Current Events

[Jack Sarratt]

This'll be about politics, economics, trigonomics, and all the other stuff that we have to tolerate, even if we don't like it. I personally like getting to know what people's opinions are on politicians.

George Bush

I believe some of the things he is doing are right, but I believe he could do a better job with our nation. I have no problem with the war on terror itself, only his responses to the repercussions occuring at home.

[Magus]

As for Bush, there's already an advanced topic here.

Just read on CNN.com the other day that Bush's popularity is at 32%, the lowest it's ever been. They quoted about 6 or 7 additional poles by other major groups, who report the same findings. I believe it had a 3% margin of error.

[Neurolanis]

3 per cent in which direction?

[Magus]

In either direction. So it can range from a 29% to a 35% approval rating.

[Qray]

As for Bush, there's already an advanced topic here.

I don't want to speak for Jack, but I think he meant an actual discussion on President Bush, not simple bashing.

To be sure, Bush has had a tough time in office. I don't know if any other man could've done better. His cure for Social Security and his policy of opening up protected lands to oil drilling both seem short sighted and ill thought out to me.

[Jack Sarratt]

Your right Qray. I did mean discussion. But not just about Bush. I only gave him as an example. This thread'll be for any current event or topic you guys want. Terrorism, taxes, laws, anything goes!

I just finished a project on Bush's father, Bush 41, and I find it interesting to compare father and son in their policies. To be sure, times aren't the same, but it is still interesting to view their different political decisions concernig economics.

For example, Bush 41 pursued moderate domestic policies (with the exception of the Omnibus incident). Bush 43 hasn't done much of anything special at home. He appears to be more concerned with the war on terror than with the economic health of our country.

[Magus]

Agreed.

So where do a lot of you stand on the proposed immigration bill? Should we give illegal immigrants general amnesty and citizenship? Should we deport them all? Or should we do something a little more moderate than the two extremes?

[Qray]

I just finished a project on Bush's father, Bush 41, and I find it interesting to compare father and son in their policies. To be sure, times aren't the same, but it is still interesting to view their different political decisions concernig economics.

For example, Bush 41 pursued moderate domestic policies (with the exception of the Omnibus incident).

B41 had much more economic and political experience under his belt before becoming President than B43. B41 was a U.S. Congressman, Ambassador to the U.N., Republican National Committee Chairman, Director of the CIA, Chairman of the First International Bank in Houston, and a two term Vice President. Though it most likely cost him his re-election as President, he was even smart enough to raise taxes when needed even though he'd previously campaigned on the promise not to do so.

B43 has an MBA, was the managing partner of the Texas Rangers, and served as the Governor of Texas. All the rest of his political experience lies behind the scenes. Things like Senate and Presidential Campaigns.

B41's moderate policies could be said to derive from his extensive political experience. Being in the game that long, it's very possible that he knew the best way to get things done was through compromise and cooperation.

Bush 43 hasn't done much of anything special at home. He appears to be more concerned with the war on terror than with the economic health of our country.

B43 DID try to fix Social Security which would've gone a long way towards increasing domestic economic stability, but IMO his solution was the wrong one. I think the problem with fixing Social Security is that no politician will ever do what actually needs to be done to fix it. Namely making it illegal for congress to dip into Social Security when the government needs money.

[lastone]

Okay Let’s look at Bush. Basically the grass roots of support for the President comes from a group called Neo Conservatives. Whose views can be witnessed at the PNAC. Project for a New American Century. Neoconservatism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, that are relatively unopposed to "big government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.


In the context of United States foreign policy, neoconservative has another, narrower definition. Critics define it as interventionist with hawkish views on foreign policy. Supporters define it as advocating the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones. This view competes with liberal internationalism, realism, and non-interventionism.
The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism, but can also refer to the comparatively recent emergence of this "new wave" of conservative thought, which coalesced in the early 1970s from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II. It also serves to distinguish the ideology from the viewpoints of "old" or traditional American conservatism.
Modern neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard and some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush and are particularly noted for their association with and support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.


The term "neocon", while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied, who claim it lacks a coherent definition.



The second Major support base for the Bush administration comes from the religious Right. A group that I like to call Pharisees. Since any resemblance to them and Christianity is purely coincidental.


http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1002 ... rning.html

The burning of books is nothing new to True Christians®. We invented the practice over two-thousand years ago as a way to promote our faith in the Lord Jesus. In the early days of Christianity, when new believers in Christ were converted, they were naturally moved by the Holy Spirit to grab as many books as they could and pitch them into a fire. Unlike the sissy "Jesus is Love" fake-Christians (whom both the Lord Jesus and we loathe) we have running around today, the early followers of Christ were never ashamed to burn books. In fact, if you ever find yourself being grateful for the destruction of most of the works of pagan nincompoops like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, you have a Christian to thank! In the Book of Acts we learn that anyone who wants to follow Jesus, should get ready to start burning books at the drop of a hat. The Book of Acts teaches us that burning someone's books is a great way spread God's word.
"Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together and burned them before all men and they counted the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." Acts 19:19-20

The Pharisees range from people who appose choice in the abortion issue to the more extreme that what to bring in Biblical law to the United States. Some of these nutters want to extend the death penalty to Adultery and Homosexuality. But as I said they are the more extreme. I like to call them the Republicans Taliban Wing


Now the obvious question here is “So what’s your point?


Well it would seem obvious that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with any threats that it may have held, but more to do with a Neo Con Evangelical desire to spread democracy. That the moves to ban Gay marriage was a payoff to the Pharisees to get them out for 2004 elections.


The real kicker that shows the incompetence and ineptitude of this administration lies in the fact that the Republicans held majorities in the Congress and the Senate as well as holding the Whitehouse, and the Bush domestic agenda failed miserably. One could argue that the only thing done so far in the bush second term is to replace a Supreme Court judge.

[Merle]

Wow, Lastone! Those straw men certainly took a beating at the hands of your intellect.

[Jack Sarratt]

(clap!clap!clap!clap!clap! Jack nods to lastone.)

Very well put lastone, although I'm going to have to try and work through all of it.

[Merle]

To be sure, Bush has had a tough time in office. I don't know if any other man could've done better. His cure for Social Security and his policy of opening up protected lands to oil drilling both seem short sighted and ill thought out to me.

Social Security is not going to be fixed until it collapses. Those of us who are paying in now will never get our money out. If Social Security were a private venture, those responsible would be indicted. But trying to "fix" Social Security leaves the one who proposes the fix open to the most oppressive of demagoguery as W found to his chagrine. His own party will not support him in this for fear of recriminations from seniors at the polls. No demagoguery seems more potent than scaring the old folks that someone is going to cut off their social security checks.

Did you know that there is no legal guarantee that Social Security will pay a benefit? True! To illustrate the politics of Social Security, back in 2001, the House passed a Bill guaranteeing Social Security benefits. Killed in the Senate. Who controlled the Senate in 2001? Of course, the house majority did it only for politics, knowing the majority in the Senate would kill the bill. But the American electorate, being largely ignorant, never heard anything about this.

As for gas prices, shouldn't we be rejoicing at high gas prices? Won't high gas prices force people to drive less, use more fuel efficient vehicles, and create an economic climate in which alternative fuel sources can be explored? [Q could re-educate us here on E85, among other things.] After all, the prior administration proposed the BTU tax for the express purpose of driving up gasoline prices, for all the reasons I've mentioned above. [And note to LO: 1993-1994, the prior administration, having a friendly Congress managed only to raise taxes on the middle class, cut Social Security benefits, and admit gays to the military. Major issues, such as nationalizing health insurance got killed by his own party.]

W is no conservative when it comes to domestic policies. Interestingly, we hear all the time about how the war in Iraq is leading to this terrible budget deficit. Iraq is costing about 100B per year. The deficit is about 350B per year. Do some math. We're spending a bunch of money on domestic stuff, and way too much pork barrelling. My biggest disappointment in W is that he never once vetoed a spending bill.

On the Iran front, we have major problems. Inherited, by the way. Who cut a secret deal with Russia to permit that country to provide nuclear technology to Iran? Who agreed to keep that deal a secret from the US Congress, in violation of a law he helped write?