1
   

George Bush's Legacy

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 10:47 am
Required reading here at the office. We're supposed to make friends with all the H1B'ers here to steal our jobs for 1/3 the pay.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 02:45 pm
I r egret and repent my critical views about the person who is A HUMAN AT FIRST AND A CHRISTIAN TO BOOT WITH.
He is not alone and his legacy will prevail like Mahathma Gandhi
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 05:30 pm
We often hear of well-known people declaring what they wish to leave as their legacy, including some of the worst criminals in the world. A much more interesting question is to ask ourselves what each one of us wishes to leave as his or her legacy. Some well-known persons make thundering declarations on the subject while still young, rather like the autobiographies written by youthful pop-stars, whereas others leave it until they have reached a reasonably advanced age.


I therefore hope that my legacy will be to have brought at least some unthinking persons to realise the need and value of justice for all, with the resulting advantage of helping to bring all peoples everywhere in the world closer to genuine freedom and democracy, which latter may well take different forms in different countries and societies. If I can manage this, I might thereby have led some persons to escape from the enslavement of materialism, the terrible curse which comes to us from the worship of that evil thing known to the ancients as Mammon. I much prefer to trust in a loving and merciful God, as do not only true followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but also followers of many other faiths. It also cannot be denied that many men and women who have not found any such belief have managed to break away from subjection to this slavery, but it seems to me that this must require much more effort on their part.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_28004.shtml
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 07:38 pm
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 08:15 pm
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:


Clinton was President in 1995 also. Not Bush sr.

Yes, but the 1995 suit was a result of a consent decree signed in 1989. Which is what my earlier statement said.

Who was President in 1989?


There was an inquiry opened in 1991 by the FTC. That investigation was closed in 1993.

DOJ opened an investigation in 1993 and a consent decree was signed in 94. Is that what you are referring to?

I see you haven't dealt with the NASDAQ almost tripling from 1998-2000. Big surprise there. It disproves your original claim.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 07:05 am
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:


Clinton was President in 1995 also. Not Bush sr.

Yes, but the 1995 suit was a result of a consent decree signed in 1989. Which is what my earlier statement said.

Who was President in 1989?


There was an inquiry opened in 1991 by the FTC. That investigation was closed in 1993.

DOJ opened an investigation in 1993 and a consent decree was signed in 94. Is that what you are referring to?

I see you haven't dealt with the NASDAQ almost tripling from 1998-2000. Big surprise there. It disproves your original claim.


As I stated - the Dot Bomb bubble. I took all my money out of stocks before I went on my summer vacation in 2000. Why? Because my investments had doubled in just four years. Too fast - an obvious correction was coming. Saved me probably $100K (of 401K funny money). Clinton rode that wave of innovation - he had nothing to do with it - other than to show up in Silicon Valley six times a year to block traffic and solicit contributions.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 07:44 am
Yeah, I remember the dot.coms that had never made a profit, ever, whose stock prices were going up alot. I know people in the building trades, and it was common knowledge that people were building summer homes with what they called monopoly money, from that dot.com bubble. How appropriate it was associated with the Clinton years, all fluff, no substance.

It pains the libs tremendously that Reagan is now revered, the one they hated. Now Bush, the man that everyone knows is a decent man with principles, and no amount of liberal spin can destroy him. And Clinton, no amount of spin can make him into a hill of beans, as he was nothing more than an asterisk in history. An administration that was the most miserable and most corrupt in American history.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 08:00 am
cjhsa wrote:


Clinton.. had nothing to do with it


Yep, that's what I pointed out to real life. The NASDAQ bubble bursting had nothing to do with a lawsuit against Microsoft in 1998.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 08:06 am
I would have to agree. Microsoft was never part of the Dot Bomb bubble. They came along 15 years before that.
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 09:22 pm
@cjhsa,
Nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens.
-- George W. Bush, April 13, 2004

Yes true. But anyone in the globe wish to see Bush'es face in TV?
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2008 12:43 pm
@Ramafuchs,
President George W. Bush perpetually invokes the goal of spreading democracy to sanctify his foreign policy. Unfortunately, he is only the latest in a string of presidents who cloaked aggression in idealistic rhetoric. Killing in the name of democracy has a long and sordid history.

The greatest gift the United States could give the world is an example that serves as a shining city on a hill. As University of Pennsylvania professor Walter McDougall observed, “The best way to promote our institutions and values abroad is to strengthen them at home.” But there is scant glory for politicians in restraining their urge to “save humanity.” The ignorance of the average American has provided no check on “run amok” politicians and bureaucrats.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard33.html
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 05:04 pm
@old europe,
Normally I read all the views and react with apt cut and paste.
Here is one before you people go to poll and elect/select/ acclaim/approve your Resident of WHITE HOUSE:

would have wanted answered, such as:

Do you oppose wars of aggression?

Do you support the power of Congress to declare wars?

Do you support the power of Congress to end wars?

Should a president ever attempt to launch a war without a Congressional declaration of war?

Should a president ever launch a war that is neither in strict self-defense nor authorized by the United Nations Security Council?

If Congress chooses to end a war, is it appropriate for Congress to enforce such a decision by ceasing to fund a war?

Should a president ever intentionally mislead the Congress or the public about grounds for a war?

In what ways should a president who misleads Congress and the public about the grounds for war be held accountable?

How many U.S. military bases are currently maintained in foreign countries? How many should be?

Do you support the use of mercenaries?

Which of the following actions do you consider acceptable during a war?
Making first use of nuclear weapons.
Using depleted uranium weapons.
Using white phosphorus as a weapon.
Using napalm weapons.
Using cluster bombs.
Targeting civilians.
Targeting journalists.
Targeting hospitals and ambulances.
Detaining prisoners with no legal process.
Torturing.
Spying in violation of the law and the Bill of Rights.
Claiming the right to violate laws.
Leaking classified information.
Punishing whistleblowers.

Which of the following treaties will you commit to fully upholding?
The Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change
The Biodiversity Treaty
The Forest Protection Treaty
The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
The Land-mine Ban Treaty
The Biological Weapons Convention
The Chemical Weapons Convention
The International Criminal Court
The United Nations Charter

Have you accepted any contributions from any companies that produce weapons or tools of war? Will you commit to not accepting any such contributions?

If a president commits war crimes, should he or she be held accountable in international court?

If a president commits high crimes and misdemeanors, should he or she be impeached and removed from office?

What percentage of federal discretionary spending should be directed to wars and the military?

Do you support the creation of a Department of Peace?

http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/1418
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 05:24 pm
@Robert Gentel,
W P has this view about the so called historic legacy of the most respectable comrade in White house.
NEW DOMESTIC SPY RULES
TO ENSHRINE BUSH LEGACY
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/16/11030/
Ramafuchs
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 08:31 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Couch potatoes is I presume American English and not british one.
I presume that this funny potatoes are half baked and ill informed if not misinformed.
Legacy of Bush is the topic which enlivens the intellectual world.
Here is the rare advertised legacy of Bush

Bush was one of two managing general partners of the Texas Rangers baseball club from 1989-1994.
Of the 6 million votes cast in Florida in the 2000 election, Bush won the state's 25 electoral votes by 537 votes.
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 12:21 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Jesse Ellison interviews Thomas for Newsweek and asks: "You said that Bush is the worst president in American history. Do you still believe that?"

Thomas replies: "I've seen nothing to retract my statement."
Michiko Kakutani writes in the New York Times: "Mr. Stewart has said he is looking forward to the end of the Bush administration 'as a comedian, as a person, as a citizen, as a mammal.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/08/18/BL2008081801090_5.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 03:29 pm
@Ramafuchs,
When President Bush exits the White House in January, he will leave behind a federal government in shambles. Since his first term, Bush has pressed forward with a radical view of the executive branch. Beyond adopting autocratic positions on foreign policy and taking broad liberties to subvert the Bill of Rights, Bush has waged a quieter " and perhaps more damaging " war at home against the very agencies under his charge


No matter who is elected in November, it will take years to repair this damage.”

The damage is evident in almost every federal agency and characterized most visibly by dwindling morale among career civil servants. None have suffered more than those in the scientific community, which has been forced to confront a growing cadre of inexperienced political appointees bent on pursuing a pro-business agenda.

An April survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that nearly two-thirds of responding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists said they experienced political interference with their work.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3852/feeding_the_beast/
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 06:29 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Rama,

Can you not post so many times in a row to say so little please?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 06:30 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rchart4.gif

From thinkprogress.org
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 07:55 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Ignore my post if you don't find any informations in my post please.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 08:19 pm
@Ramafuchs,
I do, but when you post that many times you almost take up whole pages of my thread. Instead of posting a bit of nonsense separated into a bunch of different posts in a row, can you just do one post with all of the bits of nonsense so that it doesn't take up so much of my thread?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 04:05:24