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

[Martin_Hyde]

@lonesome loser

Surely you have a cite for this.

Not handy, but hey this isn’t Great Debates. You can do the leg work here. This kind of information is pretty easily googled.

[Syntropy]

@Martin Hyde

I never read that specific quote when it actually happened, so I never had a chance to believe or disbelieve him.

(B) I’d say he’s deceptive and that some of the things he said there were deceptive. I don’t necessarily view that as bad, in fact I certainly don’t view that as bad.

Obviously, as you pull your “facts” out of your ass as readily as Bush does.

[Martin_Hyde]

@SteveG1

Well then. It’s OK to lie in order to start a war against some two bit piece of shit who was no threat to us, and couldn’t even attack his neighbors.

To answer the question would require me to accept your argument that Iraq was no threat to us, since I don’t accept that I have no answer.

It’s OK for Bush to do whatever he fucking pleases, so long as we get to say “ooooh look shiny”.

Not anything he wants, there are obviously limits.

It’s OK that our troops lives are being pissed away for this bullshit. Bush has never done a fucking thing from a realistic perspective. He despises those in the “reality based world”.

When I use the world “realism” I’m meaning “big R” Realism, the foreign relations school of though. You can read about it at your local Wiki article here.

We have a faith based war, shored up by what one analyst called faith based intelligence. It’s all good as far as you are concerned.

I disagree that it’s a faith based war, I think faith has little to do with it.

As for the rest of your comments, I wasn’t saying the President can do what he wants, or can put himself above the law. Or that he has the right to set up torture camps, or et cetera.

The President isn’t acting above the law when he lies (well, depending on how he does it.) Legally speaking yes, there are situations where the President lying would be perjury or some other crime, but in the context I’m talking about that wouldn’t be an issue.

[elucidator]

@Scylla

Interesting. Did you know that that is the highest trough rating of any of the last seven sitting Presidents?

Interesting! How much further for the all time record? Think he’ll get there by say, oh…Thanksgiving?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Bricker

Yes, I do. I’m not in favor of disproportionately taxing the wealthy.

I’d repeal the Medicare drug benefit scheduled to take effect next year. For the next five years we’d save about $300 billion. I’d zap the “earmarks” in the highway bill, and kill about $30 billion.

When Bush became president, the two top income tax rates were 39.6 percent and 36 percent. Now they’re 35 percent and 33 percent. How much, precisely, do you think we’ve lost in revenue with those cuts?

I think the wealthy should have to pay a larger share than the poor. However I’m opposed to the ludicrously high tax rates we saw before Reagan (65% for some brackets, and if you go back a bit farther you have 90% tax rates for some brackets.)

[Martin_Hyde]

@BobLibDem

How come we never hear from Martin Jekyll?

Did away with him long ago.

[Slacker]

@Martin Hyde

Not handy, but hey this isn’t Great Debates. You can do the leg work here. This kind of information is pretty easily googled.

a) You can answer multiple questions in one post. Just FYI.

b) Also, usually when someone makes a claim, they do the leg work themselves.

Other than that, how’s the rest of your first day on the internet going?

[FinnAgain]

@Martin Hyde

Not handy, but hey this isn’t Great Debates.

No, but it is the Dope, and you’ve been around long enough to know that people are expected to provide cites for their claims.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Maureen

Okay, since no one else is calling you on THIS load of horse shit.
President Clinton increased spending on anti-terror and comissioned VP Gore to make recommendations for anti-terrorism laws. The Republican congress wasn’t especially impressed with it.

Similarly, following the mid-air explosion of TWA Flight 800, which was initially believed to have been the work of terrorists, President Clinton created another commission, which his vice president headed. At the president’s request, the Gore Commission made recommendations within 45 days. This study, and a new anti-terrorism law enacted by Congress, helped reduce fears. But the proposed law was almost toothless by the time it reached the president’s desk, and the Gore Commission recommendations have been largely ignored.

In fact, Condi Rice blew off Richard Clarke when he tried, on several occasions, to warn her about Al Qaida. He attempted to meet with her, she stood him up. The Bush administration called the outgoing Clinton administration “alarmist” in regards to terrorism. Try to keep up, huh?

Yeah, and things changed. Bush has done significantly more to overhaul the anti-terrorism activities after 9/11 than Clinton ever did.

Am I claiming Clinton did nothing? No I am not. Am I claiming Clinton probably wouldn’t have done the same thing after the biggest terrorist attack in history? Of course not, any politician would.

That’s why it’s ridiculous you’re arguing this. History itself forced Bush to become the President that has done the most thus far to combat terrorism, simple facts of history forcing ALL of our hands.

[Martin_Hyde]

@SteveG1

I have personal observation and memory, if that will serve as a cite. I believe that was during the Reagan days. It was variously called trickle down economics, supply side economics, or voodoo economics. It was the time of hostile takeovers, corporate rading, junk bond kings and layoffs. It was a time when mental patients were being dumped on the streets. It was a time when people with jobs and trades and skills were laid off or fired and lived on the street with their families. The money apparently did not trickle down to them, at least not by what I saw.

Supply side economics is a separate issue.

The statement I made was:

Tax rates lowered for the wealthy in the past actually increased, both in absolute and relative terms the amount of taxes they paid.

Not sure why you felt the need to introduce an entirely separate issue.

But have fun with that.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Zoe

No, the source of your problem are certain views which you hold which separate you from even most of your fellow Republicans.

BTW, even if it were true that the people who elected President Bush to his position are not capable of understanding important geopolitical issues, neither is he, for that matter. And he appears to have lied to almost everyone – not just the uneducated.

He doesn’t act much like a public servant – more like an emperor or worse.

And it is Congress that has the power to declare war – not the President. In keeping with our Constitution, it really isn’t cricket to lie or alter evidence presented to Congress so that the balance of power is unfairly weighted.

You really don’t seem to put much value on our form of government with its checks and balances.

Was it okay for him to lie in his campaign and when he took the Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution?

If he hasn’t uphold his oath then he can be impeached. We’ll see the validity of any such impeachment when it comes to trial in the Senate.

The constituion purely states that the Congress has to DECLARE the war, ie send out the official declaration. The president has full control of the military. Both parties get to be involved in the decision, and that’s obviously the intention of the Constitution.

[Martin_Hyde]

@FinnAgain

No, but it is the Dope, and you’ve been around long enough to know that people are expected to provide cites for their claims.

This stuff is taught in ECON 101 classes across the country every year.

It’s like asking me to cite that Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election.

[FinnAgain]

No, it’s not, and you know it.

[kaylasdad99]

@Martin Hyde

The constituion purely states that the Congress has to DECLARE the war, ie send out the official declaration. The president has full control of the military. Both parties get to be involved in the decision, and that’s obviously the intention of the Constitution.

Oh, did Congress DECLARE war? I’ve always wanted to read a declaration of a war while it was going on. Do you suppose you could provide a link to the text of the declaration?

Thanks loads.

[Martin_Hyde]

Anyways, I know I said I wouldn’t, but here:

Link

[Slacker]

@Martin Hyde

This stuff is taught in ECON 101 classes across the country every year.

It’s like asking me to cite that Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election.

Some of us didn’t take Econ 101.

FinnAgain nailed it.

Martin Hyde, don’t bother explaining yourself for me now, I won’t be reading your posts anymore anyway. I’m here to fight ignorance (including my own), not revel in it.

[Martin_Hyde]

@kaylasdad99

Oh, did Congress DECLARE war? I’ve always wanted to read a declaration of a war while it was going on. Do you suppose you could provide a link to the text of the declaration?

Thanks loads.

There was no declaration, so Congress chose not to exercise that part of their power. There’s nothing illegal with what Bush did. And on top of it all Congress gave it’s approval by an OVERWHELMING vote.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Slacker

Some of us didn’t take Econ 101.

FinnAgain nailed it.

Martin Hyde, don’t bother explaining yourself for me now, I won’t be reading your posts anymore anyway. I’m here to fight ignorance (including my own), not revel in it.

K, have fun.

To the rest of you posting here, we’ve obviously got a “pile on” going on and I don’t have the stamina to reply to all of your points. Basically, I’ve explained my stance and why I feel the way I do. There really isn’t much to talk about beyond that, other than minor quibbling over minor points. If you actually care to know any more and aren’t just in this for the chance to “try and show that you’re the superior party” you can send me an email or alternately start a separate thread on the issues you feel are important.

[kaylasdad99]

@Martin Hyde

There was no declaration, so Congress chose not to exercise that part of their power. There’s nothing illegal with what Bush did. And on top of it all Congress gave it’s approval by an OVERWHELMING vote.

Yeah, I know the War Powers Act gives it the veneer of legality. But, AFAIAC, a state of War does not actually exist, absent an actual declaration of war, and it bugs the hell out of me when I hear people saying that we are AT WAR.

[World_Eater]

This is the most insane thing I’ve yet to read on this board.

@Martin Hyde

I’d have no problem if he lied or altered evidence.

If the case was so strong he wouldn’t have needed to lie.

I think the War in Iraq needed to be fought,

Ok, that’s your opinion, fine.

and if the public needed to be given something flashy to get behind it, than so be it.

Flashy? He lied. But that’s ok right?

The President of the United States needs to do what is necessary from a realistic perspective,

The realistic perspective is that this war didn’t need to be fought. Sure SH was an asshole, but he wasn’t our problem.

he can’t be concerned with the opinions of the vox populi, who in general are not capable of understanding important geopolitical issues.

It’s not opinions he should be worrying about. He should be worrying that his lying and insane actions have placed a target on the back of every American in the world.

It isn’t a crime to lie, even if you’re President of the United States. In fact I think it’s a necessity in many instances.

I don’t even know what to say to this, it boggles my mind.