Awol Bush

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
That's only partially true. We're a "depressed area," but our local economy definitely improved during the Clinton Years.

Just speaking from personal experience, we had literally five houses on our block alone, that went up for sale during the Reagan administration, and pretty much stayed unoccupied thru Bush Sr.'s term in office.
Each of them were sold while Clinton was in office... and they didn't sell to just anyone, they sold to young families with children. Exactly the same kind of people who vacated those houses in the '80s... leaving behind mostly retirees and senior citizens.

The willingness of young familes to move to your area is always a good sign, and our prospects definitely picked up during Clinton's 8 years, and a lot of good things started to happen to our town again.

But in the time since Bush Jr.'s been in office, my dad was laid-off (thankfully, he's back to work), my uncle has had to find a new job, several other friends and relatives have either been laid-off and/or had to find new jobs, and my co-workers and I are all dealing with our hours being cutback.

So, it may be a little black and white, but this is the way I see it...
12 years of Republicans in the White House equalled lay-offs, a lousy local economy, and the necessity for families to uproot and move to other areas.
While 8 years of a Democrat in the White House lead to our local economy improving, jobs being created, and young families returning to the area.

And now, of course, with 4 years of another Republican, we're seeing the same patterns as we did in the '80s and early '90s.
And that's the trouble... one shouldn't have to uproot their family in order to find a decent paying job.
In our little town, we're a very tight-knit community, and the majority of the families who live here, have been here for four and five generations. It's painful when the younger generations have to move elsewhere in order to make a living... as they had to during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years.
Having to do so, prevents their children from having a close relationship with their grandparents, cousins, et al., and denies them from being raised in a true family environment.

Yeah, but no one said life was fair. Times change, places change. You have to make do sometimes...

I can understand where you are getting your impression but I think it is oversimplifying things to look at the economy that way. For one thing, you have to take 9\11 into effect when talking about economics over the last couple of years. The economy has always been on a rollercoaster pattern of going up and then back down and a downward turn did come while Clinton was still in office. Many point to this time period in mid to late ’00 as the beginning of a recession. 9\11 definitely helped it along, and did more to the job market (especially around here) then anything (I lost my job as did my Mother. I had to switch industries while my parents moved to Kentucky for lack of decent positions in my mother’s field).

You could also argue that Bush was handed the economy in the shape it was in. And our local economy doesn’t have so much to do with the Federal Government as it does the bumbling and mishandling of our local taxes. I have never seen a city so poorly run. Tax & spend, tax & spend….it always has and always will drive economies into recession. The policies of presidents and politicians have ripple effects that last after they are out of office. I think most presidents inherit economies that are the results of policies enacted years before.

Rob

[Keith]

Bush versus Kerry.

I have no desire to vote for either one - they both come from big money (Washington is awash in money - it's the driving force and it's not gonna change). Just like Bush, Kerry will make sure his big contributers are taken care of.. which is why I thought Dean was refreshing. His so called yelling speech was nothing more than media manipulation (ABC did a small snippet about how it really played out). Dean wasn't always scripted, and even though it showed his flaws, it made him real. Like maybe he could change things. But Dean didn't stand a chance. Too much big money against him. At least with Bush or Kerry, the corporations, unions, big donors, etc. will have an investment in their future no matter who won.

I also think the Vietnam stories - was he awol, was he a traitor, was he this, was he that.. the dems accuse the repubs with the same thing the repubs accuse the dems of..

Both men were young during the Vietnam war - one of our nation's darkest periods.. can you really judge men their age by things they did when they were so young? Maybe mistakes were made, and favors were handed out.. it's history, and it has nothing to do with what is relevant today, imo. America has more serious problems that she needs to deal with.

:-)

[gldstwmn]

Howard Dean comes from just as much wealth as Kerry and Bush. His mother was maid of honor at one of the Walker family weddings. He has raised a great deal of money and I've yet to see where the bulk of it has come from. His recent attacks on the frontrunner serve no purpose and make me very suspicious of him.
It's of no use to blame the media for Howard Dean's downfall. Dean was the frontrunner before anyone voted and once they did vote, it was clear that Dr. Dean was not the first choice of many people.
His political novice in Washington would have put Dean at a great disadvantage. He had only been Governor for eight years. Vermont is a very small state. His experience in government there would have not prepared him for the presidency, IMO.
Senator Kerry's military service and President Bush's do not even begin to compare IMO. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? The questions about President Bush translate into his present day character. His constant refusal to be accountable for his behavior had early roots. He has not served us well and I doubt that it will get any better if he is given a second term.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Senator Kerry's military service and President Bush's do not even begin to compare IMO. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? The questions about President Bush translate into his present day character. His constant refusal to be accountable for his behavior had early roots.

"Character"....sounds a lot like the argument about Clinton from the right during Monicagate. The left didn't think that it mattered that much then...

And, I am sure most people with political ties, both Dem and Rep., tried to pull strings to get out of the war.

I don't think Kerry fighting in Vietnam qualify's him for anything. I think his past voting record is more of a relevant issue. Same for Bush. I hate all this digging into how a candidate acted when they were 20.

I am scared to have Kerry as the head of our military. Didn't he vote against the first Gulf War?

Rob

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Keith
Bush versus Kerry.

I have no desire to vote for either one - they both come from big money (Washington is awash in money - it's the driving force and it's not gonna change). Just like Bush, Kerry will make sure his big contributers are taken care of.. which is why I thought Dean was refreshing. His so called yelling speech was nothing more than media manipulation (ABC did a small snippet about how it really played out). Dean wasn't always scripted, and even though it showed his flaws, it made him real. Like maybe he could change things. But Dean didn't stand a chance. Too much big money against him. At least with Bush or Kerry, the corporations, unions, big donors, etc. will have an investment in their future no matter who won. :-)

My thoughts exactly. People claim they want change, then they go and vote for Kerry, who still hasn't been able to articulate in a way that makes sense why he voted for the war but is against it. People say they want change, then vote for someone like Kerry, who is indebted to big-money interests, then they get indignant about the influence of corporations and special interests in government.

I also get the sense that some folks subconsciously are thinking that putting Kerry in there will bring back the Clinton years, economically speaking. Trouble is, there is no Internet on the horizon or anything that will in a truly organic way (albeit somewhat misguided, in the case of the Internet) provide a sustainable economic boom. This is partly because Clinton and Gore were giving away everything they could think of to the corporate interests with things like NAFTA and favorite-nation status for China. Bush came in and took this pattern to the extreme.

At best, if Kerry gets in, we will be somewhat better off from a social stantpoint. Economically, however, it is unlikely he can undo anything about this monster, unless he gets serious about repealing NAFTA and starts penalizing companies for sending our jobs to India and China. And believe me, I want Indians and the Chinese to have good lives, but I think there's probably a better way to accomplish this without hurting American workers and exploiting other countries.

If Kerry gets in, it's back to ho-hum status quo bull****. Enough middle class folk might have enough money in their wallets to buy DVDs and go to St. Thomas once a year. But the poor people are going to continue to get screwed. We'll just ignore them, as we did in the Clinton years.

Nothing will change.

If the Weed stays in office, by golly, things may just get so bad that we'll have no choice but to make a REAL change in 2008. By then, Dean will look like the political messiah.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I am scared to have Kerry as the head of our military. Didn't he vote against the first Gulf War?

Rob

But you're just fine with Bush being the head of our military? That, my friend, is the scary thing.

And, yeah, he did vote against the first Gulf War. Not that it mattered because, in all honesty, the Gulf War was a joke (albeit not as big as this Iraq war).

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
But you're just fine with Bush being the head of our military? That, my friend, is the scary thing.

And, yeah, he did vote against the first Gulf War. Not that it mattered because, in all honesty, the Gulf War was a joke (albeit not as big as this Iraq war).

No - the first Gulf War stopped the agression of a terrorist state against a U.S. ally. Perhaps we should have just let all of our allies go straight to hell and let Iraq take them over because that is where it was headed.

Also (albeit unrelated):

Kerry-Fonda Photo is a Fake

Newsday reports, "As a 20-year-old photographer documenting the country's struggle over the Vietnam War, Ken Light snapped the picture of John Kerry at a peace rally in Mineola. It captured the future senator alone at a podium, squinting into the sun. Light did not photograph Jane Fonda on that warm June Sunday in 1971. The actress, who is reviled by many Vietnam veterans for her vocal stance against the war, did not even attend. But when opponents of the Democratic presidential hopeful began e-mailing Light's picture to one another four days ago, it depicted Fonda standing by Kerry's side. The photo had been doctored... That is apparently where someone found it, and attempted to capitalize on the attention garnered by an authentic photo of Kerry and Fonda at a Vietnam-era rally - seated some distance apart." http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines



__John McCain Says Man Who Posted Phony Kerry-Fonda Photo is a Fraud

The best the Bush camp can come up with against Kerry so far is a phony allegation of an affair and a fraudulent photo of Kerry with Jane Fonda. Worse, the "attack dogs" are getting sleazier by the day. Even John McCain is outraged by the Kerry-Fonda attack. "Sampley was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced to 180 days' probation for attacking a legislative aide to McCain, reports the Star-Telegram. "Sampley has been criticizing Kerry for much the same reason he made McCain a target for years: Neither man, Sampley contends, has done enough to investigate his assertion that U.S. servicemen were left behind in Vietnam after the war. In defending Kerry, McCain said of Sampley: 'I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit... He does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans.'" http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nati...printstory.jsp

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No - the first Gulf War stopped the agression of a terrorist state against a U.S. ally. Perhaps we should have just let all of our allies go straight to hell and let Iraq take them over because that is where it was headed.

Oh nonsense (with all due respect, of course). What exactly makes Kuwait such an important ally? Oil. But, wait, isn't Kuwait one of those pesky dictatorships that we supposedly don't want anymore? And wait, wasn't Iraq able to attack its neighbors back then because we gave Saddam the weapons? And, wait a little more! Didn't Saddam tell our, ahem, intelligence guys that he was planning to take Kuwait to see if we were against it and when we didn't tell him not to do it he just assumed that it would be OK? Hey, I'm not done yet! Wasn't Kuwait really a part of Iraq to begin with?

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No - the first Gulf War stopped the agression of a terrorist state against a U.S. ally. Perhaps we should have just let all of our allies go straight to hell and let Iraq take them over because that is where it was headed.

No, the Gulf War protected oil and led to the genocide of the Kurds. That's what it did. And I'm sure you probably believe that that the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait hospitals and murdered babies from their incubators, right?

[dissention]

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/c...55E401,00.html

Wow. What goes around comes around. I'll bet Rove's knicker elastics are in a twist over this one.

[strandinthewind]

An ally is an ally Once we committed to them, it would not have been right to back out.

Note: This is not to say I think the Gulf War, like the current war which is really just a continuation of the first Gulf War, could not have been avoided; it/they should have been avoided mostly for the reasons asserted by Carne. As an aside - America and other countries suck when they play this apparent game of let's build you up to do out bidding - but do not step out of line or else.

But, the fact remains we considered Kuwait an ally and SH knew it. After all, he was publicly warned not to invade. Interestingly, even Kuwait was an ally solely because of oil, which they probably are/were, that is not a bad thing. Although I hate our unwillingness to move on to alt. fuel sources, the bottom line is America, and the world for that matter, will crumble unless we have oil and the Middle East has plenty of it and we are allied with countries that supply us with it. Moreover, America is allies with many countries based on trade agreements, etc. Why is oil different?

Finally, what would have happened if the world (not just America) had done nothing when SH invaded Kuwait? It would have been chaos. Perhaps Saudi Arabia would have invaded Iraq (an interesting proposition) but that would have driven oil proces through the roof and mostly crumbled the world's economies.

Food for Thought.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Although I hate our unwillingness to move on to alt. fuel sources, the bottom line is America, and the world for that matter, will crumble unless we have oil and the Middle East has plenty of it

Doll, you just described the reasons for both wars. Kudos to you...finally!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/c...55E401,00.html

Wow. What goes around comes around. I'll bet Rove's knicker elastics are in a twist over this one.

While the source is "dubious" and I'll believe it when i see the medical recors, etc., yes, Rove is probably apoplectic

Oh the mud will be a slingin' for the next nine months.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While the source is "dubious" and I'll believe it when i see the medical recors, etc., yes, Rove is probably apoplectic

Oh the mud will be a slingin' for the next nine months.

I wouldn't call Flynt dubious at all. To be honest, I think he's a very credible person. He actually made these allegations before the 2000 election, but his source refused to go public. But they are now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt

"During the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton in 1998, he offered a million dollars for evidence about sexual affairs of Republican lawmakers. He published a magazine about the results; his investigations eventually lead to the resignation of incoming House speaker Bob Livingston. He also accused Bob Barr of having committed perjury when testifying about his wife's abortion."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Clinton_in...209179,00.html

"Mr Flynt accused him of hypocrisy. At a
Beverly Hills press conference, the
publisher of Hustler magazine produced
an affidavit signed by Gail Barr, the
congressman's ex-wife.

She claimed he had condoned and paid
$300 for an abortion in 1983. She also
claimed that he drove her to the clinic and
looked after their two children while the
operation was performed.

Mr Flynt contrasted this with Mr Barr's
statement at the couple's divorce
proceedings three years later, when he
said under oath that he had opposed the
abortion. In her statement, Ms Barr also
accused Mr Barr of having an affair with
Jerilyn Dobbin while he was still married
to Ms Barr. Mr Barr married Ms Dobbin a
month after the divorce. At the divorce
hearings, he refused to answer questions
about his alleged adultery."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Doll, you just described the reasons for both wars. Kudos to you...finally!

I agree - I have never said oil was not a reason I have said that the WMD issue and, more importantly, SH's unwillingness to comply with the world's order to prove he disarmed was the big issue. Althogh the humanitarian issue and the thought of SH passing on WMD were big issues as well, the bottom line is the world cannot afford to have the supply of oil at risk - both R and D's wisely realize this. The solution IMO is to get off of fossil fuels, but I know that will never happen until the last drop of oil is harvested, which is sad.