Anything Good About The Gwb Administration????

Does anyone believe that either major party gives a damn about them except at election time? Both parties are owned, lock, stock and barrel by big money. Big money being those industries that are currently screwing us the most. Drugs, oil, health insurance, etc.

The one good thing the Republicans have going for them is that they aren't the Democrats (the clueless party).

End of rant.:mad:

Bob
 
Progunner

It still doesnt change the fact that Cheney is a hypocrite when he talks about military spending cuts. Just more politcal BS from Both sides

From 1989 to a decade later military spending went from 5.6 percent of GDP to 3%.

you seem to forget that the cold war changed the face of the miilitary. How are nuclear subs and interballistic missiles going to fight terrorists?

What you seem to forget is the Force that went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq was the forces that were under Clintons administration. If I remember correctly isnt it that pointy headed fella called Rumsfeld who says we dont need more troops?????????

At this very minute Bush and Rumsfeld have cut back on personnel in the Air Force and Navy.

Rumsfeld has cut back the purchase of 380 F-22s to 180

They are talking about cutting aircraft carriers from 11 to just 9

even Rumsfeld is getting rid of Army Division structures and going and is going to brigade combat teams

Rumsfeld is also planning a Navy should consist of no more than 100 surface combatant ships

Rumsfeld cut the Crusader Program

so Rumsfeld and Bush are doing the same stuff they said Kerry would do.

They spoonfed you the election time BS and some of you lapped it up

FYI... I voted for Bush I and Dole, I never voted for Clinton. I voted for Bush twice as Gov of Texas and His first term as president.

during his first term I woke up and smelled the BS
 
You know, I've heard the "one man has no abilty to control oil prices" argument and it's total bushwah.

ANY price is based on economic circumstances. If one needs the money, one tends to price their goods cheaper. If the economy is out of control and inflation is rampant, prices tend to reflect the need for future funds in case the economy worsens so the price goes up. Conversely, if the economy is steady, prices tend to stay the same or drop.

ONE man can control this effect through tax cuts that benefit only the super rich while leaving the poor and middle class footing the bill and raising prices to pay for it.

ONE man can control the price of oil. One man can control the price of food, housing, basic sustenance, healthcare, and just about EVERYTHING else with a stroke of a paid-for-by-the-people pen. If you don't believe it - sorry but that don't change the fact that it's true. Bush hurt us with his "tax cuts" that weren't really cuts and which helped wrecked the economy (although they weren't the total cause). Jobs are down, costs are up, and forecasters are telling us it ain't over yet. Those are not signs of healthy economic growth or stability.

Thank you Pax for stating the obvious and I heartedly agree with you. I would also offer the following observation: Clinton was bad. GW is much much worse because although Clinton lied and smiled at you while shoving the knife in, Bush smiles and makes you believe that you LIKE IT when he sticks you in the back.
 
you seem to forget that the cold war changed the face of the miilitary. How are nuclear subs and interballistic missiles going to fight terrorists?
Indeed.
At this very minute Bush and Rumsfeld have cut back on personnel in the Air Force and Navy.
Do we need the air force and navy to fight terrorists, or the tin-horn dictators of terrorist harboring countries? Not so much.
Rumsfeld has cut back the purchase of 380 F-22s to 180
Good, I'd say cut them all out, F-15s and F-16s drop bombs on terrorists just as well as these F-22s do.
They are talking about cutting aircraft carriers from 11 to just 9
And, do we need 11 carriers to fight terrorists, I think 9 would be quite sufficient.
even Rumsfeld is getting rid of Army Division structures and going and is going to brigade combat teams
Reorganization does not mean reductions in force.
Rumsfeld is also planning a Navy should consist of no more than 100 surface combatant ships
Again, what's the need for a big navy when the threat is on the ground?
Rumsfeld cut the Crusader Program
A failed program that needed to be cut.
so Rumsfeld and Bush are doing the same stuff they said Kerry would do.
Nonsense. They are reallocating resources where they're needed, to ground operations. Kerry just hated the military period, and would do everything in his power to emasculate it, just as he voted to do in his entire house and senate carreer.
ONE man can control this effect through tax cuts that benefit only the super rich while leaving the poor and middle class footing the bill and raising prices to pay for it.
Nonsense, everyone who pays taxes benefited from the tax cut. Plus the decrease, as a percentage of revenue, was rediculously tiny, far too small to cause the catastrophic results you claim, espeically since that was years ago.
ONE man can control the price of oil.
More nonsense. The fact is oil is a commodity that obeys the laws of supply and demand. We need too much oil because the liberal/left/greens made it impossible to build nuclear plants, drill for oil domestically, or build new refineries. Add to that the huge increase in consumption by China and India, and there's your high oil prices. Has nothing to do with one man, another absurd claim.
 
Progunner once again your argument doesnt hold any water..

The nature of world conflicts have changed. With the end of the cold war, with the Soviet Union basically obsolete, it was no longer necessary to maintain a sizeable force.

Rather it was more important to shift goals and have a more active fast paced quick response/deployment military in place.

Rapid deployment forces make more sense in this day and age. Unless your planning to invade either DPRK or China what would the need be to maintain such a large and expensive force?

Also for those who question Tora Bora..maybe they should go there...militarily it would be questionable to send a large force into tight mountainous passes. There arent alot of options to deal with such geography ...its either small units on the ground or a whole pile of GBUs or Daisy cutters.

Syria? Why cant people accept the reality that there were no WMD prior to the invasion, and that in fact the bulk were decommissioned after Gulf War 1. The reasons for the war were mainly fabricated and Bush and his followers bare alot of responsibility for this.
 
Wow......

...scanning through these threads is like reading a plot for a really bad "conspiracy theory"-style movie. Here's a good thing about the GwB admin--we still have guns, kerry would have banned them (probably all of them, if he had his way). That, and the GwB admin is at least cutting some useless .gov programs. Okay, so we use a few less aircraft carriers, and a few other things....when's the last time more than, say, 2 were needed at any given time for the US to fight a conflict? WWII? The F22 is overrated--no air force can stand up to ours as is--I'd gladly pay for F22s/F35s, if any air force had anywhere close to the air superiority of the US (and those that come close are using old US aircraft...ours are better). Times have changed, and we're still on top.

Sure, bad things have come outta the GWB Admin--but, tell me this; which list is longer, the amount of good that's come out of the Current white house, or the amount of bad that would have come out of a Kerry white house? And no, I'm not saying the current Admin is perfect--it's not. It just happens to be the one in power at the moment.
 
Progunner once again your argument doesnt hold any water..

And what argument would that be??? The ten points of military cuts that I listed were executed during the Clinton/Gore reign. Those numbers are a matter of public record. Look it up for yourself.

If you are saying that those cuts did not happen under the Clinton/Gore reign, you are living in a fantasy world. No matter how many times you yell, "Did not!!! Did not!!! Did not!!!" history will not change to something you find more palatable.

Clinton gutted the military just because he could. That will never change.
 
Did not!

you know not just Clinton but other Presidents have made military cuts.

How do you justify not cutting the military in times of peace?

Why do you feel that a non beligerent nation would need such a large force?

Have alot of the most recent conflicts not shown the wisdom of Clintons cuts?

Do you disagree that it is more important to have a fast deployable flexible military battlegroup...then a large static one?

Last but not least...I am puzzled by your continued vitriol for Clinton..did he wrong you personally? Were you one of those deemed redundant and were cut?
 
Here ya go, 459:

As I said before:
During the Clinton/Gore Demosocialist reign, Clinton made the following cuts:

1.) 709,000 active duty troops.
2.) 293,000 reserve troops.
3.) Eight standing Army divisions.
4.) 20 Air Force and Navy air wings with 2000 combat aircraft.
5.) 232 strategic bombers.
6.) 19 strategic ballistic missle subs with 3114 warheads on 232 missles.
7.) 500 ICBMs with 1950 warheads.
8.) Four aircraft carriers.
9.) 121 surface combat ships.
10.) Bases, naval yards and logistics to support the above (8 and 9).

These are the facts of the matter and they cannot be denied. If this does not qualify as gutting the military, then nothing does.

As far as the "wisdom":barf: of the gutting of our military which Clinton perpetuated, as I said before:

The troops and hardware Clinton did away with are not available to relieve our overdeployed Guard and Reserve units in the middle east today. I'm sure these soldiers and their families are grateful to Clinton for that.

That's why you have a strong military and not a token force. You ask a fool's question when you ask -
How do you justify not cutting the military in times of peace?
Again, see above.

Your shortsightedness is further revealed by your asking -
How do you justify not cutting the military in times of peace?

Military leaders from Sun Tzu to General George Patton have held one guiding principle above all. It has worked for over 2000 years. George Washington said it best: "If you would have peace, then prepare for war." That's how you justify not cutting the military in times of peace.

Clinton, in his "wisdom,":barf: did just the opposite, military genius that he was. He gutted the military just because he could. The results of his ignorance and recklessness became evident on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Last but not least...I am puzzled by your continued vitriol for Clinton..did he wrong you personally? Were you one of those deemed redundant and were cut?

No, I did not lose a job because of Clinton's ignorance and slipshod excuse for governing. Yes, he did wrong me personally, as he wronged every other American. He did not do his job, plain and simple.

He let Bin Laden go free on at least three seperate occasions that we now know of. Islamic extremist/terrorists attacked the USS Cole and killed our men - a blatant act of war, and Clinton did NOTHING.

He sat and watched as our troops were slaughtered in the streets of Mogadishu, their bodies dragged through the streets and mutilated - and he did NOTHING. Men ten thousand times better than him died due to his negligence, AND HE DID NOTHING.

Clinton not only "loathes the military" by his own admission, he demosntrated it by his cowardice and negligence when in office.

That's why the vitrol. Obviously none of that offends you, since you continue to defend him.
 
hmmm monday night quarter backing at its best..

hindsight is so perfect.

You mention that Clinton did not frag OBL. Yet wasnt he trained and provided with weapons during the previous two republican presidencies? Back when his help and terrorist ways was deemed a necessary part of the fight against communism?

hmm so when the Cole got bombed (likely by either Yemenis or Saudis) just out of curriosity who would you have invaded? Lol the fact that you do not understand the difference between a conventional conflict requiring conventional weapons and or tactics vs. a counter insurgency guerilla type war...is dissapointing to say the least.

Unfortunately due to the fact that they dont wear a uniform and call many countries home, precludes the ability to be able to counter strike against them readily.

To say the casualties of sept 11 are Clintons fault is truly a disgusting myopic fallacy.... Perhaps you should reread history as it was evidently a combination of several key events all working in synergy that allowed the attack to take place...from teh FBI screwing around..to Bush focusing elsewhere..to white house ignoring memos...etc...many many things contributed to this action..


hmm and then theres Bush..using his family connections to avoid actual combat duty..and perhaps even dodge his duties as well...

In short Clinton was both good and bad...but he doesnt deserve this sort of revisionist history of ommision..and he certainly didnt make the US a more dangerous place to live during of after his term...

Can you say the same thing for the current administration? Has his muddled foreign policies actually made the US safer? I dont think so.
 
Rebar your right

what do we need the Navy and Air Force for? Lets just get rid of them! brilliant thinking

who needs stinking aircraft carriers anyway..lets just do away with them.

F15s average two decades of age. How many people here drive 20 year old cars? the older the vehicle means the more money you pour into it for rebuilding and upgrades.

Of course military personnel are consumables to Rumsfeld and Bush so what if old planes tend to have more accidents its only a pilot and a plane. nothing that can be replaced

Im suprised that Rumsfeld hasnt hired you yet!

decrease in revenue isnt that bad??? you been reading the papers any?

federal government growth is at its highest since the presidencies of Johnson and Nixon. Bush promised us limited government didnt he. What a joke that campaign promise was. Bush has yet to veto a single pork infested bill.

Hi I am George W Bush and I beleive in limited government....yeah right.

all this has resulted in record deficits.

do the soldiers get the best equipment available..no

but oil companies get tax cuts during periods of record profits.

Hi I am George W. Bush and I am moving America Forward

Patriot Act and wants in increase in military use inside the US during what they call a "crisis"

This is the same administration that underfunded the Veterans Administration so returning veterans of OIF and OEF do not get the medical care they needed.

This is the same administration that proposed pay cuts in 2003 for soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

but they made sure big oil got its tax cuts during period of record profits. So what if troops die because they dont get the best..at least the folks in the oil industry are livin large.

Bush and Cheney.... sticking it to the troops and citizens giving it all to the contractors and oil companies.

by not giving the American troops the best Bush is letting soldiers 10,000 times better than him die.

Great Americans there.....
 
Kerry abolish guns?

Do you thnk that any one president will really be able to erradicate the 2nd ammendment?

No I am not pro Kerry.
 
1 gungrabbing president and 51% of congress is all it takes to gut the 2A. The SCOTUS probably will not rule on any 2A issues, even if it is blatantly unconstitutional.

What W has done for us:

In addition to frivolous lawsuit immunity the 2nd Amendment is recognized by Congress as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT in recently passed S.397
(a) FINDINGS.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

ATF is no longer allowed to indefinitely keep records of approved firearms sales from NICS. Klinton had created a de facto federal gun registry by keeping records of Brady Bill approvals.

Under AG Ashcroft the DOJ released documents stating that the 2A was an individual right.

AWB sunset thanks to Tom Delay and Republican lead House of Reps.

There has not been a single Ruby Ridge or Waco under W.
 
Congresional Findings and 25 cents wont get you a cup of coffee at Mcdonalds...

If W had some cajones he would be going after the GCA of 68...
 
Last edited:
"when's the last time more than, say, 2 were needed at any given time for the US to fight a conflict? WWII?"

Well, let's see...

That would be...

Korea, in which carrier aircraft made made the defense of Pusan viable (which prevented the total subjegation of South Korea by the North Koreans), which made the withdraw from the Chosin Reservoir possible, and which, unlike land based aircraft, took the war to the North.

Vietnam, again for the ability to take the war to the North.

Gulf War I. Carrier aircraft were an absolutely vital link in in the military's ability to destroy Iraq's command and control infrastructure.


As much as Bill Clinton is being maligned (and for good reason), he actually got one thing right when he said...

"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that
the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: 'Where's the nearest carrier?'"

President Bill Clinton
March 12, 1993
aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt
 
"You know, I've heard the "one man has no abilty to control oil prices" argument and it's total bushwah.

ANY price is based on economic circumstances. If one needs the money, one tends to price their goods cheaper. If the economy is out of control and inflation is rampant, prices tend to reflect the need for future funds in case the economy worsens so the price goes up. Conversely, if the economy is steady, prices tend to stay the same or drop.

ONE man can control this effect through tax cuts that benefit only the super rich while leaving the poor and middle class footing the bill and raising prices to pay for it.

ONE man can control the price of oil. One man can control the price of food, housing, basic sustenance, healthcare, and just about EVERYTHING else with a stroke of a paid-for-by-the-people pen. If you don't believe it - sorry but that don't change the fact that it's true. Bush hurt us with his "tax cuts" that weren't really cuts and which helped wrecked the economy (although they weren't the total cause). Jobs are down, costs are up, and forecasters are telling us it ain't over yet. Those are not signs of healthy economic growth or stability."


WOW! Authentic American Gibberish!

Especially when it comes to oil or any other internationally market traded commodity.

And here we have the "wrecked the economy" line of twaddle again.

Tell me, given that unemployment and inflation remain low, the stock market remains relatively steady (and above 10,000 despite the price of oil), real wages have been increasing and consumer spending remains strong...

Where is this wrecked economy of which you speak?

Got some actual facts and figures to back up your doomsday portrayal?

Where are these apparently 50 to 60 million Americans who have been thrown out of their jobs by this wrecked economy?

Where's the high inflation and high interest rates (a'la the 15 to as high as 21% rates in the waning days of the Carter administration) that are crushing American industry and making it impossible for you to afford food, shelter, or clothing?

So far we've heard a lot of "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Bush has destroyed the economy, taken my job, and eaten my brain!" (Of the three, it's pretty apparent only the last one is 100% true...)

I remember hearing a lot of that during the middle to late 1980s, as well, when the United States was in the middle of the most remarkable, non-war fueled economic recover in our history.

So tell us, where's your proof of an economy in shreds?
 
So tell us, where's your proof of an economy in shreds?

Well, lets see.... The last time I checked, the notion of raising interest rates was based in the belief that inflation and consumer debt was running too high and needed to be checked. It seems that just today, the Feds voted to raise short term (overnight) interest rates again for something like the 11th time in a row.

High inflation is not something which happens in a good economy.

Unemployment currently remains steady at a higher than historic rates (somewhere around 5.5% although I don't remember the exact percentage) by around 1 - 1.5%. While this number is steady, it shows that we are not creating new jobs so that previously laid-off workers can get reemployed.

High unemployment is not indicative of a robust economy.

United, Delta, et al are ALL declaring bankruptcy even after the federal money bailouts. The Big 3 auto mfg's are all closing plants and laying off workers.

Big businesses going BK are not a sign of a stable, viable economy.

The stock market has been between 10,000 and 10,600 for FIVE YEARS. That's five years of zero-gain stagnatation in a marketplace that MUST grow.

A stagnant wall street is not a sign of a growing economy.

Consumer debt is on the rise. Not good either.

There's the rising imbalance between imported goods and domestically made goods.

Growing trade deficits are not a sign of domestic economic recovery.

There are other signs. Things like new housing starts being down, home ownership on the wane, the housing market slowing, mortage rates rising, stocks slipping in general with strange "product-less" compaines making the most gains (ie: Google and other companies who don't actually make anything), Blue chip companies having to cut retirement benefits or dump the retirement funds completely, Gasoline has doubled in price in ONE YEAR & heating oil prices are expect to do the same this winter, Food costs are rising, Employee wages are stagnant or falling, etc.

Last but not least, consumer confidence is way way down.

We have been dealing with financial doldrums for 6 years. Thats 6 years of tax cuts, rebates, reforms, and bailouts and there's no indication that anything is going to change EXCEPT to get worse (remember that interest rate hike I mentioned? Rates get hiked are because things are expected to worsen - not get better.)

GB would like you to think that things are rosier than they are. His press corps make statements that spin the facts. Earlier this year they even said that we were creating new jobs somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million new jobs. When the truth of it all was determined only something like 150 thousand new jobs were created after the rising unemployment figures were factored in. And those 150K new jobs were somehow supposed to offset the 2.5 MILLION workers who have lost their jobs in the last 6 years.

I didn't make up these facts. They are out there and we've all heard of them. Our U.S. economy sucks right now and there's no end in sight. This is the legacy that GB will leave behind. This is also the legacy that GB and his supporters will try to blame on Clinton.
 
I asked for proof, not baseless suppositions.

"High inflation is not something which happens in a good economy."


WRONG.

Inflation can happen in a good OR a bad economy.

The fact that the Fed is raising short-term interests rates is not proof that the economy is in bad shape, it's proof that the economy is a moderated entity.

Unemployment for September, the last month for which averages have been calculated, was 5.1%.

That's significantly better than the unemployment rate during the hot economic years during Reagan's presidency, and better than it was for the first 3 years of Clinton's presidency.

The unemployment rate also started to exhibit marked month-to-month instability during the last years of Clinton's presidency as the dot.com bubble began to soften, and then burst.

The true market of economic stability isn't necessarily a low unemployment rate, but one that is both low AND stable. And by any marker, the current unemployment rate is low and stable.

If you really want to see "historic" rates, take a look at this: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

More debunking later...
 
why is the house I bought 1993 for $154,000 now worth nearly $500,000
Because the dollar has been devalued approximately 100*154000/500000=30.8% by inflation which is the increase in the money supply by the Federal Reserve Bank, which has remained largely intact through both Clinton and Bush administrations (Greenspan). Your house is not worth more per se, but the spending power of the dollar has declined. If you had put that $154,000 into a coffee can buried in your backyard would it be worth $500,000 today? Why was a loaf of bread 'worth' $.09 and the average salary $1,368 in the 1930's?

Does this indicate a weak or strong economy? It just depends on who you talk to or which financial publication you are reading that week.
 
what do we need the Navy and Air Force for? Lets just get rid of them! brilliant thinking
Absurd hyperbole.

Who threatens us at sea? The once mighty Soviet fleet rusts in it's docks, no nation is in any position to challenge America's dominance. Nine carriers, in a world of American dominance of the sealanes, is plenty.

Who threatens us in the air? North Korea? No. No one has a plane that can challenge the F-15s and F-16s, nor the numbers, nor the vast experience of our pilots and ground crews. Why replace perfectly good aircraft, the B-52 has been in service much longer, and still does the job just fine.

All this nonsense just to smear Bush is rediculous. No wonder the American people have tuned out the hysterically overwrought rantings of the liberal/left. The more they carry on, the louder they scream, the less attention they're going to get. This chicken-little "the sky is falling" they've been singing these last 6+ years got old a long time ago.

By all means do carry on though, it just makes it easier to defeat you where it matters - at the polls.
 
Back
Top