Bush has lost any of the respect I previously had for him!
- Thread starter Max Powers
- 124 comments
- 3,439 views
- 10,081
- WFG9
I doubt it. Were richer and militarily stronger, with the capacity to protect, aid, and import greater amounts of a nation's goods than several other nations.
- 10,081
- WFG9
It's not impossible that some states who oppose us may still vote with us just because of the potential damage we can cause. I, for one am not sorry we are so powerful.
- 10,081
- WFG9
Like what?
- 2,732
... and he just lost it then? a few months ago? Jeeze, you held out for him for a LONG time, man! I lost respect and stuff when a little bit after the attacking Afganistan. I mean, destroying all of the caves and wasting our valuable tax dollars just to give the press the impression that we're trying(Come on, we could have just sent in special forces in the dead of night and been more effective and saved a lot more innocent people) got on my nerves...
- 601
The U.S. President has NO control of the U.S. Economy...The U.S President is the leader of the Executive Branch of the U.S Government. He/She signs bills into law or veto bills, Represents the U.S. to other countries, decrees executive orders, commanding officer of the military, and enforce the laws. Greenspan is in control of the U.S. Economy. He has been in control of the FED since President Reagan. The Senate and The House of Representives make and pass the Bills to be sign or vetoed by The President, and Declare War on other Countries. I don't remember what other powers the Senate, and the House of Rep. have.
Kristof
Haha, you believe everything they tell you, don't you? Get a clue, and quit being a blind Republican. It's easy for conservatives to use the line quoted above when since the 1970's the economy has been booming under a Democrat president and slumping under a Republican.
- 601
Originally posted by M5Power
No I learned that in a liberal school system. Tax cuts take about 8 to 12 years to see any change in the ecomony, also I don't belong, or support any political party. I'm registered as a Independent. I don't like being hearded around like sheep.
Kristof
That's because every few elections, I'm sure you find it necessary to vote Libertarian. I apologise, how's this: extreme conservative.
Now, on to another frestkd "statistic." Prove to me that tax cuts take eight to ten years to see change in the economy. Perhaps I can prove to you they don't. In 2001, there was a tax cut. We still had a surplus after that. Six months later, there was a terrorist attack. The then-meager surplus is gone and the tax cut effect was disastrous since without it the government would've been able to come back to at least some surplus. The tax cut killed our economy.
And I got $200 from our president. I put it in the bank.
- 4,473
- 4,473
Im American and I dont think like that. There are some people like that here but a majority dont think that way. Just the few that do give the rest a bad name...
- 601
Reagan's tax cut gave us a booming ecomony between 1992 to 2000. I'm not a extreme conservative I just don't like the Federal Government stomping on the Bill of Rights. I'm liberal on some things like abortion, same sex marriages, and drugs. All I want my federal governmnent to be in charge of is defense, and interstate commerce. Let the States deal with everything else. I used my taxcut check for a credit card payment.
Kristof
Oh, I see. Because a Democrat was president during those years, it was Ron Reagan who made the economy boom. BUT WAIT! Your supreme logic (
) backfires! After Reagan was the wonderful George Herbert Walker Bush -- and THIS ECONOMY must be his fault!But, uh, no -- that's got to be blamed on a Democrat, right?
- 601
Originally posted by M5Power
Oh, I see. Because a Democrat was president during those years, it was Ron Reagan who made the economy boom. BUT WAIT! Your supreme logic (
But, uh, no -- that's got to be blamed on a Democrat, right? [/B]
Yes it's Clintlor's fault .... 8 to 12 years the U.S. Ecomony will be booming again. The U.S. Economy cycles 8 to 12 years good, 8 to 12 years bad. It's really quite simple understand the U.S. Economy.
Kristof
- 4,677
I am not an American and i do live in another country, but i don't really understand what you're saying here. I think you are more on your own with comments like that than you might think and hope for.
Whose fault was it when the economy was horrible during Carter's presidency? I don't think you can go that far back and blame Johnson for that one; I think it's clearly a Nixon/Ford thing.
If Reagan was president between 1980 and 1988 (and he was, wasn't he? Or am I wrong? If I am, I'd like to blame a Democrat), and he affected the good economy between 1992-2000 when a Democrat was president, then that Democrat somehow affected the poor economy ever since, then where does George Herbert Walker fall in? I assume he falls in with Reagan, right? All Republicans keep the economy booming!
You're partisan and you refuse to accept the fact that you are. You view one side of the issue like it's completely correct and unchanging, then when I make logical arguments against it, you merely blame those who disagree with you and provide no facts before moving on. Blame those whose fault it is. The reason American politics get such a bad name are because of people like you, on either side of the spectrum.
- 601
Chairman of the Federal Reserve has more power on the U.S. Economy than the President. The current chairman is Greenspan. Reagan appointed him, Old Bush, Slick Willy, Baby Bush reappointed him. The President can suggest ideas to the chairman, and raise or cut taxes. The U.S. Economy has been good overall since end of World War Two. We have never had it as bad when my grandparents were living in the late 20s, 30s, and early 40s.
Kristof
Kristof
I dislike anyone who blindly attaches themself to a single side of any issue without considering all the possible decisions and consequences. I hate Democrats and Republicans equally if they are unable to look at both sides of an issue. I like most politicians, political party aside, because they usually do look at either side of an issue. But then there are self-righteous message board contributiors...
- 601
Originally posted by M5Power
Nor have most first-world countries. Way to change the subject and not directly reply to my wonderful questions, by the way.
I blame Democrats for the everything, no not really I thank Clintlor for making the NRA over 4 million members strong, and the firearms companies having record profits during his adminatration. I trust Democrats more than Republicans, because Democrats will tell you what they're going to do, and do it. Republican will tell you what they're going to do, and won't do it, or do the opposite.
Kristof
Clinton was way too scared of the NRA, but it is my opinion that the NRA is the most powerful political organisation in the country. Don't think they're political? Candidates that come out against them suddenly find their opponents basking in a new wealth from the NRA, and they have, as you say, four million members. Clinton blames the NRA for seats lost during his administration in Congress because his administration originally took a fairly hard line on guns.
Oh, and PS (Re: Republicans doing the opposite): Read my lips: No new taxes.
