ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:in blueican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Let's look at this from the past experience of Bush choices for - anything; they've all been incompetents. Show us one choice Bush made that did a good job?
George Bush chose Laura to be his wife and Laura has done a good job being his wife.
Poor Laura has to accept the incompetence of her husband. ?Too late.
[ican wrote in italics:]
Regardless, George Bush did make a good choice in choosing Laura.
And what in blue-blazes does Laura have to do with the governance of our country, pray tell?
[ican wrote in purple]
You started this discussion with Show us one choice Bush made that did a good job?I was merely responding to your request.
Bush chose himself to run against Al Gore and did a good job winning the election over Al Gore.
There are many questions about how Bush won Florida including the intrusion by the supreme court.]
The US Supreme Court put an end to the selective recounting authorized by the Florida Supreme Court on Gore's behalf.
Read up on the laws of voting in the states. You might learn something valuable.
You obviously have learned nothing valuable or pertinent from reading up on the laws of voting in Florida, else you would have posted it.
Bush chose himself to run against John Kerry and did a good job winning the election over John Kerry.
That says more about the ignorance of the American voters, but most are now catching on that Bush is a disaster for our country. His performance rating is down to 27 percent and dropping.
Regardless, George Bush made a good choice in choosing himself over John Kerry.
Over 63 percent of Americans now realize they made a big mistake. Many now wish Bush would just disappear.
No poll that I'm aware of reveals that the American public prefers either Gore or Kerry over Bush.
Bush chose General Tommy Franks to command the invasion of Afghanistan, and General Franks did a good job commanding the invasion of Afghanistan.
Yeah, Tommy Franks did such a good job, they're still looking for Osama.
Capturing Osama was not his job. Removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda was his job.
Funny you should claim that! Osama is the leader of the group responsible for 9-11.
General Franks was reassigned from his mission before he could complete it in Afghanistan in order to prepare our forces for a possible invasion of Iraq.
Bush chose General Tommy Franks to command the invasion of Iraq, and General Franks did a good job commanding the invasion of Iraq.
Let's see; the Iraq war is now longer than WWII. That's a good job?
Franks did a good job removing Saddam's government and al-Qaeda from northeastern Iraq in less than 90 days. It took us from early 1942 to the Spring of 1945 (a little over 3 years) to remove Hitler's government with Hitler's help--he helped by committing suicide.
Saddam was no longer in power; he was cowering in a pit looking the coward and frightened rat. So much for a dignified leader.
We invaded Iraq March 20, 2003. Saddam's regime was removed in April 2003. Saddam himself was found about 8 months later cowering in a covered hole.
Bush chose General David Petraeus to command the surge in Iraq, and General Petraeus is doing a good job commanding the surge in Iraq.
You don't seem to understand much of anything; general Petraeus said to win in Iraq, there also needs to be a politcal success. The Iraqi government is a shambles, and there's no hope of any improvement under Maliki.
Petraeus is doing a good job of doing what he was asked to do-- reduce the Iraq violent death rate. Military success in Iraq is necessary for there to be political success in Iraq.
It is evident you have completely missed what Petraeus told congress before he accepted the responsibility to be commander in Iraq. A 50 percent success in Iraq is no success; that's what he said before taking on the helm.
I didn't miss what Petraeus told Congress. What he said was true about there being a military problem and a political problem that had to be solved in Iraq. He also observed that solving the military problem would not be sufficient to end the Iraq violence, and that the political problem had to also be solved. However, he was not asked nor did he volunteer to solve the political problem.
Bush chose Congress to reduce income tax rates, and Congress did a good job reducing income tax rates.
Bush is the only president of our country who has reduced income taxes during a time of war, and the federal deficit is increasing at such a dangerous rate that our future economy is in danger of collapsing. Our currency is losing value against all major currencies, and people like you think that's a benefit. Bush has mortgaged our children's future with his tax cuts.You fail to understand anything about fiscal responsibility.
The rate of increase of the federal deficit is rapidly decreasing. That is, the federal BUDGET deficit is decreasing from what Bush inheriited from Clinton the first year he was in office.
You're probably not paying attention, but our economy is struggling to survive a) the loss of value of the US greenback, b) our trade deficit increases very year, c) the sub-prime loans are affecting millions of American families to lose their homes, d) housing value is dropping at an alarming rate - the biggest equity for most American families, e) the DOW just lost over 300 points this month in response to the prospects of a recession, and f) your lies about Bush inheriting the budget deficit from Clinton is another conservative wet dream. You need to study which party in fact increases the federal deficit throughout history. You are not only ignorant, but unable to see what's in front of you. The middle-class in our country 1) have lost buying power during Bush's tenure during the past six years, 2) more Americans now have negative savings (more debt in the common jargon), and 3) many Americans are losing their homes. All thanks to Bush's mismanagement of our economy. It's obvious you are ignorant of macro and micro economics.
The number of jobs in the USA increased over a 100 thousand last month. Not a bad way to suffer an alleged failing economy. The Dow has been jumping up and down for years with a positive trend up. It will continue to jump up and down with a positive trend up just like it always has.
The federal surplus began decreasing in Clinton's last year due to his tax increases in the previous years. The federal surplus continued to decrease to an increasing federal deficit in Bush's first year as a consequence of Clinton's previous tax increases. When Bush's tax decrease finally went into effect in his third year, the budget deficit began to decrease.
People began to lose their homes when the interest rates of their so-called subprime variable rate mortgages grew too expensive for them to pay their mortgages. That subprime variable rate crap was not first instigated after Bush was elected. It was largely instigated during Clinton's presidency.
I and the rest of the middle class are doing fine despite the opinion-news claiming otherwise.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:in blueican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Let's look at this from the past experience of Bush choices for - anything; they've all been incompetents. Show us one choice Bush made that did a good job?
George Bush chose Laura to be his wife and Laura has done a good job being his wife.
Poor Laura has to accept the incompetence of her husband. ?Too late.
[ican wrote in italics:]
Regardless, George Bush did make a good choice in choosing Laura.
And what in blue-blazes does Laura have to do with the governance of our country, pray tell?
[ican wrote in purple]
You started this discussion with Show us one choice Bush made that did a good job?
You know darn well I was talking about his job performance.
Bush chose himself to run against Al Gore and did a good job winning the election over Al Gore.
There are many questions about how Bush won Florida including the intrusion by the supreme court.]
The US Supreme Court put an end to the selective recounting authorized by the Florida Supreme Court on Gore's behalf.
Read up on the laws of voting in the states. You might learn something valuable.
You obviously have learned nothing valuable or pertinent from reading up on the laws of voting in Florida, else you would have posted it.
This story appeared on Network World at
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2004/1119studyfinds.html
Study finds e-voting irregularities in Florida
By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service, 11/19/04
Sponsored by:
Voting irregularities in three Florida counties that used electronic voting machines may have awarded as many as 130,000 votes to President George Bush in this month's election, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.
Bush chose himself to run against John Kerry and did a good job winning the election over John Kerry.
That says more about the ignorance of the American voters, but most are now catching on that Bush is a disaster for our country. His performance rating is down to 27 percent and dropping.
Regardless, George Bush made a good choice in choosing himself over John Kerry.
Over 63 percent of Americans now realize they made a big mistake. Many now wish Bush would just disappear.
No poll that I'm aware of reveals that the American public prefers either Gore or Kerry over Bush.
Read above article; Gore would have won if not for the voting machine irregularity.
Bush chose General Tommy Franks to command the invasion of Afghanistan, and General Franks did a good job commanding the invasion of Afghanistan.
Yeah, Tommy Franks did such a good job, they're still looking for Osama.
Capturing Osama was not his job. Removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda was his job.
Funny you should claim that! Osama is the leader of the group responsible for 9-11.
General Franks was reassigned from his mission before he could complete it in Afghanistan in order to prepare our forces for a possible invasion of Iraq.
So is that Bush's fault or Franks' fault?
Bush chose General Tommy Franks to command the invasion of Iraq, and General Franks did a good job commanding the invasion of Iraq.
Let's see; the Iraq war is now longer than WWII. That's a good job?
Franks did a good job removing Saddam's government and al-Qaeda from northeastern Iraq in less than 90 days. It took us from early 1942 to the Spring of 1945 (a little over 3 years) to remove Hitler's government with Hitler's help--he helped by committing suicide.
Saddam was no longer in power; he was cowering in a pit looking the coward and frightened rat. So much for a dignified leader.
We invaded Iraq March 20, 2003. Saddam's regime was removed in April 2003. Saddam himself was found about 8 months later cowering in a covered hole.
Yes, we remember that well; the Bush regime told us the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, but five years later, we're still at war.
Bush chose General David Petraeus to command the surge in Iraq, and General Petraeus is doing a good job commanding the surge in Iraq.
You don't seem to understand much of anything; general Petraeus said to win in Iraq, there also needs to be a politcal success. The Iraqi government is a shambles, and there's no hope of any improvement under Maliki.
Petraeus is doing a good job of doing what he was asked to do-- reduce the Iraq violent death rate. Military success in Iraq is necessary for there to be political success in Iraq.
It is evident you have completely missed what Petraeus told congress before he accepted the responsibility to be commander in Iraq. A 50 percent success in Iraq is no success; that's what he said before taking on the helm.
I didn't miss what Petraeus told Congress. What he said was true about there being a military problem and a political problem that had to be solved in Iraq. He also observed that solving the military problem would not be sufficient to end the Iraq violence, and that the political problem had to also be solved. However, he was not asked nor did he volunteer to solve the political problem.
Bush chose Congress to reduce income tax rates, and Congress did a good job reducing income tax rates.
Bush is the only president of our country who has reduced income taxes during a time of war, and the federal deficit is increasing at such a dangerous rate that our future economy is in danger of collapsing. Our currency is losing value against all major currencies, and people like you think that's a benefit. Bush has mortgaged our children's future with his tax cuts.You fail to understand anything about fiscal responsibility.
The rate of increase of the federal deficit is rapidly decreasing. That is, the federal BUDGET deficit is decreasing from what Bush inheriited from Clinton the first year he was in office.
You're probably not paying attention, but our economy is struggling to survive a) the loss of value of the US greenback, b) our trade deficit increases very year, c) the sub-prime loans are affecting millions of American families to lose their homes, d) housing value is dropping at an alarming rate - the biggest equity for most American families, e) the DOW just lost over 300 points this month in response to the prospects of a recession, and f) your lies about Bush inheriting the budget deficit from Clinton is another conservative wet dream. You need to study which party in fact increases the federal deficit throughout history. You are not only ignorant, but unable to see what's in front of you. The middle-class in our country 1) have lost buying power during Bush's tenure during the past six years, 2) more Americans now have negative savings (more debt in the common jargon), and 3) many Americans are losing their homes. All thanks to Bush's mismanagement of our economy. It's obvious you are ignorant of macro and micro economics.
The number of jobs in the USA increased over a 100 thousand last month. Not a bad way to suffer an alleged failing economy. The Dow has been jumping up and down for years with a positive trend up. It will continue to jump up and down with a positive trend up just like it always has.
The federal surplus began decreasing in Clinton's last year due to his tax increases in the previous years. The federal surplus continued to decrease to an increasing federal deficit in Bush's first year as a consequence of Clinton's previous tax increases. When Bush's tax decrease finally went into effect in his third year, the budget deficit began to decrease.
And that's the reason why the federal debt continues to increase under Bush.
People began to lose their homes when the interest rates of their so-called subprime variable rate mortgages grew too expensive for them to pay their mortgages. That subprime variable rate crap was not first instigated after Bush was elected. It was largely instigated during Clinton's presidency.
Prove this statement?
I and the rest of the middle class are doing fine despite the opinion-news claiming otherwise.
And where do you get your facts? FOX News? ROFL
ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:in blueican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Let's look at this from the past experience of Bush choices for - anything; they've all been incompetents. Show us one choice Bush made that did a good job?
George Bush chose Laura to be his wife and Laura has done a good job being his wife.
Poor Laura has to accept the incompetence of her husband. ?Too late.
[ican wrote in italics:]
Regardless, George Bush did make a good choice in choosing Laura.
And what in blue-blazes does Laura have to do with the governance of our country, pray tell?
[ican wrote in purple]
You started this discussion with Show us one choice Bush made that did a good job?
You know darn well I was talking about his job performance.
Bush choices for - anything; they've all been incompetents. Show us one choice Bush made that did a good job?
Bush chose himself to run against Al Gore and did a good job winning the election over Al Gore.
There are many questions about how Bush won Florida including the intrusion by the supreme court.]
The US Supreme Court put an end to the selective recounting authorized by the Florida Supreme Court on Gore's behalf.
Read up on the laws of voting in the states. You might learn something valuable.
You obviously have learned nothing valuable or pertinent from reading up on the laws of voting in Florida, else you would have posted it.
This story appeared on Network World at
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2004/1119studyfinds.html
Study finds e-voting irregularities in Florida
By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service, 11/19/04
Sponsored by:
Voting irregularities in three Florida counties that used electronic voting machines may have awarded as many as 130,000 votes to President George Bush in this month's election, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.
Bush chose himself to run against John Kerry and did a good job winning the election over John Kerry.
That says more about the ignorance of the American voters, but most are now catching on that Bush is a disaster for our country. His performance rating is down to 27 percent and dropping.
Regardless, George Bush made a good choice in choosing himself over John Kerry.
Over 63 percent of Americans now realize they made a big mistake. Many now wish Bush would just disappear.
No poll that I'm aware of reveals that the American public prefers either Gore or Kerry over Bush.
Read above article; Gore would have won if not for the voting machine irregularity.
That claim has been refuted by multiple groups who questioned the legality of the Florida vote until they did their own research and found out the vote was legal. What you fail to take into account are all the illegal Democrat votes by dead Democrat voters, non-registered Democrat voters, and multi-voting Democrat voters.
Bush chose General Tommy Franks to command the invasion of Afghanistan, and General Franks did a good job commanding the invasion of Afghanistan.
Yeah, Tommy Franks did such a good job, they're still looking for Osama.
Capturing Osama was not his job. Removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda was his job.
Funny you should claim that! Osama is the leader of the group responsible for 9-11.
General Franks was reassigned from his mission before he could complete it in Afghanistan in order to prepare our forces for a possible invasion of Iraq.
So is that Bush's fault or Franks' fault?
Bush chose General Tommy Franks to command the invasion of Iraq, and General Franks did a good job commanding the invasion of Iraq.
Let's see; the Iraq war is now longer than WWII. That's a good job?
Franks did a good job removing Saddam's government and al-Qaeda from northeastern Iraq in less than 90 days. It took us from early 1942 to the Spring of 1945 (a little over 3 years) to remove Hitler's government with Hitler's help--he helped by committing suicide.
Saddam was no longer in power; he was cowering in a pit looking the coward and frightened rat. So much for a dignified leader.
We invaded Iraq March 20, 2003. Saddam's regime was removed in April 2003. Saddam himself was found about 8 months later cowering in a covered hole.
Yes, we remember that well; the Bush regime told us the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, but five years later, we're still at war.
Bush chose General David Petraeus to command the surge in Iraq, and General Petraeus is doing a good job commanding the surge in Iraq.
You don't seem to understand much of anything; general Petraeus said to win in Iraq, there also needs to be a politcal success. The Iraqi government is a shambles, and there's no hope of any improvement under Maliki.
Petraeus is doing a good job of doing what he was asked to do-- reduce the Iraq violent death rate. Military success in Iraq is necessary for there to be political success in Iraq.
It is evident you have completely missed what Petraeus told congress before he accepted the responsibility to be commander in Iraq. A 50 percent success in Iraq is no success; that's what he said before taking on the helm.
I didn't miss what Petraeus told Congress. What he said was true about there being a military problem and a political problem that had to be solved in Iraq. He also observed that solving the military problem would not be sufficient to end the Iraq violence, and that the political problem had to also be solved. However, he was not asked nor did he volunteer to solve the political problem.
Bush chose Congress to reduce income tax rates, and Congress did a good job reducing income tax rates.
Bush is the only president of our country who has reduced income taxes during a time of war, and the federal deficit is increasing at such a dangerous rate that our future economy is in danger of collapsing. Our currency is losing value against all major currencies, and people like you think that's a benefit. Bush has mortgaged our children's future with his tax cuts.You fail to understand anything about fiscal responsibility.
The rate of increase of the federal deficit is rapidly decreasing. That is, the federal BUDGET deficit is decreasing from what Bush inheriited from Clinton the first year he was in office.
You're probably not paying attention, but our economy is struggling to survive a) the loss of value of the US greenback, b) our trade deficit increases very year, c) the sub-prime loans are affecting millions of American families to lose their homes, d) housing value is dropping at an alarming rate - the biggest equity for most American families, e) the DOW just lost over 300 points this month in response to the prospects of a recession, and f) your lies about Bush inheriting the budget deficit from Clinton is another conservative wet dream. You need to study which party in fact increases the federal deficit throughout history. You are not only ignorant, but unable to see what's in front of you. The middle-class in our country 1) have lost buying power during Bush's tenure during the past six years, 2) more Americans now have negative savings (more debt in the common jargon), and 3) many Americans are losing their homes. All thanks to Bush's mismanagement of our economy. It's obvious you are ignorant of macro and micro economics.
The number of jobs in the USA increased over a 100 thousand last month. Not a bad way to suffer an alleged failing economy. The Dow has been jumping up and down for years with a positive trend up. It will continue to jump up and down with a positive trend up just like it always has.
The federal surplus began decreasing in Clinton's last year due to his tax increases in the previous years. The federal surplus continued to decrease to an increasing federal deficit in Bush's first year as a consequence of Clinton's previous tax increases. When Bush's tax decrease finally went into effect in his third year, the budget deficit began to decrease.
And that's the reason why the federal debt continues to increase under Bush.
People began to lose their homes when the interest rates of their so-called subprime variable rate mortgages grew too expensive for them to pay their mortgages. That subprime variable rate crap was not first instigated after Bush was elected. It was largely instigated during Clinton's presidency.
Prove this statement?
I and the rest of the middle class are doing fine despite the opinion-news claiming otherwise.
And where do you get your facts? FOX News? ROFL
I get my facts from the Wall Street Journal. Where do you get your alleged facts? The Soros gang?
