[quote]gojira wrote:
I didn’t include Reagan because he was never president…Nancy was.[/quote]
LOL and your aren’t going to include Clinton on this??
Lol we all know that Hilliary was the ‘President’
Hell that’s why I don’t think she should be allowed to be president, she already served her two terms
[quote]gojira wrote:
I didn’t include Reagan because he was never president…Nancy was.[/quote]
LOL and your aren’t going to include Clinton on this??
Lol we all know that Hilliary was the ‘President’
Hell that’s why I don’t think she should be allowed to be president, she already served her two terms
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
As for Texas. Well, first of all, what made an MBA think for a second that he could reform an entire state’s educational system? We’ll never know, but he really fucked that one up. [/quote]
You’re in over your head here…
What his reforms did was to force each and every school district in Texas to account for the education of each and every child, no matter what ses or race they were. Under Democrats, schools in Texas that were 90% white could have all of their minority students fail stanardized tests but still claim they were doing a great job since 90% of thier students passed. Now that bullshit is gone.
Schools are held accountable for the success of every ethnic group and every ses in their district. Democrats hate that, because educated minorities are the last thing they need.
That isn’t true, but it should be.
That isn’t true either, but it should be. The reforms deal with funding, not who is hired and fired.
I would like to welcome you to the real fucking world. Here people have to actually perform in their jobs or get fired. Why in the hell should education be any different? Why should administrators and lazy ass teachers be allowed to make excuses for not getting the job done (at our kids’ expense),
In the past here, superintendents were just friends of the school board. Now the have to be effective administrators. You really see that as a bad thing?
[quote] The superintendent of Houston made the front page headlines in a massive corruption case that could be traced to (drum roll here) Bush’s new educational standards. Nothing like taking the focus off of students and placing it on people who want to keep their jobs any damn way they can. Nice system. Moral of the story — MBA’s should keep their noses out of education.
[/quote]
Wait. You are blaming an effort to ensure that Texas student’s actually learn in school for a Superintendent who was unqualified to begin with doing something corrupt. You, sir, are a dumbass. Anyway, what she did had nothing to do with the state test (the TAKS) and instead with the SAT9 (that the district was trying to use to justify a huge bond issue).
I teach at a charter school that was started under Bush’s reforms. The education monopoly has been broken, and old, lazy teachers can’t stand the competition. Schools like these make sure EVERYONE in Texas can receive a great education if they choose.
Here’s where I teach:
http://archive.parade.com/2004/0606/0606_wont_hungry.html
Here are other schools that started under Bush’s reforms. They take student’s from the worst parts of Houston (so you can see what dedicated/uncorrupt professionals can do with these same kids):
[quote]We’ve been dealing with refuting what amounts to garbage arguments being posted. Soon as we clean all the trash up, we can get on with a good discussion about Bush’s record.
But until we can get past the “Bush is dumb and stuff”, I suspect we won’t make much headway into that.[/quote]
Given the title of the thread, you might be in for a long wait… 
Who got us into Viet Nam? Woodrow fucking Wilson, that’s who.
At the treaty of Versailles, Ho Chi Minh came to him asking for American assistance in reconciling with the French, seeing as anti-imperialism was consistent with Wilson’s Fourteen Points. Well, ol’ Woody had better things to do than to accomodate the Yellow Man. Uncle Ho never forgot the snub.
And it was Eisenhower, not Johnson, who originally committed US “advisors” to help Ngo Dinh Diem.
But back to Wilson. He was an extremely clever, educated, and virtuous man who almost singlehandedly destroyed Western Civilization.
By dragging his feet on entering the First World War, then entering too late, he prolonged a war that all sides were getting tired of anyway. Had Woody either sent in the doughboys at the first bell and mopped up the mess, or stayed out altogether and let the Great War just fizzle out, neither the Soviet Revolution, nor Hitler’s rise to power, nor the current debacle in the Middle East would have happened.
So Woodrow Wilson is my choice for worst president of the 20th Century. Runner ups? Franklin D. Roosevelt, for confiscating the American public’s money and replacing it with nonredeemable (read: worthless) paper, after promising in his campaign that he would do no such thing. The little issue of his luring Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor is still debatable, but there is no denying that the attack was highly valuable to him politically, in that it allowed him to enter a war with Germany that Congress had not wanted, and thus gain support for his (highly unpopular) socialist New Deal.
And yeah, let’s not forget the Big Dick. But not for Watergate or any of the other usual reasons. No, my beef with him is for taking the dollar off the gold standard, essentially guaranteeing its skyrocketing inflation and imminent demise.
I’m not too crazy about Lincoln, either, but he hardly counts as Modern, does he?
Best Presidents? There haven’t been any great ones since Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt, as far as I’m concerned.
[quote]fahd wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Offensive to foreign people,
Wahahah…thanks for the laugh! 
This is not to piss you off ZEB, but why do you think people who live outside of US love Bush?
[/quote]
I hate to break this to you, but I am well aware that certain people that live outside the USA do not love Bush!
What you fail to understand is that the USA does not and should not make it’s political moves based upon what certain people who live outside the USA think! Thus your comment was a bit funny to me.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Somehow, we are on opposites sides of the spectrum and feel exactly the same way. I doubt that I will vote Democrat anymore- I’m going to the Green Party. The Dems are as corrupt and corporation run as the Republicans.[/quote]
Now you’re talking! Go vote for the Green Party candidate, I like that. I figure any vote that does not go for a democrat is almost like voting for the republican as the Green party candidate won’t win anyway.
GO GREEN!
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Second, if Bush’s idiocy was so obvious, why would they give him money?
Good question. I wonder that myself.
Other than the Texas Rangers baseball team, which required nothing of G.W. other than sitting back and enjoying the game, name one successful business venture that this high-speed MBA from Harvard has undertaken. Just one. While you’re at it. Name one, successful or not, that wasn’t financed by Bush Senior’s friends. My point being, he doesn’t have to be smart with a Dad like his. He just has to do what he’s told.[/quote]
You are very confused my friend. None of the above even hints that the man is the stupidest President in modern times. There are plenty of people who got involved in business who have not made a huge killing. Does that make them morons?
The hatred that the left has for President Bush borders on the hilarious.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Manufacturing is up. Personal income is up. Almost everything is up. This is not a paper boom like we had under Clinton. I’m not sure of the illusion you are blaming this on. The global economy is on fire. Japans index closed at a 5 year high. China is a freaking furnace, the Dow is closing in on 11,000. If this is an illusion - Bush and Co. can hardly be called stupid, or morons. Evil genius wold fit him better.
1939 - 1941. All government sponsored job growth. Translation? TVA, WPA, etc. were all governemt work progams designed to get people back to work. WHo was pauying these wages? Paying for the programs? Deficit spending and taxes. The gorwth was unsustainable, because it was not real growth. It was exclusively a result of the Fed spending shitloads of money.
1942 - 1945. All attributable to the war effort. Little if any domestic real growth. People were actually rationed on what they could consume. So who paid for all of this growth? One entity - the Federal government. How was it financed? Debt. But I though debt was a bad thing - that’s what you are contending about our current boom, aren’t you?
1946 - 1960. Housing boom. Manufacturing boom. Baby boom. All the soldiers came home got married, went to college, bought homes, had tons of kids, and went into gasp debt to buy their homes. Who paid for their college? The Fed. Who gave them home loans - or at the very least guaranteed them? The Fed.
I think you are being very selective in what you are blaming for slow growth. Do you not remember the horrendous tech bubble that burst sucked the life out of the stock market in 2001? That was a paper boom that caused a real bust.
You are conveniently leaving out most of the years that Greenspan has been running the Fed. He has engineered the money supply so that we will rarely top 8% growth. He seems to prefer slow, steady growth of around 4%. And in that time we have not seen anything even approaching double digit inflation either.
Are you changing your tune? You said:
Vietnam wasn’t financed on war bonds (someone correct me if I’m wrong), but the defense industry was so overwhelmed by defense orders that they had to ask other private industries to help — which further boosted the natonal economy.
Now you are saying that it was shit because of historical drops in production in post-war years.
Which is it?
That is not true. Gold is up a whopping 11.52% over the last 52 weeks. The Euro is down the exact same amount over the same period. Coincidence? I don’t know - but blaming Bush for the rise in gold prices because of debt financing is more than a little myopic.
SO the numbers mean nothing. It is your contention that things are so bad that people are just giving up and dropping off the radar? I would be willing to bet a significant amount of cash that there are more people dropping off the radar due to self-employment than there are poor out of work saps that give up and quit.
If you base the weakness of the economy on unsupported theories and twisted logic - you are the one barking up the wrong tree.
Manufacturing is up—almost totally connected to the housing boom which is almost exclusively debt financing.
Personal income is up? According to who? I do know that we recently, as a nation, went into NEGATIVE spending. That is, regardless of what people make, they’re spending more than they make. Deficit spending on a national scale. That’s good.
Of course, Japan is growing. They’re recovering from a period of massive deflation. Their economy has a long way to go before they get back to break even.
This is not a paper boom? Considering that everyone, the government and private households alike, are buying everything on credit I’m not sure what else you’d call it?
The global economy is in the black due almost exclusively to the growth in Asia. China, specifically. The problem is that China isn’t buying anything from us. They’re gobbling up raw materials and selling it to us. How the hell does that do us any good? All of our money is going out. Our trade deficit is downright frightening.
I remember back in 1999-2000 when the Dow was over 11,000 and the Nasdaq was over 5000. Now we’re approaching 11,000 AGAIN. Woohoo.
Like I said, WWII was financed on war bonds. Private people, like our grandparents, bought bonds from the government. So, the people financed the war. It wasn’t real growth? The entire country was engaged in one thing—building shit. You seem to think that manufacturing is the holy grail of growth, so there you go.
My original point was that “all prior wars created economic booms.” And WWII definitely did. Of course, it was due to government spending, but they were spending it HERE. No one besides domestic companies were profiting. Everything was made right here.
I said the late 70’s and early-80’s were shit. Vietnam ended in '75. The economy was up DURING the war.
And I don’t blame Bush for debt financing. I do, however, have a problem with him taking credit for “a great economy” when what growth is taking place has nothing to do with him and is growing in spite of him and his monumental deficit spending.
If you think I base my opinions on unsupported theories, then I’ll have to tell my Econ professor that he’s full of shit.[/quote]
If your econ professor is telling you the economy is in a recession you should tell him he is full of shit.
Then go to the finance office and get a refund for the class.
[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
That would either imply 1) that the DCI is telling his kid classified information (not good) or 2) that the DCI is the only position in government important enough (besides senators and congressman who get intel briefs every day) who might warrant blackmail or some such thing. Come on man. Gimme a break. The DCI isn’t some kind of magical holder of intel. He’s just at the top of the heap. There are a lot of people in D.C. who know what he knows.
Besides, like I said before, if this was true it would have made the whole “he’s a dodger” argument completely moot. The Repubs would have slammed the Dems with it on day one of the campaign, and they didn’t. That alone tells me you’re wrong.[/quote]
Ummmm, you believe I was suggesting GW may have been a SECURITY LEAK if captured? That I suggested GW may have had secret intel as a young man?
I figured it was a simple enough premise but here goes so you can reply to what I suggested rather than what you mistakenly believed what I was suggesting.
If the son of the DCI was captured, the enemy could have an enormous bargaining chip against the U.S… Simple. May be incorrect but I had to clear up your confusion.
By the way, “fact” doesn’t mean “that alone tells me it’s wrong” is any kind of retort. Fact means fact and if you have NONE to the contrary of my argument, please say so.
[quote]derek wrote:
Ummmm, you believe I was suggesting GW may have been a SECURITY LEAK if captured? That I suggested GW may have had secret intel as a young man?
I figured it was a simple enough premise but here goes so you can reply to what I suggested rather than what you mistakenly believed what I was suggesting.
If the son of the DCI was captured, the enemy could have an enormous bargaining chip against the U.S… Simple. May be incorrect but I had to clear up your confusion.
By the way, “fact” doesn’t mean “that alone tells me it’s wrong” is any kind of retort. Fact means fact and if you have NONE to the contrary of my argument, please say so.
[/quote]
So, you believe that the life of a politician’s son is more important than the lives of soldiers in this country? Interesting. That is what you are implying by that statement. You know that, right? If that truly is the way things are, then there are many things that need to change.
That’s why he was given so much special treatment…
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, you believe that the life of a politician’s son is more important than the lives of soldiers in this country?
That’s why he was given so much special treatment… ;)[/quote]
Ouch.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, you believe that the life of a politician’s son is more important than the lives of soldiers in this country? Interesting. That is what you are implying by that statement. You know that, right? If that truly is the way things are, then there are many things that need to change.[/quote]
Not more important, though surely subjectively to that politician. But if there was in fact a real threat that such son could be used to extort secret information from this country, it would be a potent argument against allowing the son to serve overseas. But, as I said before, the government clearly does not in reality perceive of such a threat with the DCI’s son or someone would’ve argued it as a reason why Bush shouldn’t have had to go overseas.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, you believe that the life of a politician’s son is more important than the lives of soldiers in this country? Interesting. That is what you are implying by that statement. You know that, right? If that truly is the way things are, then there are many things that need to change.[/quote]
If you’ve ever written anything that more clearly displays your lack of comprehension, I haven’t read it.
I’d like to see where it is I implied anything remotely resembling what you suggested.
Maybe I need to CAPITALIZE everything I write.
The SON of the Director of the CIA could feasibly be captured and used as propaganda, ransom or partial pull-out of a battle zone or possible surrender. We are talking about the Vietnam conflict here.
How you stretched THAT into me suggesting that any life was of more value than another is way beyond me (thankfully I cannot understand where you come up with this stuff).
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
But, as I said before, the government clearly does not in reality perceive of such a threat with the DCI’s son or someone would’ve argued it as a reason why Bush shouldn’t have had to go overseas.[/quote]
As I’VE said before, no facts. You MAY be right but I guess we’ll never know.
Is there any recent historical evidence supporting wether or not there is any truth to this theory either way?
Any written documents or precedents?
Well, there you have it. Children of important political figures should be given special treatment.
[quote]derek wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
But, as I said before, the government clearly does not in reality perceive of such a threat with the DCI’s son or someone would’ve argued it as a reason why Bush shouldn’t have had to go overseas.
As I’VE said before, no facts. You MAY be right but I guess we’ll never know.
Is there any recent historical evidence supporting wether or not there is any truth to this theory either way?
Any written documents or precedents?
[/quote]
I don’t know man. I’m at a complete loss as to how you could believe that it wouldn’t have been mentioned if that was in fact the policy. That would be like someone being alloted extra time to take a test because of ADD and them failing to mention that when the teacher failed them for going over the time limit.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The SON of the Director of the CIA could feasibly be captured and used as propaganda, ransom or partial pull-out of a battle zone or possible surrender.
Well, there you have it. Children of important political figures should be given special treatment.
[/quote]
Yes. They should if it’s a threat to the security of this country to treat them like everyone else. Not because they are somehow more worthy because of who their parents are. Although, in reality this happens too. However it’s not only important political figures. Plenty of people get dispensations for Vietnam for quasi-legtimate reasons or suddenly decided to become teachers to get out of the war. And moved on to something else as soon as the war was over. Or men whose parents weren’t public officials used connections to get out of the war.
Well, while we are at it, lets just create a special privileged ruling class… you can call them the politburo or something, so people don’t confuse them with regular folks.