Year Ago Today Bush Re-Elected: Happy Now Assholes?

For a president who enjoys the support of the Religious Right, there sure have been a lot of Acts of God during his watch.

So if we had had an actual drop, would that be a good thing?

Suppose the deficit had been $374B in 2003. Then it dropped to $318B in 2004.

How about that?

Regards,
Shodan

Depends. If it turns out to be a lie, some rotten propaganda cooked up to make us look bad, I’m gonna be really pissed. I wish I could believe that’s likely. I don’t.

your comment was that the deficit was less than projected. my rebuttal (fixed) is that by merely over projecting our planned deficit we can always keep the Shodans of the world happy. and yes, if the deficit itself dropped a smidge (from 374 B to 318 B) that would be a good thing, if that’s all you looked at, unless, of course the figure for 2005 showed an overall increase from 2003. IOW, you can if you choose, look at a single year drop instead of the overall 7 year trend. Won’t cut it for me, thanks.

50%.

Well, no, my pleasure that the deficit is significantly less than expected is based on the notion that the projection was a best guess. Random figures would not produce the same effect.

But I realize it was a semi-facetious remark.

Regards,
Shodan

Sad but true… the guy won the election. Maybe the following should be a thread on its own, but I’m curious to know the percentages of minority groups that actually voted… anyone have that info? a link maybe? It makes me wanna puke every time those living on, near or below poverty line harping about ANY adminsitration and I come to learn that they don’t vote–at all. Personally, I think if you’re eligible to vote and you don’t, you should be penalized… for the low income, especially those receiving gov assistance–cut their benefit$.

“you snooze, you lose.”

So if I’m not in the same political party as you, I’m a fool, a monster, and vermin?

Why is this ridiculous moral equivalency trotted out all the time?
When crimes are commited in our name, they should be exposed.

Pointing out that our agents are engaging in torture is not the same thing as outing a spy in retaliation for debunking the lies which led to a war.

Clinton and Bush served during vastly different times. Bush had to address a lot of issues that Clinton never did. And I’d argue that the government running a surplus isn’t a good thing, it just means government taxed its citizens more than it needed to.

A big deficit isn’t good either, and I’m not saying Bush is a financial whiz. I’m just saying I wouldn’t expect much of ANY President when it came to budget balancing when we have to address issues with global terrorism and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The conspiracy theories about Bush planting evidence I’ll just disregard entirely.

I get to wondering what America would be like like if Gore had been sworn in in 2001 rather than Bush. There would be no war in Iraq today. There would never even have been a serious debate about it - just a crank in Austin carrying on about it. Saddam tried to kill his dad you know. The U.S. would not have flushed its credibility at the U.N. with the now infamous presentation of the evidence of how Iraq’s WMD program was continuing. None of us would have ever heard of Alito, Miers or Roberts - not to mention Abu Ghrab. There would have been no torture memo. OBL and AQ rather than Saddam would have been the focus after 9/11. The Paris Hilton windfall estate tax break wouldn’t have gone into effect. That, coupled with no Iraq war spending would have helped the budget situation.

Also, Bob. Do you think FDR belongs in prison for the Japanese internment camps? I think concentration camps on the scale of hundreds of thousands is way more serious than anything Bush has done. Yet you don’t hear many liberals saying he belonged in prison.

Sometimes in a war situation you have to do unsavory things, at least in the war on terror we’ve done unsavory things with some clear goal. The removal of 112,000 Japanese persons to concentration camps would be the equivalent of Bush having all the arabs in the United States arrested. I’m not necessarily saying FDR was a bad guy, or that Bush is totally correct in everything he’s done (of course I would argue he has less to do with the treatment of captured persons on the battlefield than FDR did with citizens in his own country) but I think sweeping statements like “Bush should be in prison.” Go entirely too far.

Some of our agents may have committed crimes, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs to bake a cake, and I think most realists will accept that as a fact.

I’m not in any political party; my remarks are directed at Republicans. Also, most people are only one of the three; two of three if elected.

Make that four; I forgot “insane”.

Well I would, except he’s dead. I’ve heard plenty of liberals slam FDR/America for that; it’s the conservatives who defend it, in my experience.

I also say the war in Iraq is much worse than those camps.

We see the broken eggs. Where’s the cake?

Would you say what happened with detainees falls under the same category as what happened to those in Japanese internment camps? (I watched this last night, btw. Angry doesn’t even begin to describe it. Most of these people left their countries to get away from the treatment they’ve received at the hands of our government.)

C’mon Rev…you know they’re famous for their warm, “people-person” ways. He’s the quintessential Bushman.

For that FDR analogy to work, his response to Pearl Harbor would have to have been an invasion of Mexico.

Shodan, representing the best of America.

Too bad I would get banned for saying what I really think.

For the record, internment camps are not even near the same as concentration camps. Both were bad. One was horrific.

President Bush is not responsible for any bloated floating dead bodies, unless you’re saying that he caused the hurricanes. :rolleyes: