[Panic]

Originally Posted by element1286

I'm not big on blaming people for past decisions. Iraq war, energy independence, housing crisis, etc. There were mistakes made in the past by all presidents, Bush made some very big ones.

But lets look ahead, McCain and Obama both have no plans to fix any of the major problems presented to the United States today. Obama talks a big game about how he is going to provide universal Health-Care, but it is never going to pass there is just no money. Obama likes to talk about pulling out of Iraq within X amount of days after he is in office, but is that really the right policy? He doesn't have very much information about the war. Obama likes to talk about cutting taxes for the middle income and raising them for the higher income, but how about getting spending under control and lower taxes for everyone. He likes to talk about producing more fuel efficient cars, and trying to find a new energy source.
But what about the prices now?

McCain wants to stay in Iraq until the job is done. Is this the right policy? McCain has no solution to the energy crisis, he wants to drill in the continental shelf, but why not ANWAR? McCain supports cap-and-trade, this is the worst idea know to man (Obama also supports it). Neither candidate says anything about the reduced value of the dollar.

Overall, mistakes have been made in the past that led to these issues by many previous presidents. But the worst part about it is, neither candidate has any clue how to fix them. They are just doing the usual pandering to special interest groups, and ignoring the common good of most of the country.

Good post.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Originally Posted by Panic

Whats laughable is Democrats thinking the downfall started here, in the Bush administration. The Democrats started this ball rolling many years ago. Now they want to blame the Republicans for the mess we're in. LOLOL. What a joke.

Clinton, in 8 years, erased a record federal budget deficit that he inherited from the Reagan and Bush administrations. He left a budget SURPLUS to this administration. And Bush has managed to create an even greater deficit in his time in office. If you don't understand the immense impact that this deficit has on our economy then perhaps you should read an elementary macroeconomics text. I suppose this too was all the work of the Dems though. How about the tax incentives the Republicans offered to corporations who outsourced American jobs to foreign countries? Was that too the work of Democrats somehow as well?

[Panic]

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker

Clinton, in 8 years, erased a record federal budget deficit that he inherited from the Reagan and Bush administrations. He left a budget SURPLUS to this administration. And Bush has managed to create an even greater deficit in his time in office. If you don't understand the immense impact that this deficit has on our economy then perhaps you should read an elementary macroeconomics text. I suppose this too was all the work of the Dems though. How about the tax incentives the Republicans offered to corporations who outsourced American jobs to foreign countries? Was that too the work of Democrats somehow as well?

How many terrorist attacks did we have during the Clinton administration as opposed to the Bush administration?

[Panic]

Also, Monkey, how old are you? I would guess less than 25.

[Panic]

And I'll explain why I ask in awhile, but I think I'm right.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Real close. 33.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Originally Posted by Panic

How many terrorist attacks did we have during the Clinton administration as opposed to the Bush administration?

And I suppose you think the Iraq War was the appropriate course of action in response to those attacks. I was against this war from the onset and I voted for the idiot in office in his first term unfortunately. The evidence for this war was obviously manufactured and it is responsible for both an economic and diplomatic tailspin that will effect this country far beyond our extraction from Iraq.

[Panic]

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker

Real close. 33.

Actually, not bad. I thought you were one of the young liberals that are trying to pin the woes of the world on a new administration. Which, at 33, you should know is not the case. While I am not a Bush supporter(now)...I will say I voted for him in his first term....and, as hard as it is to admit, I voted for him in his 2nd term, but knowing what I know now...maybe I vote differently...but looking back...how can I vote for Kerry? Anyway...off topic alittle bit, I am not a huge Repulican,...or Democrat...but I do look at what is best for my family. And it has been the Republicans that have presented the best side for which I choose to live. So far.(and that is key)...If you go back to Brent's post, I think it is on target on how this country has evolved in the 20th century...politics aside we have become a nation in need of serious help.

[CrazyL]

Originally Posted by Panic

Good post.

Element knows his stuff for sure...

[guitarjosh]

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker

Yeah the economy showed weakness and despite multiple warnings from Alan Greenspan calling for federal fiscal responsibility, Bush went on a record spending frenzy further tanking our economy. Carter may have been a boon to the economy but not nearly as much as Bush has been. However, Carter wasn't actively trying to eliminate citizen's rights, strengthen the executive branch in an attempt to give the President almost tyranical powers, nor did he send us into a confounding war with an exorbitantly high price tag with no real option for extraction. FDR's circumstances were nothing close to Bush's. Japan, a sovereign nation, blatantly attacked us. Bush manufactured evidence to invoke a pre-emptive war with a country which had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Not to mention, our involvement in WWII was inevitable to begin with. They are not comparable.

When the recession started in the spring of 2001, we were using Clinton's budget. I agree with you that Bush spent way too much money though.

Let me know when they break out the misery index like they did during Carter. Double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, gas lines. Again, nothing that bad under Bush.

Japan attacked us because FDR provoked them. They did everything they could to avoid a war. They didn't want to fight, but FDR sure did. Read some of my other posts. He told the Sec. of the Navy right after Pearl Harbor that he knew they would hit us, but he didn't think they would hurt us (He admits he knew they would attack, but did nothing). He told the commander of the recently sunk Asiatic Fleet that if he would have known that we couldn't defend the Philippines, he would have stalled Japan for another year ( he admits he could have avoided war) Bush did NOTHING that bad. We lost more troops in the first few months of WW2 then we have in Iraq in 5 years. Our involvement in WW2 was not inevitable. Again, Japan didn't want to fight us, and 3 months after Pearl Harbor, Germany lost the Battle of Moscow. About 1 year after that, they lost the Battle of Stalingrad. From that point on the Germans were on the defensive on the Eastern Front, and took a major hit in moral.

[robzilla]

Things will get back to normal once a democrate gets back in office.

What i dont get is how people still have love for Bush, even here on a Online Gambling site. His government is bleeding out offshore gambling.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Originally Posted by guitarjosh

When the recession started in the spring of 2001, we were using Clinton's budget. I agree with you that Bush spent way too much money though.

Let me know when they break out the misery index like they did during Carter. Double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, gas lines. Again, nothing that bad under Bush.

Japan attacked us because FDR provoked them. They did everything they could to avoid a war. They didn't want to fight, but FDR sure did. Read some of my other posts. He told the Sec. of the Navy right after Pearl Harbor that he knew they would hit us, but he didn't think they would hurt us (He admits he knew they would attack, but did nothing). He told the commander of the recently sunk Asiatic Fleet that if he would have known that we couldn't defend the Philippines, he would have stalled Japan for another year ( he admits he could have avoided war) Bush did NOTHING that bad. We lost more troops in the first few months of WW2 then we have in Iraq in 5 years. Our involvement in WW2 was not inevitable. Again, Japan didn't want to fight us, and 3 months after Pearl Harbor, Germany lost the Battle of Moscow. About 1 year after that, they lost the Battle of Stalingrad. From that point on the Germans were on the defensive on the Eastern Front, and took a major hit in moral.

Yeah. Japan's attack had nothing to do with their imperialism and expansion into Manchuria and Indochina and subsequent sanctions from the U.S. It had nothing to do with their plans to engage the British and Netherlands in war to further expand and gain control of the East Indies either. It was all because FDR "provoked them." Wow. And I suppose all the evidence that Bush brought before the American electorate and the world regarding Iraq's imminent threat was factually sound and not manufactured in any way. I guess I've heard it all now. And yeah, the French, Austrian, and British forces all had the Germans completely entrenched. That's why we had such a grand welcoming party on the beaches of Normandie. Jeez. Have another one, pal.

[guitarjosh]

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker

Yeah. Japan's attack had nothing to do with their imperialism and expansion into Manchuria and Indochina and subsequent sanctions from the U.S. It had nothing to do with their plans to engage the British and Netherlands in war to further expand and gain control of the East Indies either. It was all because FDR "provoked them." Wow. And I suppose all the evidence that Bush brought before the American electorate and the world regarding Iraq's imminent threat was factually sound and not manufactured in any way. I guess I've heard it all now. And yeah, the French, Austrian, and British forces all had the Germans completely entrenched. That's why we had such a grand welcoming party on the beaches of Normandie. Jeez. Have another one, pal.

FDR didn't care about the Sino-Japanese war until they signed a pact with Germany. That war had gone on for several years and we still traded with them. But once that pact was signed, everything changed. He started giving the Chinese weapons under lend/lease (they were at war with Japan). He froze all Japanese assets in America. He put a full embargo on them, essentially a blockade. Japan has few natural resources, so they imported much of what they used from us. He followed an 8 point plan in the McCollum memo to go to war with Japan. So let's stop right there and review: FDR begin helping the enemy of Japan with lend/lease, cut off their supplies, and froze their American assets. Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner told Roosevelt that what he was doing would cause a war with Japan.

Yet, the Japanese government didn't want war with America. Japanese Prime Minister Konoye asked to meet anywhere in the Pacific with FDR. The PM offered to pull out of Indochina, and to let FDR mediate a truce to end the Sino-Japanese war, and in return to have the embargo lifted. America's ambassador to Japan strongly urged him to have the meeting. Roosevelt refused to talk (sound familiar?). So in November of 1941, Japan sent a delegation to Washington, again to try to get peace and have the embargo lifted. They were met with a 10 point ultimatum, which included a full pull out of Manchuria. A lot of Japanese blood had been spilled and a lot of money spent to get Manchuria, which they wanted as a buffer zone in case Stalin attacked. So Japan had a choice: get out of Indochina and Manchuria, go back home with their tail between their legs and get their oil from America, or go to war with America and get their oil from the Dutch East Indies. FDR and Hull knew this would lead to war. The US ambassador to Japan called that ultimatum "The document that touched the button that started the war." Congresswoman Clair Luce even said that Roosevelt “Lied us into war”.

So again, FDR wanted war with Japan. He tried to pick a fight with Germany, ordering our ships to fire on Germany's subs on sight, doing lend/lease with Germany's enemies, but Hitler wouldn't fight us. His only other option was to provoke Japan into attacking us once their treaty was signed.

By the way, I've said several times in this thread that I'm against the war in Iraq, so please quit trying to put words in my mouth.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Shark79

its crashing because US citizens are compulsive buyers ... they need to have the latest gadget available.

Good point... That is the opposite of the truth. I wonder how long you sat (undoubtedly drunk) on the toilet before that nugget of wisdom became apparent.
I am upset with myself for replying to this garbage. you do not impress me