightmare. An economic holocaust.

THAT IS WHAT THIS ELECTION *SHOULD* BE ABOUT. NOT SOME PSYCHO PREACHER,
COLOR OR GENDER.

Re: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?


"greego" <greg.w.lindsay@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:d2358a3d-2fa9-4a60-9118-2e0c3ecb4747@q27g2000prf.googlegroups,com ...
> On May 2, 5:09 pm, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:
>
>>
>> So do you endorse business before people?
>
> The question is flawed - individual liberty leads to voluntary trade
> that is generally beneficial to society. It's government intervention
> that I don't endorse.
>
>> BTW, what is your answer to the question in the subject field?
>
> I don't think it's an important question but I'd say he's one of the
> worst - Woodrow Wilson would probably be my no.1 for introducing the
> income tax and creating the Fed.
>
>> Do you think our government should perform its 6 duties?
>> 1 - form a more perfect union
>
> I don't know what that means
>
>> 2 - establish justice
>
> 'protect liberty' is more accurate
>
>> 3 - insure domestic tranquility
>
> sure
>
>> 4 - provide for the common defense
>
> sure
>
>> 5 - promote the general welfare
>
> if this means stealing from me to give to you, no. If you want to
> install forced charity, have the balls to do it at the local level.
> Federal government is not the place for it.
>
>> 6 - secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
>
> If you mean protect liberty, sure
>
>> Or do you have a problem with any of that?
>
> I'll simplify it for you - the Federal government's job is to protect
> liberty. That's it. Anything else you should argue for at a more
> manageable level of government.
>
> BTW, with respect to Michael Moore: 'Sicko' is specifically what I'm
> referring to when I say he's full of shit - socialised medicine leads
> to higher prices and poorer service due to moral hazard. People will
> overuse the service and doctors will end up charging higher prices and
> providing less competitive service due to the system being funded by
> an uninvolved third party.

You're a moron.
Go away.

Re: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

On May 2, 2:00=EF=BF=BDpm, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:
> "greego" <greg.w.lind...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> news:d2358a3d-2fa9-4a60-9118-2e0c3ecb4747@q27g2000prf.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 5:09 pm, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:
>
> >> So do you endorse business before people?
>
> > The question is flawed - individual liberty leads to voluntary trade
> > that is generally beneficial to society. =EF=BF=BDIt's government interv=
ention
> > that I don't endorse.
>
> >> BTW, what is your answer to the question in the subject field?
>
> > I don't think it's an important question but I'd say he's one of the
> > worst - Woodrow Wilson would probably be my no.1 for introducing the
> > income tax and creating the Fed.
>
> >> Do you think our government should perform its 6 duties?
> >> 1 - form a more perfect union
>
> > I don't know what that means
>
> >> 2 - establish justice
>
> > 'protect liberty' is more accurate
>
> >> 3 - insure domestic tranquility
>
> > sure
>
> >> 4 - provide for the common defense
>
> > sure
>
> >> 5 - promote the general welfare
>
> > if this means stealing from me to give to you, no. =EF=BF=BDIf you want =
to
> > install forced charity, have the balls to do it at the local level.
> > Federal government is not the place for it.
>
> >> 6 - secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
>
> > If you mean protect liberty, sure
>
> >> Or do you have a problem with any of that?
>
> > I'll simplify it for you - the Federal government's job is to protect
> > liberty. =EF=BF=BDThat's it. =EF=BF=BDAnything else you should argue for=
at a more
> > manageable level of government.
>
> > BTW, with respect to Michael Moore: 'Sicko' is specifically what I'm
> > referring to when I say he's full of shit - socialised medicine leads
> > to higher prices and poorer service due to moral hazard. =EF=BF=BDPeople=
will
> > overuse the service and doctors will end up charging higher prices and
> > providing less competitive service due to the system being funded by
> > an uninvolved third party.
>
> You're a moron.
> Go away.


Ed Blum lost customer #4,568


"I've read Mike Moore's books. How educated are you?" - Ed Blum

Re: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

<ronald_mcasswhipper@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:14f5224f-666f-443f-8ebd-a1d6ccc764d5@u36g2000prf.googlegroups,com ...
On May 2, 2:00?pm, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:
> "greego" <greg.w.lind...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> news:d2358a3d-2fa9-4a60-9118-2e0c3ecb4747@q27g2000prf.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 5:09 pm, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:
>
> >> So do you endorse business before people?
>
> > The question is flawed - individual liberty leads to voluntary trade
> > that is generally beneficial to society. ?It's government intervention
> > that I don't endorse.
>
> >> BTW, what is your answer to the question in the subject field?
>
> > I don't think it's an important question but I'd say he's one of the
> > worst - Woodrow Wilson would probably be my no.1 for introducing the
> > income tax and creating the Fed.
>
> >> Do you think our government should perform its 6 duties?
> >> 1 - form a more perfect union
>
> > I don't know what that means
>
> >> 2 - establish justice
>
> > 'protect liberty' is more accurate
>
> >> 3 - insure domestic tranquility
>
> > sure
>
> >> 4 - provide for the common defense
>
> > sure
>
> >> 5 - promote the general welfare
>
> > if this means stealing from me to give to you, no. ?If you want to
> > install forced charity, have the balls to do it at the local level.
> > Federal government is not the place for it.
>
> >> 6 - secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
>
> > If you mean protect liberty, sure
>
> >> Or do you have a problem with any of that?
>
> > I'll simplify it for you - the Federal government's job is to protect
> > liberty. ?That's it. ?Anything else you should argue for at a more
> > manageable level of government.
>
> > BTW, with respect to Michael Moore: 'Sicko' is specifically what I'm
> > referring to when I say he's full of shit - socialised medicine leads
> > to higher prices and poorer service due to moral hazard. ?People will
> > overuse the service and doctors will end up charging higher prices and
> > providing less competitive service due to the system being funded by
> > an uninvolved third party.
>
> You're a moron.
> Go away.


Ed Blum lost customer #4,568


"I've read Mike Moore's books. How educated are you?" - Ed Blum


Isn't Ed that gross guy Dave?

Re: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

On May 2, 6:22=EF=BF=BDpm, "Millie Taylor" <v...@nospam,com > wrote:
> <ronald_mcasswhip...@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>
> news:14f5224f-666f-443f-8ebd-a1d6ccc764d5@u36g2000prf.googlegroups,com ...
> On May 2, 2:00?pm, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "greego" <greg.w.lind...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> >news:d2358a3d-2fa9-4a60-9118-2e0c3ecb4747@q27g2000prf.googlegroups,com ...=

>
> > > On May 2, 5:09 pm, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:
>
> > >> So do you endorse business before people?
>
> > > The question is flawed - individual liberty leads to voluntary trade
> > > that is generally beneficial to society. ?It's government intervention=

> > > that I don't endorse.
>
> > >> BTW, what is your answer to the question in the subject field?
>
> > > I don't think it's an important question but I'd say he's one of the
> > > worst - Woodrow Wilson would probably be my no.1 for introducing the
> > > income tax and creating the Fed.
>
> > >> Do you think our government should perform its 6 duties?
> > >> 1 - form a more perfect union
>
> > > I don't know what that means
>
> > >> 2 - establish justice
>
> > > 'protect liberty' is more accurate
>
> > >> 3 - insure domestic tranquility
>
> > > sure
>
> > >> 4 - provide for the common defense
>
> > > sure
>
> > >> 5 - promote the general welfare
>
> > > if this means stealing from me to give to you, no. ?If you want to
> > > install forced charity, have the balls to do it at the local level.
> > > Federal government is not the place for it.
>
> > >> 6 - secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
>
> > > If you mean protect liberty, sure
>
> > >> Or do you have a problem with any of that?
>
> > > I'll simplify it for you - the Federal government's job is to protect
> > > liberty. ?That's it. ?Anything else you should argue for at a more
> > > manageable level of government.
>
> > > BTW, with respect to Michael Moore: 'Sicko' is specifically what I'm
> > > referring to when I say he's full of shit - socialised medicine leads
> > > to higher prices and poorer service due to moral hazard. ?People will
> > > overuse the service and doctors will end up charging higher prices and=

> > > providing less competitive service due to the system being funded by
> > > an uninvolved third party.
>
> > You're a moron.
> > Go away.
>
> Ed Blum lost customer #4,568
>
> "I've read Mike Moore's books. How educated are you?" - Ed Blum
>
> Isn't Ed that gross guy Dave?- Hide quoted text -
>


It has never been proven that Dave Moore and Ed Blum are two different
people.

Dave Moore's first post was a Ed Blum many years ago. They both are
exactly the same in almost every facet of their personality.

Re: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

greego wrote:
> On May 2, 8:26 am, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:
>> Thanks to greedy "business before people" asshole repugs,
>
> The rebublicans are to blame for a lot, but it's pointless and
> immature to blame them for every problem in the US.
>
>> we have this stupid "war" in Iraq,
>
> yep, largely bush's fault but plenty of dems were in support at the
> time.
>
>> overpriced gasoline,
>
> caused by a falling dollar (blame the Fed's easy credit for that),
> reduced supply (not really the government's fault but they could tap
> the strategic reserves to relieve pressure) and the war (see above).
>
>> a fucked up housing market,
>
> blame the Fed for easy credit creating a bubble and then bailing out
> the failing banks, idiot buyers who couldn't afford them in the first
> place and speculators - not really the government's fault although
> they should be reigning in the Fed or abolishing it altogether to stop
> these bubbles forming.
>
>> high ass grocery prices,
>
> blame the falling dollar (the Fed).
>
>> a wretchedly failing economy,
>
> too vague to assign blame.
>
>> overpaid CEOs,
>
> not the government's concern although it's clearly a market distortion
> and is a symptom of more fundamental problems.
>
>> job downsizing,
>
> same.
>
>> job outsourcing
>
> same.
>
>> union busting
>
> can be a good thing, although again it's not really the government's
> problem as they should be voluntary collectives.
>
>> a monopolistic corporate tyranny controlling our government
>
> yep, but it's just as bad on the Dems side and it's been bad for a
> long time.
>
>> and our airwaves
>
> Shouldn't be the government's concern however the FCC is largely to
> blame for the concentration of media ownership.
>
>> organized ultra rich elitists swindling
>> our government,
>
> already covered above
>
>> over-priced medical care and medicine
>
> I guarantee you that universal healthcare/single payer solutions will
> worsen these problems not solve them - it will drive the cost of
> healthcare through the roof and decrease the quality of service.
> Michael Moore is full of shit.
>
>> a devalued dollar, inflation,
>
> Blame the Fed.
>
>> a bloated government of waste,
>
> Both sides are as bad as each other.
>
>> fraud and abuse,
>
> ?
>
>> an impotent FDA and impotent EPA
>
> How will increasing their powers solve the problem and what is the
> problem precisely?
>
>> along with other agencies hindered from doing their job,
>
> like who?
>
>> failing infrastructures all around the country, obtuse priorities
>> like Terry Schiavo while disregarding the threat of global
>> warming and on and on and on. Yet we have economics
>> geniuses and other pencilnecks and Duhbya bouncing all
>> sorts of theories about what to do about the failing economy
>> and simply overlooking the fact that their fifedom ideology
>> is the fucking cause of it all - suck up all of the money from
>> the middle class and the poor and who's left over who can
>> afford to buy their stinkin' products and keep their businesses
>> growing? Retardicons voted for this shit - fuck 'em
>
> blah, blah, blah. You are an absolute fool if you think that the Dems
> will do any better (except perhaps end the war but I wouldn't count on
> that.) It's amazing how brainwashed people are to favor one side of
> politics over the other; all it does is increase the size and power of
> government in total. Reagan was right (although he fucked up a lot of
> things too) - government IS the problem. Vote third party or write-in
> someone sensible like Ron Paul.
>
This pervasive "blame the Fed" mentality is as 'one question deep' and
'brainwashed' as you blithely accuse the political spectrum of being.
It's abundantly clear that you've decided to liberate yourself from
pursuing answers to questions about why the Fed does what it does, when
it does.

In the 1930's economic horror broke loose and every government
institution looked the other way, effectively, allowing the the ship to
sink with a cavalier "let the market sort it out", mentality.

Uneducated, ignorant accusatory opinions are legion on the www .

Re: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

On May 2, 5:37 pm, Truth~Seeker <"fixing-44182"@.REMOVAL~mypacks,net >
wrote:

> This pervasive "blame the Fed" mentality is as 'one question deep' and
> 'brainwashed' as you blithely accuse the political spectrum of being.
> It's abundantly clear that you've decided to liberate yourself from
> pursuing answers to questions about why the Fed does what it does, when
> it does.

The Fed has a dual mandate: full employment and low inflation. The
trouble is, its actions to pursue either of those goals are by
definition contradictory. To be specific, when the Fed chases growth
it lowers interest rates to spur investment; to reign in inflation it
raises interest rates. Many central banks are able to manage such an
inherent contradiction reasonably competently by erring on the side of
keeping inflation down; the Fed on the other hand tends to favour
growth which is always the more dangerous option. When Greenspan
reduced rates dramatically following the dot-com crash it created a
situation in which masses of easy credit led to large-scale
malinvestment. The most obvious example of that was the housing boom
and subsequent bust. There is plenty of evidence to suggest similarly
poor choices regarding interest rate control have led over the last 95
years to similar booms and busts - in a truly free market (or at least
in an environment where money had a stable value) such malinvestment
would be randomly spread over a much greater time period and wouldn't
cause the business cycles we get now.

Re: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

greego wrote:
> On May 2, 5:37 pm, Truth~Seeker <"fixing-44182"@.REMOVAL~mypacks,net >
> wrote:
>
>> This pervasive "blame the Fed" mentality is as 'one question deep' and
>> 'brainwashed' as you blithely accuse the political spectrum of being.
>> It's abundantly clear that you've decided to liberate yourself from
>> pursuing answers to questions about why the Fed does what it does, when
>> it does.
>
> The Fed has a dual mandate: full employment and low inflation. The
> trouble is, its actions to pursue either of those goals are by
> definition contradictory. To be specific, when the Fed chases growth
> it lowers interest rates to spur investment; to reign in inflation it
> raises interest rates. Many central banks are able to manage such an
> inherent contradiction reasonably competently by erring on the side of
> keeping inflation down; the Fed on the other hand tends to favour
> growth which is always the more dangerous option. When Greenspan
> reduced rates dramatically following the dot-com crash it created a
> situation in which masses of easy credit led to large-scale
> malinvestment. The most obvious example of that was the housing boom
> and subsequent bust. There is plenty of evidence to suggest similarly
> poor choices regarding interest rate control have led over the last 95
> years to similar booms and busts - in a truly free market (or at least
> in an environment where money had a stable value) such malinvestment
> would be randomly spread over a much greater time period and wouldn't
> cause the business cycles we get now.

Rudimentary Fed 101. Ranks right up there w/ stock market advice; "buy
low, sell high" or, "want to wind up with a large fortune? start with a
small fortune".

Some suggested reading for you:

The Age of Turbulence by A. Greenspan. You're assigning blame while in
fact, you couldn't possibly do better than the Federal Reserve system has.

The U.S. Govt. has had its Treasury raped by a Congress and Senate
mollified via pork barrel spending enabled by a president who let
it happen / never vetoed any spending. He did this largely to procure
minimal resistance to an illegal invasion and occupation the U.S. is
now involved in, to the tune of $12,000,000,000 per month.

To fund the Govt. the Treasury sells debt, primarily to Japan and China.
The interest payments on this debt are mind-numbing.

To raise or lower interest rates, the Fed utilizes the Federal Open
Market Committee to either sell or buy back this debt. Inflation is a
devastating disease which, unleashed,topples not only Governments, but
entire systems of Government via violence / rioting / civil unrest.* The
U.S. is not Central or South America. Our constitutional system was
designed to keep our idiotic pentagon doing anything *BUT* running the
country. Take a look around the world, at the coup d'etat's and who
winds up in their equivalents of the White House...Thugs...the "Brass".

Give your anti-Fed bumper sticker mentality a rest, unless you
personally know you could do a better job. My guess is that you're like
most blame-the-fedder's hay8r Republicans who view the Federal Reserve
as "the big bad Government", ever-so-confident that 100% unfettered
market fundamentalism devoid of oversight is the almost perfect answer.
Not by a long shot pal. If you need a reminder of that all you need do
is re-visit the run up to 1929 and the aftermath until WWII was well
underway.

I have my doubts as to whether you'd bother, stuck as you are on your
position and haughtily calling everyone a fool for not sharing that
anti-Fed view w/ you. mvm


*The U.S. is getting a mini-taste today, w/ diesel fuel at $4.59 (CA)
and food prices inflating rapidly. From a moral / ethical standpoint
it's vile to see biofuels consuming food stocks while starvation is
threatening under developed countries. That's entirely a different
discussion, partly addressed in an interview w/ Chevron's CEO in the WSJ
yesterday, 5/1/08.

Re: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

greego wrote:
> On May 2, 5:37 pm, Truth~Seeker <"fixing-44182"@.REMOVAL~mypacks,net >
> wrote:
>
>> This pervasive "blame the Fed" mentality is as 'one question deep' and
>> 'brainwashed' as you blithely accuse the political spectrum of being.
>> It's abundantly clear that you've decided to liberate yourself from
>> pursuing answers to questions about why the Fed does what it does, when
>> it does.
>
> The Fed has a dual mandate: full employment and low inflation. The
> trouble is, its actions to pursue either of those goals are by
> definition contradictory.

Give that man a cigar.

> To be specific, when the Fed chases growth
> it lowers interest rates to spur investment; to reign in inflation it
> raises interest rates. Many central banks are able to manage such an
> inherent contradiction reasonably competently by erring on the side of
> keeping inflation down; the Fed on the other hand tends to favour
> growth which is always the more dangerous option. When Greenspan
> reduced rates dramatically following the dot-com crash it created a
> situation in which masses of easy credit led to large-scale
> malinvestment.

Greenspan smelt deflation. He defended the postion well, too. If we are
"iffing", Clinton coulda jacked rates up a half point about 1994-1996
and headed the whole thing off, but elections are a direct referendum on
employemnt, gas prices and inflation.

> The most obvious example of that was the housing boom
> and subsequent bust. There is plenty of evidence to suggest similarly
> poor choices regarding interest rate control have led over the last 95
> years to similar booms and busts - in a truly free market (or at least
> in an environment where money had a stable value) such malinvestment
> would be randomly spread over a much greater time period and wouldn't
> cause the business cycles we get now.


--
Les Cargill

Re: Bush laughs at Kabong's trials

On May 1, 3:26=EF=BF=BDpm, "Elvis Kabong" <ampscie...@tuneland,com > wrote:

>
> I laugh at that butt puppet clown every day,


I loved it when he was playing guitar while your house flooded.

That was some funny shit. Bush laughed long and hard at your hateful
liberal ass, just as I did and most of this newsgroup.


"New Orleans? That's where that Blum idiot lives, right? Let'em rot" -
Dubya


> but I really
> hate what that bastard and his sycophants and cronies
> have done to fuck up this country beyond recognition.

"Baaa waaa, Bush ruined my life. My amps don't sell!" - Ed Blum,
Sonic Surgery



> Retardicons voted for this shit - fuck 'em.-

Yep, sure did. And knowing your house was flooded, you spent weeks in
misery and you're breathing moldy air as you read this made it all
worthwhile!

LONG LIVE BUSH!

God bless him!

Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

Mike Pritchard wrote:
> I couldn't resist posting this one!!!
>
> According to a new poll conducted by CNN, GWB ranks number ONE, as the
> most unpopular American President, in modern American history!!
>
> I would be laughing about this...if the whole story wasn't such a
> tragedy.
>
> But, there is nothing funny about the damage this man has done to
> America and the world.
>
> I heard a bit of news on NPR the other day, talking about how in the
> eyes of the rest of the world, America its self, has become primarily
> "insignificant", along with our president--due to the policies of this
> administration.
>
> Of course, the repugs will all argue that " we still got the biggest
> stick" as a reason that we are NOT insignificant.
>
> The whole message is lost on such idiots.
>
> Mike
>
>

Go watch "Bush's War" by "Frontline". It's like five hours. Then get
back to us.

http :// www .pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

We *specifically asked* for Iraq to be invaded ( yeah, there was
some Jedi Mind trickery by the Bushies ), but once that threshold
was reached, all the details matter not much at all.

He isn't an idiot. He has an idiot for a boss.

Us. All those people know is that gasoline's $3.50 a gallon. Or
more.

From this:
http :// www .slate,com /id/2162157/

"Was it then correct to send military forces to the Gulf, in case Saddam
continued his long policy of defiance, concealment, and expulsion or
obstruction of U.N. inspectors?

If you understand the history of the inspection process at all, you must
concede that Saddam would never have agreed to readmit the inspectors if
coalition forces had not made their appearance on his borders and in the
waters of the Gulf. It was never a choice between inspection and
intervention: It was only the believable threat of an intervention that
enabled even limited inspections to resume."

That fact has not changed at all in five years.

I *dislike* Bush. Intensely. As a person, and as a politician. But that
changes nothing at all. I do rather like him as a leader, as
contradictory as that sounds - see the "Frontline" for why. He has a
sort of integrity, in a weird way. He has managed a difficult time
better than I thought he would have. People do not realize just how
deep the crap is, sez I. We have weaknesses, and during this time, those
weaknesses have been well exploited.

We have work to do. We won't do it, but it will not go away.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?



Les Cargill wrote:

>
>
> Go watch "Bush's War" by "Frontline". It's like five hours. Then get
> back to us.
>
> http :// www .pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
>
> We *specifically asked* for Iraq to be invaded ( yeah, there was
> some Jedi Mind trickery by the Bushies ), but once that threshold
> was reached, all the details matter not much at all.
>
> He isn't an idiot. He has an idiot for a boss.
>
> Us. All those people know is that gasoline's $3.50 a gallon. Or
> more.
>
> From this:
> http :// www .slate,com /id/2162157/
>
> "Was it then correct to send military forces to the Gulf, in case Saddam
> continued his long policy of defiance, concealment, and expulsion or
> obstruction of U.N. inspectors?
>
> If you understand the history of the inspection process at all, you must
> concede that Saddam would never have agreed to readmit the inspectors if
> coalition forces had not made their appearance on his borders and in the
> waters of the Gulf. It was never a choice between inspection and
> intervention: It was only the believable threat of an intervention that
> enabled even limited inspections to resume."
>
> That fact has not changed at all in five years.
>
> I *dislike* Bush. Intensely. As a person, and as a politician. But that
> changes nothing at all. I do rather like him as a leader, as
> contradictory as that sounds - see the "Frontline" for why. He has a
> sort of integrity, in a weird way. He has managed a difficult time
> better than I thought he would have. People do not realize just how
> deep the crap is, sez I. We have weaknesses, and during this time, those
> weaknesses have been well exploited.
>
> We have work to do. We won't do it, but it will not go away.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Les,

I appreciate your thoughtful response. Seriously.

Americans are deeply divided over many issues today, but the division over
the war is as deep as ever. Believe it or not, I agree with some of what
you say--regarding Saddam and Iraq. Of course he was avoiding inspections!
To this day, we don't know what he was hiding (if anything)...if that is why
he was acting this way.

But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when that
was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! That fact
is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start. As
we now know, much of the information used to persuade the Congress into
voting in favor of invading, was either false or heavily "enhanced" to
justify this action.

It's hard to blame the American people for this action, when we were
"bushwacked" into the war, using the same means.

No...this one is on the shoulders of Mr. GWB. He is "the decider", as he
said.

As we all now know, this war was really about OIL. The neocons figured the
best course of action, was to establish a strong US foothold in the region,
so that America would have access to OIL. An invasion of Iraq was seen as
an easy course...we could "create" justification and admittedly, everyone
*assumed* that we would find at least *some* WMD's when we got in
there...thus, providing adequate "see, we told you so!" fuel for those who
did not support the war.

Problem is, they were ALL WRONG.

In my opinion, we would have no terrorist problem (in Iraq), if we would
have followed a different course of action. But, that doesn't mean that GWB
is solely responsible for *everything*, as America's policies in that part
of the world have been flawed, for longer than GWB's administration. It's
just that GWB really screwed things up good!

One point I like to make when talking about this topic....how much money do
you suppose we spend on alternative energy research in this country? I've
heard estimates that range from 1.2 billion--4.5 billion, each year. That
includes research at universities, private companies, etc. No one *really*
knows, as no one really keeps track. We've made some good progress in this
area, too.

Now...how much have we spent on this war?

Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spent
on alternative fuel research! We might be to the point where we could tell
the middle east to keep their freakin' oil....we no longer need it!

Best of all....many families would not be grieving over lost soldiers/family
members.

That's probably the thing that bothers me most....so many politicians are
focused on OIL, as if it's an infinite resource, worth fighting for.

If America could somehow remove the need for OIL, many of our policies could
be changed to reflect this....and that *could* have dramatic effects on
over-all US policy in the region.

That's where I think GWB really blew it. And, if as "the decider", he wants
to take responsibility for the mess, I don't have a problem with that.
(grin)

So....thanks again for your reply. I think this is one thing that many
Americans will differ on, for years to come.

Mike

Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

Mike Pritchard wrote:
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>>
>> Go watch "Bush's War" by "Frontline". It's like five hours. Then get
>> back to us.
>>
>> http :// www .pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
>>
>> We *specifically asked* for Iraq to be invaded ( yeah, there was
>> some Jedi Mind trickery by the Bushies ), but once that threshold
>> was reached, all the details matter not much at all.
>>
>> He isn't an idiot. He has an idiot for a boss.
>>
>> Us. All those people know is that gasoline's $3.50 a gallon. Or
>> more.
>>
>> From this:
>> http :// www .slate,com /id/2162157/
>>
>> "Was it then correct to send military forces to the Gulf, in case Saddam
>> continued his long policy of defiance, concealment, and expulsion or
>> obstruction of U.N. inspectors?
>>
>> If you understand the history of the inspection process at all, you must
>> concede that Saddam would never have agreed to readmit the inspectors if
>> coalition forces had not made their appearance on his borders and in the
>> waters of the Gulf. It was never a choice between inspection and
>> intervention: It was only the believable threat of an intervention that
>> enabled even limited inspections to resume."
>>
>> That fact has not changed at all in five years.
>>
>> I *dislike* Bush. Intensely. As a person, and as a politician. But that
>> changes nothing at all. I do rather like him as a leader, as
>> contradictory as that sounds - see the "Frontline" for why. He has a
>> sort of integrity, in a weird way. He has managed a difficult time
>> better than I thought he would have. People do not realize just how
>> deep the crap is, sez I. We have weaknesses, and during this time, those
>> weaknesses have been well exploited.
>>
>> We have work to do. We won't do it, but it will not go away.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Les,
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful response. Seriously.
>
> Americans are deeply divided over many issues today, but the division over
> the war is as deep as ever. Believe it or not, I agree with some of what
> you say--regarding Saddam and Iraq. Of course he was avoiding inspections!
> To this day, we don't know what he was hiding (if anything)...if that is why
> he was acting this way.
>

I know. That is the whole point.

> But, the fact that we've not found a single "WMD" is troubling, when that
> was the single most hyped reason for the war, in the first place! That fact
> is not lost on people like me, who were against the war from the start. As
> we now know, much of the information used to persuade the Congress into
> voting in favor of invading, was either false or heavily "enhanced" to
> justify this action.
>
> It's hard to blame the American people for this action, when we were
> "bushwacked" into the war, using the same means.
>
> No...this one is on the shoulders of Mr. GWB. He is "the decider", as he
> said.
>
> As we all now know, this war was really about OIL. The neocons figured the
> best course of action, was to establish a strong US foothold in the region,
> so that America would have access to OIL. An invasion of Iraq was seen as
> an easy course...we could "create" justification and admittedly, everyone
> *assumed* that we would find at least *some* WMD's when we got in
> there...thus, providing adequate "see, we told you so!" fuel for those who
> did not support the war.
>
> Problem is, they were ALL WRONG.
>

And they were wrong for horrible reasons. I cannot stress enough that
the "Frontline" should be required viewing. I will say this - the
ominous secret player in all this is - people do things, bad things, in
American politics.... to get elected. There is an .mp4 between Scott
Ritter and Christopher Hitchens where the discuss this at length, and
... it's just true. It just is.

http :// www ,fr eerepublic,com /focus/f-news/1554017/posts

Unfortunately, everybody wants to hold the Executive branch
to what amounts to an unreasonably high standard. Sure we do, but
*we cannot*. They are not omniscient. When you have a loyalty-based
presidency, the weakness is the inability to tolerate
dissent. But that is *tough*. It takes somebody of the stature of
a Sir Thomas More, or even Lincoln to shoulder that. FDR sure did *not*
tolerate dissent, in WWII.

> In my opinion, we would have no terrorist problem (in Iraq), if we would
> have followed a different course of action. But, that doesn't mean that GWB
> is solely responsible for *everything*, as America's policies in that part
> of the world have been flawed, for longer than GWB's administration. It's
> just that GWB really screwed things up good!
>

He did this *for us*. According to his ability to tell, we wanted
him to do it. Now we exhibit what amounts to buyer's remorse.

Bummer. Bit late, too.

We were in a state of wroth.

> One point I like to make when talking about this topic....how much money do
> you suppose we spend on alternative energy research in this country? I've
> heard estimates that range from 1.2 billion--4.5 billion, each year. That
> includes research at universities, private companies, etc. No one *really*
> knows, as no one really keeps track. We've made some good progress in this
> area, too.
>
> Now...how much have we spent on this war?
>

I simply refuse to go there. It's not "gone". The war was *partially*
there to support employment, in a welfare-warfare state manner. It
has done so. The problem with cost-based arguments against war is that
they simply don't work, unless the units are lives lost. War acts
as an economic stimulus.

> Just imagine the progress we might have made, if that money had been spent
> on alternative fuel research! We might be to the point where we could tell
> the middle east to keep their freakin' oil....we no longer need it!
>

Alt. energy still doesn't work well. I have multiple good friends who
went broke trying it. It is economic suicide, until somebody with
the market pull of an Edison or Gates "does" it. Doing it is one thing;
doing it in a manner acceptable to the general marketplace is another.

> Best of all....many families would not be grieving over lost soldiers/family
> members.
>
> That's probably the thing that bothers me most....so many politicians are
> focused on OIL, as if it's an infinite resource, worth fighting for.
>

Don't hit me, but... it's not really about oil. George Galloway could
easily have gotten lots and lots of oil out of Iraq. "Denominated
in dollars" is a better but very weak argument - it simply does not
matter. Fungible.

This is not the same as saying "it's about the *security* of the oil
supply." That last part says "you can't be a pirate because you have
oil." That is different.

Southland finally got tired of the uncertainty with Chavez and fired
him, got other suppliers for 7/11.

It's not about oil.

> If America could somehow remove the need for OIL, many of our policies could
> be changed to reflect this....and that *could* have dramatic effects on
> over-all US policy in the region.
>


Indeed. And it's about fargin time we figured that out. We've had a 27 year
vacation from the realities. Time to wake up.

> That's where I think GWB really blew it. And, if as "the decider", he wants
> to take responsibility for the mess, I don't have a problem with that.
> (grin)
>
> So....thanks again for your reply. I think this is one thing that many
> Americans will differ on, for years to come.
>
> Mike
>
Sure. it's so complicated....
--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

Les Cargill wrote:

> And they were wrong for horrible reasons. I cannot stress enough that
> the "Frontline" should be required viewing. I will say this - the
> ominous secret player in all this is - people do things, bad things,
> in American politics.... to get elected. There is an .mp4 between
> Scott Ritter and Christopher Hitchens where the discuss this at
> length, and ... it's just true. It just is.

Scott Ritter, LOL, there's someone with credibility as close to zero as it's
possible to get. It's amazing how the left has been willing to embrace this
guy simply because he's now a Bush-basher, they'll cheerfully ignore that
under Clinton his complaint was that Saddam was getting away with hiding
WMDs and had the capability to rebuild his WMD programs within months, that
Ritter has repeatedly predicted Bush was about to attack Iran (the latest
being that Bush will attack Iran this spring using nukes and then suspend
the election!) and oh yeah, that he's been busted a couple of times for
trying to meet underage girls he had been chatting up online. Sure, Ritter
is someone we clearly should be listening to.

Re: OT: GWB Most Unpopular President Ever?

DGDevin wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> And they were wrong for horrible reasons. I cannot stress enough that
>> the "Frontline" should be required viewing. I will say this - the
>> ominous secret player in all this is - people do things, bad things,
>> in American politics.... to get elected. There is an .mp4 between
>> Scott Ritter and Christopher Hitchens where the discuss this at
>> length, and ... it's just true. It just is.
>
> Scott Ritter, LOL, there's someone with credibility as close to zero as it's
> possible to get.

That's not really the point.
I recommend the .mp4 because of the dialog between them, not because
of any one person's position.

> It's amazing how the left has been willing to embrace this
> guy simply because he's now a Bush-basher, they'll cheerfully ignore that
> under Clinton his complaint was that Saddam was getting away with hiding
> WMDs and had the capability to rebuild his WMD programs within months, that
> Ritter has repeatedly predicted Bush was about to attack Iran (the latest
> being that Bush will attack Iran this spring using nukes and then suspend
> the election!) and oh yeah, that he's been busted a couple of times for
> trying to meet underage girls he had been chatting up online. Sure, Ritter
> is someone we clearly should be listening to.

Everything you say is true. Ritter has sort of come apart at the
seams. The .mp4 is still worthwhile.

--
Les Cargill