W for President in 2008

[StoopTroup]

There has only been one other 3 term President before there was a two term limit.

As important as the War on Terror is and how serious the danger to all of us is...

Would it be prudent at this juncture to repeal the Law and allow GW to run for a third term or maybe even a 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th term...as we push to bring Freedom to the Iraquis people....

I just thought I'd run a little fun pole...

:pop:

[crawfish]

No Bushes.
No Clintons.
No Cheneys.
No Gores.

I'm tired of 'em all.

[Rogue]

This thread won't end well.

[royalfan5]

The stress of the Presidency is such that serving beyond 8 years is probably more than one person should handle. I think W will really need a vacation in 2008. The United States should have enough talent that we can find a capable leader to succeed him.

[OCUDad]

Nor did it start well.

[Rogue]

I think we can find someone to catch 10 passes. :texan:

[King Crimson]

well, since his own party is jumping ship...i'd say no.

[King Crimson]

:texan:

eggzackery.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Dear Jebus, NO!

Look. I am quite conservative. But Karl Rove and his militant religious ultra-right monkeys have stolen the Republican party and turned it into a freaking joke. And bottom line the G.W. Bush presidency has been one of lofty ideas and absolutely zero competency in executing them. In comparison it makes his dad look downright Jacksonian.

...and that is all I have to say about that...

[StoopTroup]

This thread won't end well.
:pop:
Heh.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'd vote for repeal the term limit, but not in support of the dude getting re-elected. I just think that term limits are silly.

[StoopTroup]

I'd vote for repeal the term limit, but not in support of the dude getting re-elected. I just think that term limits are silly.
Then join me in the "YES" column if you dare....:D

[King Crimson]

since he has so much support from his own party, why not?

[Vaevictis]

Heh.

Want a Democrat in the Oval Office in 2008? Let Bush run again.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'm for repealing the term limits, but not because I want to see W. in office again

the term limits create an automatic lame duck 2 years after the re-election.....

Fred Thompson for President - 2008!!!!!!!!!

[King Crimson]

hey, it's standard totalitarianism to create a problem that only "you" can solve.

anyone who defends Bush, is partisan huffing.

[SicEmBaylor]

i'm for repealing the term limits, but not because I want to see W. in office again

the term limits create an automatic lame duck 2 years after the re-election.....

Fred Thompson for President - 2008!!!!!!!!!

I'm on board with Fred Thompson. He said those magic words "states' rights" that make me weak in the knees.

[King Crimson]

bush has no support, you people are hilarious.

[Frozen Sooner]

hey, it's standard totalitarianism to create a problem that only "you" can solve.

anyone who defends Bush, is partisan huffing.

Why do you hate Smokey the Bear?

[King Crimson]

what's yer 10-20?

[Petro-Sooner]

Jeb.

[King Crimson]

Jeb.

that oughta be a good joke.

you can't be serious.

[Petro-Sooner]

I figured it would rial some people up. :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Dear Jebus, NO!

Look. I am quite conservative.
..We've seen your other posts. Why do you say you're conservative?

[SicEmBaylor]

We've seen your other posts. Why do you say you're conservative?
Why do you?

[King Crimson]

I figured it would rial some people up. :D

you should have let it ride....then.

before copping to it....

[bri]

Well, technically he's only been elected once, so he could run again and you wouldn't have to repeal the two-term law. :D

[SoonerBorn68]

Well, technically he's only been elected once, so he could run again and you wouldn't have to repeal the two-term law. :D

Technically he's been elected twice. :)

[soonerscuba]

I'm still trying to figure out if this thread is a joke or not. Bush would get hammered by just about anybody, I don't think he could survive a primary.

FWIW, Jeb would have been 10x the president of his brother.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Vote Billy Joe Kleig 2008!

[C&CDean]

Meh. I'd vote for his no-speech giving *** again. In my book, his only real ****-up is his inability to carry on a decent conversation in American.

[Jerk]

No.

"Compassinate conservatism" = big government.

No more Bush. I'll be voting for Fred Thompson.

[SicEmBaylor]

No.

"Compassinate conservatism" = big government.

You sir, get it!
Spek to you.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Heck no! Dubya is the single cause of global warming! :D

[StoopTroup]

I had more than one reason to post this pole...

One of them is that I think it's to bad he's trying to pass this mess he's made to another Administration.

Another is that I figured it would be a landslide in the "NO" column as most folks aren't buying much of what is being said by Gonzales, Rove or Cheney ect...

It's also extremely funny that the Ex-Chief of the CIA (Tenet) has written a book about the screw ups made after 9-11 during his term.....and nobody even mentions Donald Rumsfeld's name....

Is it me or has Rumsfeld fallen off the face of the Earth?

Nope...I didn't post it as a joke....

I can't imagine how anyone could think GW can save face before he leaves office.

I always thought he might catch OBL as an encore....but I don't think they even have the foggiest idea where he is....

Who knows....maybe they've had him at Guantanamo this whole time....I seriously doubt it though...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why do you?What makes you say I'm not, or are you saying that?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No.

"Compassinate conservatism" = big government.

No more Bush. I'll be voting for Fred Thompson.Who will you vote for in the general election?

[mithrandir2398]

I just puked in my mouth a little, when i saw the thread title.

[OCUDad]

Who will you vote for in the general election?A true conservative believes in the secret ballot. Stupid question. What a surprise.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I had more than one reason to post this pole...

One of them is that I think it's to bad he's trying to pass this mess he's made to another Administration.

Another is that I figured it would be a landslide in the "NO" column as most folks aren't buying much of what is being said by Gonzales, Rove or Cheney ect...

It's also extremely funny that the Ex-Chief of the CIA (Tenet) has written a book about the screw ups made after 9-11 during his term.....and nobody even mentions Donald Rumsfeld's name....

Is it me or has Rumsfeld fallen off the face of the Earth?

Nope...I didn't post it as a joke....

I can't imagine how anyone could think GW can save face before he leaves office.

I always thought he might catch OBL as an encore....but I don't think they even have the foggiest idea where he is....

Who knows....maybe they've had him at Guantanamo this whole time....I seriously doubt it though...I really doubt you would have anything good to say about Bush, no matter what he did or didn't do, or any other republican even a rino, for that matter.

[Jerk]

Who will you vote for in the general election?

It won't be Hillary I'll tell you that.

[Fraggle145]

meh.

http://www.petitionspot.com/uploads/9634-jesus-thread-sucks.gif

[soonerscuba]

Obama v. Clinton is going to set up an interesting stats Q&A. Women and minorities have a tendency to poll strong then come up short in an election. We as a country are going to have a chance to see which Americans will choose between to very similar candidates.

Also, if Iraq doesn't change with a quickness, the Republicans are going to be in serious trouble.

[StoopTroup]

I really doubt you would have anything good to say about Bush, no matter what he did or didn't do, or any other republican even a rino, for that matter.
I was Republican from the time I was 18 till about 8 years ago....

I liked Ronald Reagan....he was good for the Country IMO...

I'm glad Nixon got us out of Vietnam....and was saddened by the events of Watergate.

G.H. Bush didn't get a 2nd term and I voted for him.

I didn't vote for Dubya's 2nd term....you could see then that he was struggling and was making worse decisions than his Father did.

It's really sad that it's come to this IMO....

I'm sure I'll probably change back to a Republican someday...

As I've said many times....I'm a moderate when it comes to politics....

When one side gets to much power it usually isn't good for our Country....

And...Bush got to much power....IMO that is...

[Jerk]

A true conservative believes in the secret ballot. Stupid question. What a surprise.

I guess it beats the old soviet alternative:

Please vote for the following:

A. The Communist Party

-or-

B. The Communist Party

I think Saddam Hussien did the same thing with his elections.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Good thread. I couldm't have done a better job of bringing out the rug-chewers.

[soonerscuba]

I guess it beats the old soviet alternative:

Please vote for the following:

A. The Communist Party

-or-

B. The Communist Party

I think Saddam Hussien did the same thing with his elections.

I think it went more like:

A. Saddam

or

B. Not Saddam + torture and murder.

I'm still impressed that 2% had the balls to vote B.

[TUSooner]

Dear Jebus, NO!

Look. I am quite conservative. But Karl Rove and his militant religious ultra-right monkeys have stolen the Republican party and turned it into a freaking joke. And bottom line the G.W. Bush presidency has been one of lofty ideas and absolutely zero competency in executing them....
Me too!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Me too!I don't see how anyone calls the W Bush administration "right wing". Is it because W openly professes a belief in God, or because he's not afraid to use the military to take the offense against the enemies of the US who have openly stated their intent to kill us? It sure has nothing to do with economics, as he's gone along with several kooky socialist endeavors, and sided with the dems in having an open borders policy. Somebody please explain the right wing tag that Bush has.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

He's not the wrong wing?

He makes chicken wings?

He's a human splice between a duck and a human?

I'm drawin' a blank.

[goingoneight]

Howsaboot making the "King" the "President???" Just a thought. ;) While I was in support of repeal, it was not in support of Bush getting re-elected. And no, I'm not blaming him for 911 or fuel prices, I have my reasons. Those reasons are why there are still curtains over the poll boothes.

[Rogue]

Fiscally, he's less conservative than William Jefferson Clinton.

SCOTUS appointees: all conservative
Dick Cheney as VP: very conservative

Where's GWB on the hot-button issues that get the bible-belters out to the polls...abortion, gun control, gay marriage ?

Tax breaks for the wealthiest 1%...not a liberal ideer that's for sure.

I know some of y'all think that even the Libertarians compromise too much to be as conservative as you'd like but, come on, GWB is definitely conservative. Now that he's unpopular though all of the serious GOP'ers are running as far away from his as possible.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Chicken wings?

[Jerk]

I don't see how anyone calls the W Bush administration "right wing". Is it because W openly professes a belief in God, or because he's not afraid to use the military to take the offense against the enemies of the US who have openly stated their intent to kill us? It sure has nothing to do with economics, as he's gone along with several kooky socialist endeavors, and sided with the dems in having an open borders policy. Somebody please explain the right wing tag that Bush has.
The moonbats on the far left never like anyone with an (R) next to their name. Now before anyone says that Jerk is the same way with Democrats, please be aware that I voted for Brad Henry. In fact, I would vote for Bill Richardson before casting a vote for most of the current Republican field. I'm not as rigid as people believe. My best friend is a union member and a democrat (he's the cop that built most of my rifles that I post pics of). The only democrats I hate are the true socialists who come across as hating their own country and wanting us to lose a war for their own political gain. Alot of my political posts here are an angry reaction to this sect.

[yermom]

i think the term limits are a little silly for presidents if they aren't going to apply for congress

either way, i don't think Bush would get elected again

[Tear Down This Wall]

Term limits for all of 'em or none of 'em - judges, presidents, legislators and all.

The reason things get screwed up is that the congress folk know the president will be gone in a fixed period of time. Meanwhile, in their confortably gerrymander districts, the Robert Byrds and Strom Thurmonds of the world will beat us and our kids and grandkids down with their shenanigans until...well, until we get them as term limited as the presidents!

I've always said 12 years for everybody and then make 'em leave: 3 presidential terms, 2 senatorial terms, 6 house terms.

Baby candy-stealing perverts.

[Jerk]

Fiscally, he's less conservative than William Jefferson Clinton.

SCOTUS appointees: all conservative
Dick Cheney as VP: very conservative

Where's GWB on the hot-button issues that get the bible-belters out to the polls...abortion, gun control, gay marriage ?

Tax breaks for the wealthiest 1%...not a liberal ideer that's for sure.

I know some of y'all think that even the Libertarians compromise too much to be as conservative as you'd like but, come on, GWB is definitely conservative. Now that he's unpopular though all of the serious GOP'ers are running as far away from his as possible.

He may be on alot of issues, but Government is supposed to shrink under conservative rule. The government not only failed to shrink, it grew exponentially. That's just the way I see it...in a very linear, black & white way:

more government = less individual right's over one's own life.

A true conservative doesn't create some of the largest entitlement programs in US history, grow the government by leaps and bounds, and let millions of illegals invade this country. I have no problem with messicans, I know alot of them and they are very good people. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do things, and deliberately not stopping a hoard of 3rd world people from swamping us and overwhelming our generous welfare / "safety net" systems whilst forcing the states and the hospitals to pay for it is downright criminal.

There are many other examples, but I must go to bed.

[SicEmBaylor]

Fiscally, he's less conservative than William Jefferson Clinton.

SCOTUS appointees: all conservative
Dick Cheney as VP: very conservative

Where's GWB on the hot-button issues that get the bible-belters out to the polls...abortion, gun control, gay marriage ?

Tax breaks for the wealthiest 1%...not a liberal ideer that's for sure.

I know some of y'all think that even the Libertarians compromise too much to be as conservative as you'd like but, come on, GWB is definitely conservative. Now that he's unpopular though all of the serious GOP'ers are running as far away from his as possible.

You're looking at it from a position by position issue without asking whether those issues are justified or even appropriate at the Federal level of government.

I'll give him credit for electing pheneomanal Supreme Court Justices. Even liberals agree that Roberts was definitely one of the most brilliant legal minds they had ever encountered. His performance before the Judiciary Committee was nothing short of a tour de force.

I only give him partial credit for cutting taxes. YES, cutting taxes are important but the traditional position of conservatives has been to cut taxes and couple that with, preferably, reciprocal budget cuts or AT LEAST reduce the rate of Federal spending. When Bush first proposed the tax-cuts the GOP tried to compare them to the Kennedy tax cuts which were very similar, but what they failed to mention was that back then even arch-conservative Barry Goldwater opposed those tax cuts because Kennedy failed to reduce the budget and it would raise the deficit. Now, to be fair we were in the midst of a recession when those first tax cuts went through and I have no problem with that as an emergency measure to boost the economy, but Bush has had PLENTY of time to cut the budget and done nothing. ****, Reagan slashed program costs and reduced the rate of spending with a hostile Democratic congress!!!!!

Let's look at cornerstones of his domestic agenda....
1)No Child Left Behind - The goal of conservatives for DECADES has been the elimination of the Department of Education. Bush not only disregards a basic tenet of American conservatism (that Education is outside the bounds of the Fed. government and should be left to the states), but even PROMOTES the DOEd by dumping more money into education than any President in US history! He essentially let Ted Kennedy have his wet dream of an education bill that he signed off on. Now, it is true that the bill does impose educational standards which is also a conservative principle, but this is a classic example of Bush using the powers of "big government" for his own "conservative" ends. YES, standards are important but not one imposed by the Feds.

2)Medicare Prescription Drug Program - This one doesn't even need an explanation. As with the DOEd, Bush increases Medicare more than any other President has since its creation. When principled conservatives in the House opposed the bill on conservative grounds, Bush used DeLay to bully those house members into supporting the legislation by threatening their committee assignments, threatening to find a primary opponent for them, and threatening to disrupt their PAC and other major campaign contributors including money from the RNCC.

3)Faith based initiative. The justification for this program was that instead of Federal tax dollars being spent on government aid programs that do not provide the same quality of services to the poor as religious charities do, we would instead give that money to these private religious organizations to spend instead. Who we give the money to and who provides the service is only half the problem. The classic conservative position would be that NO Federal money should be spent on these welfare programs whether they be direct government services or funneled through faith based organizations. And that is setting aside the obvious Separation of Church and State issues involved here.

As for a domestic agenda that is essentially it other than creating entire new bureaucratic institutions and an entirely new department.

On foreign policy, let me just say that I am a pragmatist and an isolationist. The "old right" conservative position is of isolationism. Isolationism in some shape, form, or fashion was the default position of the Republican party dating back generations and ending only with TDR. Nobody is going to argue that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. Isolationism does NOT mean not protecting yourself from those who have attacked you, but it does mean avoiding becoming the world's policeman as with the Clinton administration or engaging in "elective wars" as is the case of the Bush administration. Liberals, for generations, have been the ones to advocate an aggressive and idealist foreign policy not conservatives.

So, I really fail to see how ANYONE could consider Bush a conservative in the classic "old right" sense, though I admit he definitely fits the description of a "neo-conservative" which I wholly object to as a legitimate strand of conservative thought.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

1)Fiscally, he's less conservative than William Jefferson Clinton.


2)Tax breaks for the wealthiest 1%...

3)Now that he's unpopular though all of the rino GOP'ers are running as far away from his as possible...but they always have.1)Huh? Clinton had tax hikes early on, and tried to install full blown socialized medicine before the republicans swept into congress in '94. He only reluctantly signed on to welfare reform.
2)Tax breaks for everyone. He's supposed to punish the wealthy like a socialist?
3)Right on.

[SicEmBaylor]

1)Huh? Clinton had tax hikes early on, and tried to install full blown socialized medicine before the republicans swept into congress in '94. He only reluctantly signed on to welfare reform.
2)Tax breaks for everyone. He's supposed to punish the wealthy like a socialist?
3)Right on.

1)It's not just about tax cuts. Fiscal responsibility doesn't always mean, especially to the exclusion of everything else, just cutting taxes. I'll remind you that Bush 41 also raised taxes, and Clinton grew the size of government at a slower pace than the current President is.

2)I don't disagree that a progressive tax scheme is socialistic.

3)Bush IS a RINO. Most of those running away from him are too but for different reasons. Bush isn't seen as a RINO because he has successfully changed what it means in this country to be a "conservative." In that sense, he's been an absolute political genius and I contribute that genius to Karl Rove who successfully completed a total paradigm shift within the conservative movement. It's breathtaking and heart wrenching at the same time.

[SoonerGirl06]

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic party and thoroughly disappointed with the Republican party.

I'm waiting for someone to step up to the plate and actually stand behind what it is that they believe in.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

1)It's not just about tax cuts. Fiscal responsibility doesn't always mean, especially to the exclusion of everything else, just cutting taxes. I'll remind you that Bush 41 also raised taxes, and Clinton grew the size of government at a slower pace than the current President is.

2)I don't disagree that a progressive tax scheme is socialistic.

3)Bush IS a RINO. Most of those running away from him are too but for different reasons. Bush isn't seen as a RINO because he has successfully changed what it means in this country to be a "conservative." 1)Who's calling Bush "right wing"? the lefties on this board, and the "thoughtful" centrists(TU).
2)Duh!
3) He's certainly more RINO than some republicans. He's Ronald Reagan compared to Hillary and Obama. He HASN'T changed what it means to be a conservative. NO conservative would call Bush an across the board conservative.

[Frozen Sooner]

1)No Child Left Behind - The goal of conservatives for DECADES has been the elimination of the Department of Education. Bush not only disregards a basic tenet of American conservatism (that Education is outside the bounds of the Fed. government and should be left to the states), but even PROMOTES the DOEd by dumping more money into education than any President in US history! He essentially let Ted Kennedy have his wet dream of an education bill that he signed off on. Now, it is true that the bill does impose educational standards which is also a conservative principle, but this is a classic example of Bush using the powers of "big government" for his own "conservative" ends. YES, standards are important but not one imposed by the Feds.

You do realize that the Department of Education began operation under the Reagan administration, right? I mean, sure, two decades are technically decades, but c'mon.

And since Ted Kennedy has since repudiated NCLB, I hardly think it could be fairly described as his wet dream.

[Fraggle145]

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic party and thoroughly disappointed with the Republican party.

I'm waiting for someone to step up to the plate and actually stand behind what it is that they believe in.

I totally agree. problem being is those people cant raise enough money. I think its like ~95% of the time the person who raises the most money wins the election

[SicEmBaylor]

You do realize that the Department of Education began operation under the Reagan administration, right? I mean, sure, two decades are technically decades, but c'mon.

And since Ted Kennedy has since repudiated NCLB, I hardly think it could be fairly described as his wet dream.

The Department of Education was approved under the Carter Administration. The constitutional role of the President is execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress, what exactly would you have had Reagan do? Disregard the law?

[King Crimson]

sic em is kind of right. Jeb's Florida public system was a kind of testing ground for the "accountability" logic. it's not been successful. and educators hate it.

it's like i always say: everyone is an expert on education....but have no idea. if someone not skilled in their job told them how to do it....they'd laugh and be ****ed off or indignant. but not education. everyone is an expert.

it's like saying because you sit in row 10c and eat your pretzel mix, you know how to fly a 747.

[StoopTroup]

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic party and thoroughly disappointed with the Republican party.

I'm waiting for someone to step up to the plate and actually stand behind what it is that they believe in.
Could be a long wait....

Lets hope not however...

[SicEmBaylor]

You do realize that the Department of Education began operation under the Reagan administration, right? I mean, sure, two decades are technically decades, but c'mon.

And since Ted Kennedy has since repudiated NCLB, I hardly think it could be fairly described as his wet dream.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your original intent. I thought you were blaming Reagan for the DoEd, I see now you were just pointing out how long its been around.

As for Kennedy, he's repudiated it because of how the administration has implemented the legislation not necessarily the legislation itself (although that is how he presents his objection).

[Frozen Sooner]

The Department of Education was approved under the Carter Administration. The constitutional role of the President is execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress, what exactly would you have had Reagan do? Disregard the law?

I don't know, demote it from a cabinet-level position? Which is something the president can do? And it isn't like Reagan didn't disregard other laws he didn't like.

However, I wouldn't have him do it at all. Considering that every single country that is kicking our asses all over the place educationally has a highly-centralized education system, there might just be something to it.

[Frozen Sooner]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your original intent. I thought you were blaming Reagan for the DoEd, I see now you were just pointing out how long its been around.

As for Kennedy, he's repudiated it because of how the administration has implemented the legislation not necessarily the legislation itself (although that is how he presents his objection).

Yeah, you kind of did. However, it's rather telling that there was NO congressional attempt for almost a decade of Republican control of both houses to abolish the Department of Education.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't know, demote it from a cabinet-level position? Which is something the president can do? And it isn't like Reagan didn't disregard other laws he didn't like.

Hah, well...that's fair enough but I'd argue it's a **** load harder to ignore the creation of an entire Department than it is funneling some money to a bunch of guys roaming a jungle. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

sic em is kind of right. Jeb's Florida public system was a kind of testing ground for the "accountability" logic. it's not been successful. and educators hate it.

it's like i always say: everyone is an expert on education....but have no idea. if someone not skilled in their job told them how to do it....they'd laugh and be ****ed off or indignant. but not education. everyone is an expert.

it's like saying because you sit in row 10c and eat your pretzel mix, you know how to fly a 747.

I thought NCLB was dreamed up in Texas-and it showed such great results mainly because schools were shuffling poor and minority kids off the rolls.

My general thought when people try to tell me how to do my job who've never done it is "I don't go to YOUR work and give pointers on sucking **** do I?"

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah, you kind of did. However, it's rather telling that there was NO congressional attempt for almost a decade of Republican control of both houses to abolish the Department of Education.

Well, that's my point and my beef with Congressional Republicans as well which is an entirely different subject. Congressional Republicans, as individuals, didn't change what it means to be a conservative they just got too damned corrupt and too damned comfortable in power. There were attempts of course, there are attempts every session I believe, but they never mustered the political support needed to pull it off.

[King Crimson]

the hero worship of reagan is hilarious. i'll just say it. he slashed the Dept of Energy in 1980 when there were clearly alternative fuels. now, embroiled in the middle east in two wars....about petroleum.

[Frozen Sooner]

Meh. There's much bigger boondoggles out there than DoE, and as I pointed out-all those countries with educational systems that are highly centralized are kicking our asses in the area of actually teaching their kids stuff.

By the way, looks like Ted Stevens might get some mud kicked on him from his son taking bribes from VECO when he (the son) was Senate President up here.

[SicEmBaylor]

Meh. There's much bigger boondoggles out there than DoE, and as I pointed out-all those countries with educational systems that are highly centralized are kicking our asses in the area of actually teaching their kids stuff.

By the way, looks like Ted Stevens might get some mud kicked on him from his son taking bribes from VECO when he (the son) was Senate President up here.

I'm not arguing the success of the programs. The success of a program or policy doesn't necessarily justify its existence especially to me. The first question that I ask myself on any policy is, "Is this being proposed at the appropriate level of government?"

I think a large part why foreign education systems are superior to ours are cultural differences (especially in the case of Asian students) and in higher standards (which I do believe in but not on the Federal level). I'm not sure centralization, in and of itself, would do much aside from making it easier to evaluate national performance since you wouldn't be dealing with 50 different standards to evaluate.

[King Crimson]

I thought NCLB was dreamed up in Texas-and it showed such great results mainly because schools were shuffling poor and minority kids off the rolls.

My general thought when people try to tell me how to do my job who've never done it is "I don't go to YOUR work and give pointers on sucking **** do I?"

texas too. they make this standardized test and make teacher teach to it in all subjects. it creates idiots who cannot write or think or have any conception of the world they live in. test to a moronic standard where a school is "accountable" to get funding. it punishes lower social economic status schools....because they don't test as well and never will. thereby, they don't get funding because they don't test up to the private, rich whitey schools.

it sounds good to the people because the words are phrased poetically and no one wants to pay taxes (but still bitch about the quality of pub schools).

[King Crimson]

Meh. There's much bigger boondoggles out there than DoE, and as I pointed out-all those countries with educational systems that are highly centralized are kicking our asses in the area of actually teaching their kids stuff.

By the way, looks like Ted Stevens might get some mud kicked on him from his son taking bribes from VECO when he (the son) was Senate President up here.

maybe there are bigger one's but when the Reagan worshippers start talking about alternative fuels to ease our dependence on middle eastern oil.....i laugh.

we'd be 20 years ahead of where we are now, if we weren't slave to the oil companies. and we would not be fighting to control an oil pipeline out the South Caspian and calling it some moral crusade about liberation.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me also say this so I'm not misunderstood or characterized with a sizable portion of the morons on the left who blame Bush every time they get so much as a hang nail.

I do not hate the guy. I respect what he's trying to do internationally even if I wholeheartedly disagree with his approach. I hope to God we're successful and should see the policy through to its successful conclusion because the US can not afford to lose a foreign war.

As for his domestic politics, I think he's far far too loyal to those around him and bullheaded and it has gotten him into a lot of trouble. I don't hate the guy, but part of being a successful leader is learning from your mistakes and knowing when to go a different direction when its abundantly clear to damned near everyone that you're following the wrong course. A perfect example of that is with Gonzales who is mediocre at best and should have been fired long long long ago.

[SCOUT]

texas too. they make this standardized test and make teacher teach to it in all subjects. it creates idiots who cannot write or think or have any conception of the world they live in. test to a moronic standard where a school is "accountable" to get funding. it punishes lower social economic status schools....because they don't test as well and never will. thereby, they don't get funding because they don't test up to the private, rich whitey schools.

it sounds good to the people because the words are phrased poetically and no one wants to pay taxes (but still bitch about the quality of pub schools).

Whenever I hear people complain about standardized testing and NCLB, I always come to the same question. What method do you propose to judge whether or not students are learning at an adequate rate?

[King Crimson]

Whenever I hear people complain about standardized testing and NCLB, I always come to the same question. What method do you propose to judge whether or not students are learning at an adequate rate?

i guess you are right. all i know is college freshmen can't write at all. when information processing is more and more becoming the major economic aspect of labor. students ought to be able to read and write and not in facebook or myspace or AIM styley. like i said, everyone is an expert on education.

if you are defending NCLB, you are a hilarious "victim" of the the accountability propaganda. "method". i'm not against standardized testing, which is your apparent kneejerk.....but it's not enough. NCLB is a joke. look at the propaganda name.

kids need to learn how to understand the world they live in....not just grunt out some data that pleases politicians and produces statistics.

[Tailwind]

I hate politics.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...Gonzales who is mediocre at best and should have been fired long long long ago.Getting Gonzalez has nothing to do with Gonzalez. It's about getting republicans. It's get any republican you can, terrorize And/or harass the republicans and destroy as many as possible. Sadly, if it wasn't for the blind devotion of the MSM, they wouldn't be nearly as successful as they have been in their destruction. America is fighting 2 wars. The republicans are fighting one of them and the democrats are fighting the other one.

[SicEmBaylor]

Getting Gonzalez has nothing to do with Gonzalez. It's about getting republicans. It's get any republican you can, terrorize And/or harass the republicans and destroy as many as possible. Sadly, if it wasn't for the blind devotion of the MSM, they wouldn't be nearly as successful as they have been in their destruction. America is fighting 2 wars. The republicans are fighting one of them and the democrats are fighting the other one.

A lot of it does have to do with just getting Gonzales, but "we" did the same damned thing during the Clinton administration. We went after their people like a pit bull after a t-bone. A lot of these problems stem from how the GOP dealt with the Clinton administration and the polarization that took place after the GOP takeover in '94.

[Tailwind]

As someone great once said : There's lies, damn lies and Politics. I think it was my mom. :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A lot of it does have to do with just getting Gonzales, but "we" did the same damned thing during the Clinton administration. We went after their people like a pit bull after a t-bone. A lot of these problems stem from how the GOP dealt with the Clinton administration and the polarization that took place after the GOP takeover in '94.You're too young to have seen the ruthless, dirty character assassinations that the democrat party has conducted since I've been observing, since the Nixon administration. It's not tit for tat. The democrats don't pursue the truth. They perform ruthless character assassinations, down and dirty. It has become a dirty, almost completely unethical political party. I wish it wasn't so.

[King Crimson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h31trZ6N9go&mode=related&search=

legendary 80's band: scratch acid.

[SicEmBaylor]

You're too young to have seen the ruthless, dirty character assassinations that the democrat party has conducted since I've been observing, since the Nixon administration. It's not tit for tat. The democrats don't pursue the truth. They perform ruthless character assassinations, down and dirty. It has become a dirty, almost completely unethical political party. I wish it wasn't so.

As a whole, you are right. I definitely DEFINITELY blame the Democrat party for a **** load more than I blame the GOP for. Even when the GOP was wrong in the past it has always been able (well until recently) to conduct itself with class.

[King Crimson]

You're too young to have seen the ruthless, dirty character assassinations that the democrat party has conducted since I've been observing, since the Nixon administration. It's not tit for tat. The democrats don't pursue the truth. They perform ruthless character assassinations, down and dirty. It has become a dirty, almost completely unethical political party. I wish it wasn't so.

that's hilarious. I suppose you see the GOP as a benevolent force looking out for the common man and the epitome of ethics.

I'm not a Democrat and never will be (for the zillionth time), but the all purpose scapegoat is such an insidpensible part of yer politics, Favor.

how can you think anyone takes you seriously?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

that's hilarious. I suppose you see the GOP as a benevolent force looking out for the common man and the epitome of ethics.

I'm not a Democrat and never will be (for the zillionth time), but the all purpose scapegoat is such an insidpensible part of yer politics, Favor.

how can you think anyone takes you seriously?The democrat party is a lost cause, as far as competency and honesty, and I think most people who are honest with themselves know that. Many don't want to accept that as possible, don't want to consider it. I wish it wasn't so.

[King Crimson]

The democrat party is a lost cause, as far as competency and honesty, and I think most people who are honest with themselves know that. Many don't want to accept that as possible, don't want to consider it. I wish it wasn't so.

interesting post that has NOTHING to do with mine....except to prove yet again you can only scapegoat and have nothing to say on your own.

[Vaevictis]

Whenever I hear people complain about standardized testing and NCLB, I always come to the same question. What method do you propose to judge whether or not students are learning at an adequate rate?

1. Have the teachers prepare an evaluation of each exiting student at the end of each year. Make them professionally certify it.
2. Have teachers prepare an evaluation of each entering student at the start of the year. Make them professionally certify it.
3. Teachers should never see each other's evaluations. A neutral third party should compare and verify the evaluations.
4. Teachers should be evaluated on a student by student basis on the improvement, lack of improvement, or regression, from the entry evaluation in their grade to the verified entry evaluation in the next.
5. Grossly inaccurate or falsified evaluations should be punishable by revocation of teaching certifications. Too much variation between the exit and entry evaluations should trigger and investigation and probably a third party student evaluation.
6. Make sure that students get evaluated at the "next level", even when they exit the public school systems. Make state funded universities do entry evaluations, for example.

And by "evalutions", I don't mean tests. I mean have the teacher use their professional judgment on the student's status by observing their performance in class. A student who can't write can pass a standardized exam (clearly), but they still can't write. :D A teacher who assigns a writing assignment will know this.

[OklahomaTuba]

I don't like term limits, but I think the fresh blood every 4-8 years is good.

That being said, GWB's approval ratings are about the same as congress's right now. I think people are just sick of seeing nothing happen. If we fought the war the way a war should be fought, and if the GOP hadn't castrated themselves, I suspect things would be much different.

[OklahomaTuba]

The democrat party is a lost cause, as far as competency and honesty, and I think most people who are honest with themselves know that. Many don't want to accept that as possible, don't want to consider it. I wish it wasn't so.

I was hopeful that the last election brought in so many centrist donks. That has been my biggest complaint about the donks, the lack of a center and lack of any core values.

Unfortunatly, the far-left still seems to be running the party.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I was hopeful that the last election brought in so many centrist donks. That has been my biggest complaint about the donks, the lack of a center and lack of any core values.

Unfortunatly, the far-left still seems to be running the party.You are still young. After you see it long enough, you will be less naive.

[OklahomaTuba]

You are still young. After you see it long enough, you will be less naive.

:cool:

[SicEmBaylor]

I will burn this village in order to save it.

[King Crimson]

i find it unreal that there are 11 people who think that the 2 term limit should be repealed for *this* president. of you wanna stroke it for Reagan and go 3 terms for the Great Communicator who "restored America's belief in itself" by: (choose ye platitude here), OK....i could get that. but W? 3 terms? "Let's change the rules" for W?

to me, that says it's not really about 3 terms for W but the absence of any other POTUS quality GOP "electable" candidate . and mostly fear of the unholy Obama/Hillary trinity.

(yeah, i know).

[C&CDean]

i find it unreal that there are 11 people who think that the 2 term limit should be repealed for *this* president. of you wanna stroke it for Reagan and go 3 terms for the Great Communicator who "restored America's belief in itself" by: (choose ye platitude here), OK....i could get that. but W? 3 terms? "Let's change the rules" for W?

to me, that says it's not really about 3 terms for W but the absence of any other POTUS quality GOP "electable" candidate . and mostly fear of the unholy Obama/Hillary trinity.

(yeah, i know).

Meh. I'd vote for W again because I ain't all outraged over the crap the media is feeding the common folk. He just ain't all that ****ed up. At least not as ****ed up as your ilk likes to think.

Change the rules for W? No. I just don't find him as "bad" as you do.

[King Crimson]

my ilk. hah. whatever, grampaw.

scapegoat the media all you want to....but it's a consumer model where ratings determine content. the media *are* us. not some fetishized extra-worldly entity that acts on its own.

as you say, change the rules for W, no.

and in your world and in bill favor world and tubaworld....i always vote for Trotsky or Lenin or Hugo Chavez, right? because i ask questions....

[SoonerProphet]

That would imply some even know who Trotsky is.

[Osce0la]

6 pages and no lock? I am very disappointed...

[SicEmBaylor]

That would imply some even know who Trotsky is.
Heh, you know what happened to disillusioned former Trotskyites, right?

[C&CDean]

my ilk. hah. whatever, grampaw.

scapegoat the media all you want to....but it's a consumer model where ratings determine content. the media *are* us. not some fetishized extra-worldly entity that acts on its own.

as you say, change the rules for W, no.

and in your world and in bill favor world and tubaworld....i always vote for Trotsky or Lenin or Hugo Chavez, right? because i ask questions....

Your ilk. You know those of us who've grown older but have never managed to grow up? Still espousing the whole "movement." Do you still have the "Question Authority" bumper sticker? You've managed to plant yourself in the perfect place for your dealio - I've gotta give you that. And if it works for you, God bless you.

The media might be you, but they ain't me. Ratings? Yeah, I know how it works, but I don't buy into it. At all.

My world isn't anywhere near favor/tubaville. I'm probably somewhere between you and there.

[SoonerProphet]

Heh, you know what happened to disillusioned former Trotskyites, right?

Norman Podhoretz and Bill Kristol.

[SicEmBaylor]

Norman Podhoretz and Bill Kristol.
Among others, which is one of my biggest gripes with neoconservatism. They never totally disavowed their original beliefs..just morphed them to fit their new world view.

[yermom]

Heh, you know what happened to disillusioned former Trotskyites, right?

didn't they go to The Knacker?

KC, as one of the 11, i don't believe the question relates to removing the limits just to re-elect W

it's more like i'd rather have had William Jefferson for 4 more years over the choices at the time

[King Crimson]

Your ilk. You know those of us who've grown older but have never managed to grow up? Still espousing the whole "movement." Do you still have the "Question Authority" bumper sticker? You've managed to plant yourself in the perfect place for your dealio - I've gotta give you that. And if it works for you, God bless you.

The media might be you, but they ain't me. Ratings? Yeah, I know how it works, but I don't buy into it. At all.

My world isn't anywhere near favor/tubaville. I'm probably somewhere between you and there.


naw, i don't have that bumpersticker. as for the place thing, that's a too easy shot; one you've used more than once and kinda predictable. and pretty weak, really. you have no idea how i laugh at this "place." none. "left", feel good politics in Boulder are hilarious. it's an expensive place to live, and hardly sympathetic to my proletarian revolution, anti-american/capitalist and bourgeois hate.

sincerely,

Karl

[King Crimson]

Norman Podhoretz and Bill Kristol.

that or stabbed with an ice pick. i doubt, though, Kristol was ever a Trotsky guy. he may have the trots and skis....but not the combo.

[SicEmBaylor]

that or stabbed with an ice pick.
heh

[King Crimson]

maybe Prophet has heard of the band Trotsky Icepick. probably a little before his time (i'm older than him)....but hardcore Ruth (or even Tyson) at shadowplay in the late 80's type stuff.

[SoonerProphet]

heard of, but not heard them. prolly should have stated Irving and not Bill, I believe the mrs., Gertrude Himmelfarb, was an old Trotskyist.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

We've seen your other posts. Why do you say you're conservative?

Why do you imply that I'm not? I said quite conservative... Not to be confused with ULTRA conservative.

I'll rephrase: I'm a strong lean to the right. Which puts me in quite the minority here in MN, but probably right in the middle in OK.

But that's just my opinion. Perhaps you have a different perception. Fill me in...

[King Crimson]

heard of, but not heard them. prolly should have stated Irving and not Bill, I believe the mrs., Gertrude Himmelfarb, was an old Trotskyist.

you are right though. there is a documented connection between former american Leninist types and the neocons. as per the vanguard party, the "noble lie" a la Leo Strauss, contempt for the public etc. (which is pretty much the FOX MO, though everyone will deny it). i have a couple cites to books on this. i can't remember right now. if you are truly interesested, i'll find them.

[SicEmBaylor]

Honestly, arguing politics is fun but the real reason I'm so interest in having a career in the field is to play grab *** with some interns.

[SoonerProphet]

you are right though. there is a documented connection between former american Leninist types and the neocons. as per the vanguard party, the "noble lie" a la Leo Strauss, contempt for the public etc. (which is pretty much the FOX MO, though everyone will deny it). i have a couple cites to books on this. i can't remember right now. if you are truly interesested, i'll find them.

Yep, there has been plenty of literature written on the movement. Read quite a bit myself, in fact a buddy of mine here on campus is an old Chicago U guy and we've had some discussion about Strauss.

http://www.amconmag.com/01_13_03/cover7.html

[Scott D]

I don't think the view here should be removing term limits from the Executive Branch, but should be a heavier push especially in who gets elected by pushing for term limits on the Legislative Branch.

It was the American people who let a Congress who was afraid of there being another FDR manage to force term limits on the Executive Branch without forcing them to be mandated across the board.

[King Crimson]

Yep, there has been plenty of literature written on the movement. Read quite a bit myself, in fact a buddy of mine here on campus is an old Chicago U guy and we've had some discussion about Strauss.

http://www.amconmag.com/01_13_03/cover7.html

thanks prophet, i'll check that out. what's the name of the guy who wrote, Bloom, "Closing of the American Mind"....he was a student of Strauss.

i actually took greek in college from a guy who was married to Strauss' daughter, how about that? hey hey.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Your ilk. You know those of us who've grown older but have never managed to grow up? Still espousing the whole "movement." Do you still have the "Question Authority" bumper sticker? You've managed to plant yourself in the perfect place for your dealio - I've gotta give you that. And if it works for you, God bless you.

My world isn't anywhere near favor/tubaville. I'm probably somewhere between you and there. How is it you're not conservative? Gay marriage? pro-abortion? generous welfare? what?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

connection between former american Leninist types and the neocons..., contempt for the public etc. (which is pretty much the FOX MO, though everyone will deny it). Probably everyone will deny it, because it's the MSM which actually has contempt for the public. Fox News is the only network that DOESN'T have contempt for the American public. Jeesh!

[MojoRisen]

Veto power is real- but I am not for more than 2 terms....

[soonerscuba]

Term limits are bad for Congress because, though you may not believe it, they work in a technical environment. I don't want some new shumk coming in every 4 years with his bold vision for regulatory affairs, entrenched, well versed congressmen solve waaaay more problems than cause, not including a fresh start every couple of years.

[King Crimson]

it's not about more than 2 terms, it's about changing the rules. the Constitution is not about the flavor of the month, it's about for the people, by the people. yes, i know the term limit was not in the Constitution but for FDR (the socialist bastard) who along with John Kenneth Galbraith should "rot in hell" to quote one of out posters. but, since the "spirit" of the "framers" is an unquestioned appeal, i invoke it here. i love it when the little bitches respond, like a predictable spasm, to criticisms of the W with: "well, Bill Clinton...."

almost 8 years ago, people. let's live in the now. if WJ Clinton had conducted a war like this 3 termer....many of you would be throwing yourself off a bridge.

be critical, people. don't whitewash yer mind because of partisan loyalites.

[C&CDean]

it's not about more than 2 terms, it's about changing the rules. the Constitution is not about the flavor of the month, it's about for the people, by the people. yes, i know the term limit was not in the Constitution but for FDR (the socialist bastard) who along with John Kenneth Galbraith should "rot in hell" to quote one of out posters. but, since the "spirit" of the "framers" is an unquestioned appeal, i invoke it here. i love it when the little bitches respond, like a predictable spasm, to criticisms of the W with: "well, Bill Clinton...."

almost 8 years ago, people. let's live in the now. if WJ Clinton had conducted a war like this 3 termer....many of you would be throwing yourself off a bridge.

be critical, people. don't whitewash yer mind because of partisan loyalites.

Double meh. Clinton had his chance to go to war and he ****ed it all up. Besides, if he actually had the nuts to go to war I'd have **** myself, but I ain't jumping for nobody.

And I'll continue to use the "easy Boulder thing" because it's truth, comrade.

[Scott D]

Term limits are bad for Congress because, though you may not believe it, they work in a technical environment. I don't want some new shumk coming in every 4 years with his bold vision for regulatory affairs, entrenched, well versed congressmen solve waaaay more problems than cause, not including a fresh start every couple of years.

I'm sure there was a great deal that Strom Thurmond accomplished in his 70 years in the Congress. Besides, Senators have 6 year terms. Two terms are 12 years, so they've had a decade to **** things up. Our government was never meant to be any sort of lifetime award or dynasty representing anything similar to a monarchy with a nobility.

That is EXACTLY what the electorate has been deluded into creating.

[King Crimson]

Double meh. Clinton had his chance to go to war and he ****ed it all up. Besides, if he actually had the nuts to go to war I'd have **** myself, but I ain't jumping for nobody.

And I'll continue to use the "easy Boulder thing" because it's truth, comrade.

wtf are you talking about?


the predictable Boulder part i get (yawn, again)....but this Clinton stuff is hilarious. i never voted for the guy. i vote libertarian, comrade.

[C&CDean]

wtf are you talking about?


the predictable Boulder part i get (yawn, again)....but this Clinton stuff is hilarious. i never voted for the guy. i vote libertarian, comrade.

I didn't bring up WJC, you did. I just added a comment. And why would you waste your only vote on a guaranteed losing deal?

[King Crimson]

And why would you waste your only vote on a guaranteed losing deal?

because someone has to, and i think the process is more important than the winner. that, and votin' my conscience.

i mentioned WJC as an analogy, i didn't take the position you claimed...to make your comment, no?

[C&CDean]

because someone has to, and i think the process is more important than the winner. that, and votin' my conscience.

i mentioned WJC as an analogy, i didn't take the position you claimed...to make your comment, no?

I'm calling BS. You vote libertarian just so you can bitch and moan about whoever wins.:texan:

And I don't care one way or the other on Clinton. I think he's a liar and a cheat and I wouldn't trust him with a nickel. I don't think that about GWB, but I ain't comparing the two.

[Scott D]

eh KC, don't worry it's not like most folk realize in the early days of electing a president in this country there were more than two legitimate political parties every election.

[StoopTroup]

I like it when the guy I voted for misses winning by the State of Florida....

Since Florida gets to decide who gets elected...

I feel it important that I not waste my vote on some lame libertarian...:D

[Rogue]

A local city council race here illustrates something. For a gig that pays $400 per hear (yup, that's four hunnert dollars), three different candidates raised and spent well over $100,000.00 in campaign money. WTF?! The fact that you can literally buy an election, or at least a seat at the table with the one other d00d that could afford it, disgusts me. I would really like to see the Libertarians, Greens, and a real centrist party emerge competitively.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

How is it you're not conservative? Gay marriage? pro-abortion? generous welfare? what?

I think you meant to quote me...

So I'll answer that one for Dean ;)

Gay marriage. Uh no. Gay couples make a lifestyle choice. Maybe they can't help it if they are somehow genetically wired to be gay. But they still are making a lifestyle choice. Choices have consequences. As in: what is supposed to be the holiest of unions is not for deviants. And gays are deviant whether by choice (traditional moral deviancy) or by biology (scientific deviancy).

Pro-abortion? I am pro-choice, but grudgingly. I hope the women I associate with would chose life. I am very anti-2nd or 3rd term abortion.

Generous welfare. Positively not. I am for job training programs, with qualifications. I am for educational programs, with qualifications. I am for hunger and shelter relief in only the strictest of senses. And all of which I do not believe ought to be managed at the federal, but rather the local and state, levels. Let that piece of crap city of Detroit in that piece of crap state Michigan take care of their own dang mess. Leave my tax dollars out of it.

I am also anti-illegal immigration, and G.W. Bush sold his conservative soul to get Hispanic votes with his "open arms" policies of patriating illegals.

And btw, I do believe we as a nation shouldn't be sending 20,000 more troops to participate in the nation-building of Iraq. We should be sending 200,000 troops to decimate the enemy, then pull out and say "play nice, or we will bomb you into oblivion.... and don't even think about Israel....see this?...Pretty nuke, ain't it." Worked for Japan. And if you think these thugs are anymore fanatical or resolute than were the Japanese circa World War II...well, that's a short-term memory we Americans have developed isn't it?

And as always, all of this is obligingly "just in my opinion".

I hope I have clarified my right-leaning conservative position somewhat. But maybe these are liberal thoughts and I just wasn't aware of it??? Could be. I'll take any help I can get. (Or maybe you have me confused with someone else.) :D

[sooneron]

I quit reading this thread somewhere around page 2, but I think that presidents should have 6 year terms. YOu cannot accomplish jack in 4 years and they are campaigning less than 3 years into their presidency. Lose/lose for the peeps of the US.

[CORNholio]

Bush for fuhrer....
No but seriously, term limits are there to put power in check. Remember power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just a thought.

[CORNholio]

I really wish there were no political parties. Just honest educated middleclass americans running on their own homegrown beliefs. Maybe if the election was 100% funded by the govt with campaign contributions illegal we could achieve a more democratic honest govt. If the presidency can't be bought then alot of the washington bs is eliminated or atleast reduced somewhat. I believe George Washington spoke against the formation of them from the get-go. I think he might've been on to something.

[IronSooner]

I really wish there were no political parties. Just honest educated middleclass americans running on their own homegrown beliefs. Maybe if the election was 100% funded by the govt with campaign contributions illegal we could achieve a more democratic honest govt. If the presidency can't be bought then alot of the washington bs is eliminated or atleast reduced somewhat. I believe George Washington spoke against the formation of them from the get-go. I think he might've been on to something.

I would agree. Unfortunately people seem to have an innate need to band together, and I suppose enough drew similar lines that they coalesced into two parties. But I'd much rather there not be any. It gets childish.

I've wondered if there wasn't some way to fund elections such that each candidate got X dollars no matter what. That might be hard to do without invoking some sort of socialism, but there has to be a way out of the current system of "don't take him seriously as a candidate, he can't raise enough $". That's BS.

[StoopTroup]

It does seem the "Anybody can grow up to be President" claim is dead and buried.

If you will sell yourself to the Devil...we may have a job for you as Attorney General However...:D

[Frozen Sooner]

Hell, the last two didn't even have to grow up before being President.

[Scott D]

or to be more exact, the last 3 have proven that a president doesn't need to be a real leader.

[Frozen Sooner]

Actually, l think that GHWB is going to be looked at through the lens of history as a pretty good president. Sure, the economy petered out under his watch, but he did some pretty positive stuff.

[Scott D]

I have a feeling he'll be looked at more as a care taker. Unfortunately for him three things..well four will mark his Presidency.

1. The No New Taxes promise.
2. Desert Storm/Shield (which hindsighters are bashing unfairly)
3. The Japan Vomit Incident
4. Claims that he just rode Reagan's coattails to the Oval Office (also unfair)

[royalfan5]

I have a feeling he'll be looked at more as a care taker. Unfortunately for him three things..well four will mark his Presidency.

1. The No New Taxes promise.
2. Desert Storm/Shield (which hindsighters are bashing unfairly)
3. The Japan Vomit Incident
4. Claims that he just rode Reagan's coattails to the Oval Office (also unfair)
At the very least he will be remembered as better than Carter.

[Scott D]

At the very least he will be remembered as better than Carter.

even Calvin Coolidge is remembered as better than Carter.

[Frozen Sooner]

I have a feeling he'll be looked at more as a care taker. Unfortunately for him three things..well four will mark his Presidency.

1. The No New Taxes promise.
2. Desert Storm/Shield (which hindsighters are bashing unfairly)
3. The Japan Vomit Incident
4. Claims that he just rode Reagan's coattails to the Oval Office (also unfair)

Reagan=Wall
Bush=No Wall. :)

The things he should be remembered for:

1. Desert Storm-getting in with a clear objective, accomplishing the objective, and refusing to be drawn into an invasion of Iraq when it was outside the scope of the engagement.

2. The beginnings of the "peace dividend" and an attempt to shift military spending to infrastructure-something which primed the pump for the boom of the mid-late 90s. Sure, he had a recession going on, but that was due to resource reallocation, not a true slowdown.

3. A realistic and workable view of international relations. The guy knew his foreign policy.

4. Ben Stiller saying "Something-doo Economics..."

[Scott D]

Reagan=Wall
Bush=No Wall. :)

The things he should be remembered for:

1. Desert Storm-getting in with a clear objective, accomplishing the objective, and refusing to be drawn into an invasion of Iraq when it was outside the scope of the engagement.

2. The beginnings of the "peace dividend" and an attempt to shift military spending to infrastructure-something which primed the pump for the boom of the mid-late 90s. Sure, he had a recession going on, but that was due to resource reallocation, not a true slowdown.

3. A realistic and workable view of international relations. The guy knew his foreign policy.

4. Ben Stiller saying "Something-doo Economics..."

I concur...but then again, we're dirty libz on this board so I'm sure there's a 'conservative' reason he shouldn't be lauded for any of the first 3 ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh, sorry, I need to have my knee-jerk lib reaction...

HE WAS HEAD OF THE SEE EYE AYE! HALLIBURTON! WAR FOR OIL!

[Stoop Dawg]

And why would you waste your only vote on a guaranteed losing deal?

It's only a guaranteed losing deal because people like you would rather vote for a "winner" than vote their conscience.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Actually, l think that GHWB is going to be looked at through the lens of history as a pretty good president. Sure, THE ECONOMY PETERED OUT under his watch, but he did some pretty positive stuff.Mike, the economy was starting to slide while Clinton was in office. It has once again improved since W has been POTUS. It's prolly wrong to infer that there's anything Clinton did that had a positive effect on the economy, except to sign the bill driven by the (then)conservatives in congress, that made it harder to get welfare. The groundwork for the robust economy of the late 80's and through Clinton was laid by Pres. Reagan.

[Scott D]

Mike, the economy was starting to slide while Clinton was in office. It has once again improved since W has been POTUS. It's prolly wrong to infer that there's anything Clinton did that had a positive effect on the economy, except to sign the bill driven by the (then)conservatives in congress, that made it harder to get welfare. The groundwork for the robust economy of the late 80's and through Clinton was laid by Pres. Reagan.

you mean the credit that Mike gave to the "real" President Bush? :D

[leavingthezoo]

you mean the credit that Mike gave to the "real" President Bush? :D

TRPB?

heh

[leavingthezoo]

heh ... because it made me think of "Teh Real Peanut Butter."

not heh because i agree or disagree.

[Frozen Sooner]

Mike, the economy was starting to slide while Clinton was in office. It has once again improved since W has been POTUS. It's prolly wrong to infer that there's anything Clinton did that had a positive effect on the economy, except to sign the bill driven by the (then)conservatives in congress, that made it harder to get welfare. The groundwork for the robust economy of the late 80's and through Clinton was laid by Pres. Reagan.

GHWB=George Herbert Walker Bush.

I would think that blaming Bill Clinton for the recession that began under George Herbert Walker Bush is a bit of a stretch.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

GHWB=George Herbert Walker Bush.

I would think that blaming Bill Clinton for the recession that began under George Herbert Walker Bush is a bit of a stretch.No, the economy was falling off before Clinton left office. That's what I was referring to.

[usmc-sooner]

Since they all had the same guy as head of the FED, I wouldn't blame either

[Jerk]

After this amnesty thing, I'm all Bushed out. So, no more Bush for me. What the bloody hell is he trying to do, anyway? If he's sophisticated enough to steer a hurricane into a city full of black people (because he's a racist and doesn't like them) then he most have some dark and sinister plan by giving 40,000,000,000,000 illegal messicans the right to vote.

[Frozen Sooner]

No, the economy was falling off before Clinton left office. That's what I was referring to.

I don't know how to explain this any easier.

George Herbert Walker Bush was the president before Bill Clinton. The recession we were experiencing in 1992 began during his presidency. Considering Bill Clinton had not yet even been elected, much less inaugurated, it is logically impossible that the recession could have started under Bill Clinton's presidency.

I refer to him as George Herbert Walker Bush to distinguish him from the president after Bill Clinton George WALKER Bush, who did indeed inherit at least some leading indicators of recession.

I ALSO stated that the recession under GHWB wasn't a true recession but more of a reallocation of capital due to the so-called peace dividend.

My God, man, I'm giving a Republican President a lot of credit as someone who did a lot of good and is looked at a bit unfairly.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't know how to explain this any easier.

George Herbert Walker Bush was the president before Bill Clinton. The recession we were experiencing in 1992 began during his presidency. Considering Bill Clinton had not yet even been elected, much less inaugurated, it is logically impossible that the recession could have started under Bill Clinton's presidency.

I refer to him as George Herbert Walker Bush to distinguish him from the president after Bill Clinton George WALKER Bush, who did indeed inherit at least some leading indicators of recession.



My God, man, I'm giving a Republican President a lot of credit as someone who did a lot of good and is looked at a bit unfairly.My bad. I wasn't paying close enough attention to your first post I commented on, thinking you were talking about W instead of his dad. Apologies for my lack of focus on that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

After this amnesty thing, I'm all Bushed out. So, no more Bush for me. What the bloody hell is he trying to do, anyway? If he's sophisticated enough to steer a hurricane into a city full of black people (because he's a racist and doesn't like them) then he most have some dark and sinister plan by giving 40,000,000,000,000 illegal messicans the right to vote.It is amazing, and all the republican legislators who want to go along with it, too.

[Frozen Sooner]

All good Bill. Apology accepted.

[StoopTroup]

Actually, l think that GHWB is going to be looked at through the lens of history as a pretty good president. Sure, the economy petered out under his watch, but he did some pretty positive stuff.
That 1000 points of light was amazing...:D

:pop:

http://ebcba.com/talkabout/fractals/1000-points-of-light.jpg

[Jerk]

I don't know how to explain this any easier.

George Herbert Walker Bush was the president before Bill Clinton. The recession we were experiencing in 1992 began during his presidency. Considering Bill Clinton had not yet even been elected, much less inaugurated, it is logically impossible that the recession could have started under Bill Clinton's presidency.

I refer to him as George Herbert Walker Bush to distinguish him from the president after Bill Clinton George WALKER Bush, who did indeed inherit at least some leading indicators of recession.

I ALSO stated that the recession under GHWB wasn't a true recession but more of a reallocation of capital due to the so-called peace dividend.

My God, man, I'm giving a Republican President a lot of credit as someone who did a lot of good and is looked at a bit unfairly.
Mike, there was a slowdown in the economy very late in Clinton's term. Now, I don't blame it on Clinton just as I don't give Clinton credit for the good times. But I clearly remember a big downturn and I think part of it was because of the dot.coms collapsing. Remember, there were web companies worth millions of dollars in stock but they had never shown a profit. We're talking mid to late 2000 AD.

[Frozen Sooner]

Jerk, once again, I'm talking about the recession that began before Bill Clinton took office and for which George HW Bush was blamed. I don't have GDP growth numbers in front of me for the end of Bill Clinton's presidency, but I don't seem to recall them dipping to recession numbers during his term, though I do believe that manufacturing orders and housing starts did begin to drop in his last year. My intent all along in this current discussion has been to point out that George HW Bush has been somewhat unfairly maligned, NOT to defend or prop up Bill Clinton.

[Stoop Dawg]

Jerk, once again, I'm talking about the recession that began before Bill Clinton took office and for which George HW Bush was blamed. I don't have GDP growth numbers in front of me for the end of Bill Clinton's presidency, but I don't seem to recall them dipping to recession numbers during his term, though I do believe that manufacturing orders and housing starts did begin to drop in his last year. My intent all along in this current discussion has been to point out that George HW Bush has been somewhat unfairly maligned, NOT to defend or prop up Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton didn't cause the tech boom (and subsequent bust) any more than GWB caused the housing boom (and subsequent bust). In fact, I'd say that the President generally has very little to do with the economy, with a few notable exceptions, of course. Namely, FDR's New Deal.

Edit: I know that doesn't directly contradict nor support your point. I'm simply making a new point that IMO is related to your point.

[Pricetag]

It ought to be George Bush and George W. Bush. Anyone know John Adams' middle name off the top of his/her head? Naw. John Quincy Adams came after, so his name was qualified with the middle name.

[JohnnyMack]

Al Gore invented the internet.

[leavingthezoo]

Al Gore invented the internet.

BUT HE'S NOT THE REAL PEANUT BUTTER!:pop:

[Frozen Sooner]

Bill Clinton didn't cause the tech boom (and subsequent bust) any more than GWB caused the housing boom (and subsequent bust). In fact, I'd say that the President generally has very little to do with the economy, with a few notable exceptions, of course. Namely, FDR's New Deal.

Edit: I know that doesn't directly contradict nor support your point. I'm simply making a new point that IMO is related to your point.

I would agree with what you're saying for the most part. My point with GHWB is that the "recession" that started in his term had to do with major reductions in defense spending. While is sucked monkey balls for the people who got laid off, it was something that was long-term healthy for the economy as it reallocated capital to more productive endeavors.

However, stating that the President doesn't have an effect on the economy ignores some pretty potent factors in what actually drives the economy.

[Scott D]

you agreed to leave the Freemasons out of this discussion :mad:

[Stoop Dawg]

However, stating that the President doesn't have an effect on the economy ignores some pretty potent factors in what actually drives the economy.

Go on, I'm listening.

[def_lazer_fc]

Go on, I'm listening.
its all about the 'lock box'

[Frozen Sooner]

Go on, I'm listening.

1. Consumer confidence. The importance of consumer confidence to driving the economy can't be overlooked. The President can have a major effect on this.

2. The power to veto spending bills or tax bills. While this is an indirect effect on fiscal policy, it can still be used effectively-and it's not as if the President would have a hard time getting a Congressman of his party to author whatever spending bill he'd like to try and get it passed.

3. The power to appoint a Fed Chairman and governors who will follow the monetary policy the President prefers. The Fed ain't just about interest rates, though that's what you hear about on the news. Open market operations and the setting of fractional reserves has a much greater effect on the money supply than the discount rate. The Fed Board of Governors serves at the pleasure of the president-he can dismiss them whenever he wants.

[King Crimson]

its all about the 'lock box'

is it a 1,2,3 lock box?

[Stoop Dawg]

1. Consumer confidence. The importance of consumer confidence to driving the economy can't be overlooked. The President can have a major effect on this.

2. The power to veto spending bills or tax bills. While this is an indirect effect on fiscal policy, it can still be used effectively-and it's not as if the President would have a hard time getting a Congressman of his party to author whatever spending bill he'd like to try and get it passed.

3. The power to appoint a Fed Chairman and governors who will follow the monetary policy the President prefers. The Fed ain't just about interest rates, though that's what you hear about on the news. Open market operations and the setting of fractional reserves has a much greater effect on the money supply than the discount rate. The Fed Board of Governors serves at the pleasure of the president-he can dismiss them whenever he wants.

1. I guess some people do this. My confidence is generally determined by my bank account balance, income, and industry specific projections (for investment type purchases such as real estate).

2. Not unilateral. The President plays a role, but can't single-handedly create/kill legislation.

3. Perhaps, but it doesn't seem to happen that way. I can't remember who was the Fed Chair before AG. Plus, the Senate has to confirm.

I'm not trying to say the President has no influence, I'm just saying that it's not enough to start pointing fingers (good or bad). I think you've said essentially the same thing. Pretty much anything the President does requires the approval of Congress, so trying to praise/blame just the President for the economy doesn't fly.

[StoopTroup]

I wonder if he'll try for the trifecta now that Huckabee has bailed out?

[lexsooner]

W has kept an awfully low profile since leaving office. Towards the end of his reign he looked so beaten and powerless. I did not care for him as POUS, but I had to feel sorry for him.

[StoopTroup]

Yep. It's almost like Karl, Dick, Condi and Rummy aren't even allowed on his property anymore.