President Bush has presided over the greatest increases in federal spending since the Great Society. "He's a big government guy," notes Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, who has been one of the few voices on the Right to faithfully hold Bush accountable for liberal spending. Bush spends like Lyndon Johnson. He conducts foreign affairs like Woodrow Wilson. What's there to like?
It's an awful way to look at it, but Bush rode the wave of hysteria and confusion that developed during and certainly after 9/11. His popularity from that one terrible event carried him through his first term and propelled him (with the help of weak Dem candidates) to a second.
I think that if people really looked at his record and studied his lopsidedly leftist leanings, history might have been different. That and the fact that the Dems have and still cater to the philosophies of the loony lefty fringe and can’t run a candidate that has a chance of beating an opposition candidate. No matter who it is.
That’s why it beats me that they can’t stand Bush. He’s more like them than us.
I would like him more if he left in his wake more dead Muslims. There was a hell of a lot of killing to do after 9/11 and we're not nearly there yet.
I think that a lot of the necessary killing has been done and there will be more to follow no matter who occupies the Oval Office.
But, we can't afford anymore GW and although we don't know yet what kind of bargain we'll be getting next time, I'll be happy on 1-20-09. He's unfortunately demonstrated that he's a Globalist who will help to sell pieces of this country off in the name of international business and for the purposes of global interests.
Not that fraud Clinton didn't do that as well, but here's hoping that our next CIC is more Buchananeque when it comes to the sovereignty of our country.
Homer: agreed, but "Muslim" is too broad a category. We needed to kill the right Muslims, the ones involved in 9-11 or similar conspiracies against us. This is why it was obvious from the get go that Iraq was BS, because no serious person would assert directly that Iraq was complicit in 9-11, but the warmongers would, in order to create a false impression, insinuate it indirectly or "suggest" it weakly. What A.H.es. There was real just punishment to be meted out after 9-11, and instead we got this pre-hatched plan to remake the middle east.
I mostly agree with you uberfrau, but I don't have the big problem with Iraq that everyone else seems to have. The RIGHT muslims have shown up there and we're killing them. What's the problem? If anything, we're not killing enough. We should terrify them with our brutality in war, and smother them in kindness in peace. Not the other way around. We don't seem to have the balls to brutal.
So are you saying that another Pelosi peace mission to Syria is out?
Syria can suck her ****, as far as I'm concerned.
Assad wouldn't touch her with your camel prod.
Homer: re the possibility the the right Musilms have shown up in Iraq, and we are killing them, so that's good.
A few issues. There is something unjust in itself about attcacking and occupying a country in order to make it that staging ground for a different battle. We are probably creating more of the "right Muslims" to kill by doing what we are doing. But our goal should not be to make people the type of people we want to kill, because that is wrong in itself, and also because it is self-defeating -- we are likely to create more than we can kill. Are we merely attracting the people to Iraq who would have been planning terrorist attacks on us anyway? I doubt it. And what about the many people killed as collatoral damage, by us and them, in the process?
Homer,
You're first comment above cracked me up, thanks for the good laugh.
As for "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" they weren't there before we invaded, but now they will very much be there after we leave b/c we destroyed the entire power structure of that weak nation. It will be a "failed state" as they say, and Al-Qaeda will likely be able to assemble and be active there for a long time to come. That is a bad consequence of our invasion, one that could easily have been foreseen and used as a prudential argument against overthrowing a petty dictator who was no threat to us.
love it Homer, i couldnt have said it any better. around this website it seems to me people dont care if iran gets nukes. you know , what did they do to us? its none of your concern. well i hope they do, and maybe 5, 10 yrs. from now, we might lose new york but we might get what i want, maybe 30 mil. dead rags! lol
We have three choices in '08: A big government democrat, a big government republican, or Ron Paul. Thats why ronaldo paulini is giving his support to Ron Paul!
I guess that's where we differ uberfrau, I think we've attracted the people who would be planning to attack us anyway. As for choosing our field of battle in Iraq, I don't think that was the original pretense for invasion.
But, since we're in the neighborhood...
As a parent, and a generally peace-loving guy (despite my hawkish comments), it breaks my heart to see any of this happening, and I agree with your general concern for the situation.
Homer,
The people who are actually literally planning to attack us (as in us over here) are mostly over here already it seems.
Gee, I would love to have those troops that "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is attacking back here securing our borders and ports, and a rational immigration system to match!
To an extent, I too am an advocate of ABC, but would Giuliani be that much different than Hitlery Rotten Clipem?
Just another NY liberal McGovern voter who is for sanctuary, amnesty, affirmative action, gun control, government funded abortion on demand, etc. Not to mention what he’d do to the courts.
He’s very slick and quick (in a NY kind of way) but even though he ran a large city it doesn’t mean he can run the United States.
Tagem:
Iran with nukes would be very unfortunate, of course. But in a cost-benefit ana1ysis of the situation, what are we to do to prevent it? The answer is not all that obvious. And, is it better or worse than Pakistan having them? Even though Pakistan is our "ally" and Iran and "enemy," the latter is a more stable state, and more in control of what happens within its borders. Also, if we could stop them from getting nukes without going to war with them, great. The question is how we could do that.
Homer: How many young men are there attacking US troops in Iraq? And I'm supposed to believe that all those men/boys were/would have been anti-US terrorists anyway? I don't believe it for a second. What is needed in Iraq -- both for their own good and ours -- is a state that can control as much as possible the activity within its borders and that has a natural incentive not to let anti-US terrorists operate there, because we would pummel them (again). That is precisely what we destroyed by going there, and that is precisely what we are preventing by staying there.
"Since 2002, America has run five consecutive world record trade deficits. Three million manufacturing jobs have disappeared. The euro has almost doubled in value against the dollar. The Canadian dollar has reached parity. Plants have been shutting down across this country for years. The wages of Middle Americans have stagnated. The trade deficit with China last year reached $233 billion, a world record between any two nations".
