I was asking not pointing to someone else you twit.

I didn't try to understand political reason however I can understand the afterward effect of a political action without understanding the action itself. (I don't try to understand what cause ripple in water rather the ripple's effect on beach. Beach being NASA and ripple being the action of Bush Sr.)

One) Would you rather has 10 dollar taxes on each family no matter what? Or better yet just one cent add to the sale taxes? That should tell you plenty.

Two) They may be underfunded but they can plan for a bigger budget next year etc...

Three) When did USA's economy come into question here? Not to mention Iraqi may strongly disagree with you here.

His motivation? Well I am sure that I would not be able to figure it out. I am not psychologist, nor am I an anthropolgist with a degree in poli sci, nor am I him. So in the end all I can do is guess and make sarcastic remakrs.

One thing I have to say is, I actually liked his domestic policies when he got into office. His plans for social reform did truely amaze me, sadly it was all ruined by the war mongers and diplomatically inept officers he put into his cabinet.

Could Bush have made a good president? yes

Did he? Not really, but he isnt completely out of the water yet.

I like his current policy, please no one and just try to survive. If you have noticed his political career is in ruins, the Democrats want to impeach him, the Republicans dislike him.

Pesonally it was the bipartisan movement that really delt a big blow to his presidency. If it wasnt for united party opposition against his policies he might be able to do something positive with his last years in office. Sadly, I dont see that happening.



Well, usually effect take years to culminate. We are only starting to see the short fall backs of the Administrations agression policy, one being a small reduction in freedom and a backfire in foreign relations

I think we will need to look at this from about a decade from now to actually tell whether or not they ruined the countries future.

Its not like this is the worst hardship this country has gone through. I think we are in a time of change, not necessarily decline.



And what Coolidges "dont do anything plan, lets just pray the economy gets out of the recession" plan worked better?

It was petty politics, nothing more, it wasnt for the good of the nation, it was for the good of the Republican party, same way the Republican party had the fourteenth amendment placed into the constitution to make sure that they controlled the south through free black votes.

Its all quite depressing really all of these glorified changes and reforms were used more for personal gain a then for the betterment of the nation.



Yes, he did, you are quite right, but the reason he did was political power. He didnt want the president to think himself the ruler of the country. He thought that Congress is where the power lay and that the president should extresize his minimal powers. Thats also the same reason he opposed political parties, but no one really listened to him then too. Of course that few of the presidency has changed quite a bit. For better or for worse? Well that to be argued.



No one said you had to participate, but I agree

Its not like the forums are a shinning example of a community either, at least not amy more.



Wedge speaks? Ouch, what a painful statement, I am so proud

there are more factors than most people are privy to that factor into various political decisions. harrasing a general policy without understanding the stressors is folly.

that has nothing to do with his political action, all of this hullaballo is to do with the Iraq war. people get whiny because its not some simple go in, come out war. guess what comes out of all of this whining? another Vietnam.

it has nothing to do with his policies, its just about the war. nothing else.

and thus why we have a limit on presidential terms.

"small reductions in freedom", like what?
and the backfire in foreign relations happened years ago (freedom fries?) now the balance has been restored, and europe has just gone back to whining again.

"the new deal" accomplished NOTHING. all that saved us from depression was the jolt from the second world war.

there are threads of quarantine, this is one of them.

an idea I support. apparently FDR did not.

the congress still has most of the power, unfortunately globalization has changed the role of the president.
besides, political parties are good for government.

Learn some history, the new deal does nothing now, but it got people back to work back then. The world war is what got us inot even higher levels of economic production as well as keeping us out of a future depression.




I would say the Supreme Court does, sadly it doesnt excersize its powers often.

Political parties are a necessary evil in my opinion.



Sorry to brake it too you Schem, but the fact that we are in a war is part of his 'policy'.



I am sorry I didnt specify. Hm... lets see Habeus Corpus is definetly the first that comes to mind, maybe the phone tapping thing. And oh yes, how about illegal data base gathering and internet background searches.



Its far from restored, the world still at large hates us. I wouldnt call it anything else.



I am sure, thats is where conspiracy theories come in. If you really cant build a stronger arguement then "There is more too it, its just I dont know what it is so you cant know either".



It was supposed to be a simple war, we were vastly supperior in technology, sadly we werent so in our millitary commanders. One blunder after another, its qutie sad really.

if you payed attention to history of this country, you would know that the "new deal" was completely obselete, it was underfunded, it had countless different branches, it spread its supposed influence to far.
it did nothing to change the climate, if you took half a look at the economy/employment rates/GDP of that time, there wasnt even a slow in the decline until WWII began.
any more questions class?

well of course it technically has the most power, however its very limited by purview, and it can only usually affect legal judgements years after they were issues.

good, you understand this bit of constitutional philosophy

(psst, break)
and the war is only a small part of presidential policy. its also the only part that democrats are really able to latch onto really well.

1) internet is not covered by legal grounds, we didnt have it more than a few decades ago, so this really isnt a reduction in rights
2) habeus corpus. sorry if I missed where that got hammered, mind telling me?
3) phone taps, who really cares? its not exactly like you should give a damn if some far-off man is listening to your phone calls. its also true that it doesnt really affect you
besides, the supreme court is waiting on the ability to slam it for not getting warrants in the first place. its hardly a concern.

look at Abraham Lincoln for gods sake, by far the most favored president, he suspended habeus corpus, locked up people for no reason, and made unsightly sanctions in disregard of congress. but we love him anyway.

its been that way for decades. envy does that to countries.

its only a small part of my arguement; attacking your credentials is by far a legal move. how abouts you fess up to the fact that you arent as good at running the country as the president?

you seem to be missing the point where its a mess because of the enemies tactics. not ours.
how do you expect to win against an ingrained enemy? how about you outline your master plan?
the issue with this is that it is a stamina issue. sissies who want to run out at the first sign of trouble are exactly what cause these sorts of issues. anyone else remember the mistake of vietnam? because I assure you, it wasnt tactical.

He barely runs the country, hes more concerned about running Iraq then the US.

I am no politician, nor do I ever want to be one. But as a person who knows history and politics it is quite obvious to me that he is not helping this nation at quite a crucial point in history. He has some very obvious personality flaws like stuborness and denial, as well as some resentfulness and faith to very questionable people.



Thank you Schem!!

You proved a very good point.

They out tact us, we arent used to fighting a war against something not concrete, against just civilians with weapons and not an armed regime. We need to change our tactics from brute force to silent strikes. If we reduced our army size there, we would be able to plan a lot more easily defensive manuevers as well as offensive strikes. Currently we are over trooped their and the logistics dont fit the opperation. More troops will cause more dissent in the Iraqi population and cause more and more to join up with the terrorist movement.

Vitetnam? Well I could say moral ones, the things we did to the populace of that country were terrible, I am amazed that the people in charge of our country were able to decid the fate of hundreds of thousands of lives so easily. Quite an ugly war, this one barely resembles it. It the fact that we cant win again is why people are comparing it to Vietnam. In terms of civilian casualties it also raises a concern






1) The internet is covered by some legal protection of the FCC and the main part of the Network Nuetrality act states basically that it could not be controlled by any one organization, yet the government is disobeying it by exerting its control over companies that control network frames and asking them for private information.
2)The Patriot Act pretty much states that anyone under suspicion of treasoness actions can be put under war trial without a jury or a legitamate judge and charged with war time crimes.
3)Ever heard of the damino effect or the slipery slope? Its how all of these things progress into being something a lot more harmful.

Abraham Lincoln did those things in a differnt time with a hugely more proportional crisis. Back then it was either act now or let the Union fall apart. And he only did those things 3 times and that is what kept the border states from rebelling.



I would say more like regret and pitty. I went to Europe last summer and most of the people there talked about America was going to be like the Weimar Republic. It was quitte depressing, they have lost almost all faith in us staying the great leader of the world.

I am sure they envy our power, but its more like they are fed up with our arrogance. Even when we lose we remain stuborn to the point of stupidity and that just make the rest of the world go "What an asshole".



Um wrong?

It did get people back to work, pure and simple, thats what it did. It helped get people back to work.

And fact please, give me an employment graph from 1938, also compare it to that of 1939 and 1940, the effects were delayed, but they were there. And it was anything but underfunded, the nations budget in 1939 had over a quarter going to welfare programs.



Little part?

How so, when this war has kept president Bush from getting to his other wonderous plans. Tell me one good improvement he made that wouldnt have happened under some one else. And social security doesnt count, since he couldnt even make that work.

Why do you think the democrats are able to do so? Because the war at large is a failure, and the Middle East isnt going to be the shinning example of democracy we so desperately wanted it to be. I am even Lebenon collapsed, ofcourse that was mostly due to Israel, but still it shows that the democrazation of that region wont help us.

unfortunately, its not a matter of out "tack"ing us, its just an escalation in a warfare strategy that we americans coined. unfortunately we cant fight fire with fire, and while we have an amazing kill/death ratio (I know its somewhere in the 125/4 range in Afghanistan) its difficult to unroot an enemy that hides so much.

bad move. you would embolden your enemy and lose effectiveness. people would largely see this as a pullout

and how exactly do you expect to train so many special forces?

tactically we had basically crushed the enemy at the end of the tet offensive, but unfortunately the public had no balls to continue what would have been a simple military offensive.

I would question this here. I understand that napalm is pretty nasty, and there were other less favorable incidents. but by and large many southern vietnamese understood the necessity of our measures and were pretty happy to have us there. lots of the vietnam backlooking is ridden with a tinted viewpoint, much of it is dramatized.

yes, its called a logical fallacy for a reason.

the government has minimal influence in the workings of the internet, hardly "controlled by one organization". at best they do a little snooping to find people who are running illigitimate money transactions, which, hint hint, helps us spot terrorism.

its been this way for a while, just the fact that nobody documented it.

ah yes, Europe, the socialist super-continent of such places as the czech republic and the eastern bloc, a shining example of their superior forms of government.
like I said, there isnt much deterrioration going on here. its more a question of envy.

I'm sorry, but last time I remember large swathes of Europe backed us with Iraq and Afghanistan, and I dont really hear many of them complaining now. after their own series of brutal attacks.
the "what an asshole" response is mostly emmanating from the french and the Democrats. the French have their own issues to deal with before they turn a sharp eye on us, and the Democrats... well they love to throw around political dirt, dont they (I am completely softening my words here... give me credit for not being blatantly insulting)
I actually have a friend from france. she strikes me as a hardcore pro-american... its almost scary...

this is sad. it didnt do anything. at best it provided *SOME* jobs in government, but it certainly did not break any downward spirals.
WWII was what allowed people to "get back to work". mostly because minorities and women were finally able to get jobs. after WWII the only reason another downward spiral didnt spark is because of the advent of imperialistic communism and the advent of the military-industrial complex.
that you dont understand this is remarkably disturbing.
here, just look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_new_deal#The_recession_of_1937_and_recovery
Morgenthau's advice might have assisted the collapsing idea, but it hardly helped.
in case you didnt notice; the effect of the new deal is largely controversial, there is NO evidence that it helped improve QoL, it may have stabalized the economy, but it didnt do the actual recovery work.

the idea started in 1933 thank you.
and the 1938 event was the end of a fancy little collapse. of course there was a small rebound.

and if you knew a thing about the internet, you would know how hard it is to find a specific graph for that time, but I'll do my best.

as with all wars, benefitial actions get overriden by the relatively irrelevant occurances of the war.
the fact that no one can come up with something is merely a testement to my point.

Looks like I can do better



Look at some of the graphs here, they show a large upward curve in employement way before WWII began.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Gdp20-40.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US-jobs2040.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US-mfg20-40.jpg



Napalm? It wasnt just napalm. We masacred entire villages, we held executions of civilians, and we sprayed radiation and toxic chemicals and farms and jungels.



I can come up with two.

Can you do the same?



Why did they support us?

They did so because 1) we paid them two 2) as more people joined the movement no one wanted to miss the potential of saying "Yes, we helped stop the terrorist movement".

Oh yes I have noticed that you have moved above your insults, however I dont think it will last.



What do you suggest? Sending more? We are causing a large number of deaths, and in a time where war is frowned upon it makes us look like murderers and anti-peace keepers.



Because it isnt so simple anymore. We have went there to kill one person and we killed one hudred thousand. Now what? We cant calm them down, we cant rebuild them, and we know that if we leave then everything we did would just collapse all over again. So we stay, we stay to prove the world wrong, we stay until they will most likely get too tired to fight on.

This kind of plan will get us nowhere, we will stay there for decades if the situation continues the way it has.

ever heard of a euphemism?

these are due to a completely different factor, a radical proposal that had to do with spending during times of collapse and reducing spending during times of prosperity
now, if you want a better source that is more illustrative of how things happened:

note what happened after the new deal, not much.

oh surely. what did we pay them again? nothing that would coax them into war.

and my smug reaction:
exactly.

maintain the current system, spend more on intelligence and stopping the funding at its source.

I didnt say the idea isnt nice, I said it is unfeasible and it would give an illusion of backing down.

not the point of the statement.

loath though I am to say it, nobody else has come up with a better idea. our monkey of a president seems to be proposing ideas that at least are not isolationist and severely damaging, I cant say so for other proposals.