Which was later shown to be a fraud.

[quote]I know Bush is not running, but McCain is promising to continue the Iraq War and most of his economic policies. That makes Bush fair game.[quote]

Of course he is! Everything is fair game in Politics. I was not tying to limit what is and is not in play, only to point out what is or is not a losing strategy. Running against Bush will play to the faithful, but not the mainstream that elects leaders. That is something both Kerry and gore (and by extension all democrats) should have learned in 2k and 04, but sadly it seems to have not taken hold.



We can debate the economy on another thread. My point was that Bush has done a lot - whether you like them or not is another matter. I like some, I dont like others. But to categorically state that he has no accomplishments is to state that America 2008 is identical to America 2000 - and is patently false. Some, yourself perhaps as well, will say it is worse off - why? it cant be worse off if Bush has no accomplishments. I merely threw out a few accomplishments that Bush has achieved. And made clear I in no way agree with all of them. In other words, I think in some respects we are better off - and in others we are worse off.

Sounds like she fits the mold of Hillary Clinton and Teresa Heinz Kerry.



You might want to start with Milton Friedman and Walter E Williams. Many of the monetarist economists contend that - myself included.



But Congress controls the purse strings. In the end, all a president really controls is foreign policy. Congress controls domestic.



Eh, no. If they had any guts, they would get off that kick completely since there are no grounds for impeachment. That they have not shows no guts and a pandering to the loonies on the left.

A congress and president of the same party; thank god. With no more veto threat, a bill can have a 51-49 vote in senate and be signed into law without problem. I am so excited (;

Completely unrelated to the topic above but I couldn't resist. You can continue your discussion now.

I have to go to work, so will respond at length later.  However, I must once again point out that no one is responding to my questions, which I will now ask again.

Are  you happy we fought the Iraq War on borrowed money?  Do you want to continue to do this?

Do you agree with the "unitary executive" theory that gives the president the powers of a dictator and makes him above the law?

Are you happy we got "habeas corpus" back?

Do you support the new GI Bill?  If not, just how are you supporting the troops?

Do you agree with the stop-loss policy?

Are you happy that private contractors are basically holding the army hostage in Iraq (see latest story re: KBR billion dollar overcharge and firing of army auditor who discovered it)?

Are you pleased that the dollar has lost a third of its value under the Bush administration?

Re: references - I asked for the reference so I can see where the argument came from.  It's not an argument I am familiar with, and of course I will have my own refutation.  Feel free to ask any of my sources.

PS to Dr. Guy - There were 35 Articles of Impeachment read on the floor of the House of Representatives recently.  They make interesting reading, and for you to say there are no grounds simply betrays your prejudice and ignorance.  Unless, of course, you have read them.

I have. Have you? get real. They are trying to impeach him for spitting on the sidewalk. You can charge anyone with anything (Paris October surprise anyone?), including incest. With no basis in fact, it just shows that congress is nothing more than a mouth piece for the loons on the left.

.

Are you happy we fought the Iraq War on borrowed money? Do you want to continue to do this?

non-sequitar. Are you happy you drive a pinto? Do you continue to drive a pinto? Same question, different subject. It has nothing to do with why we are there or not.

Do you agree with the "unitary executive" theory that gives the president the powers of a dictator and makes him above the law?

No. But why bring CLinton into this?

Are you happy we got "habeas corpus" back?

Do you mean after 1865? Or perhaps you can reference where it was suspended for Citizens?

Do you support the new GI Bill? If not, just how are you supporting the troops?

Do you support he old GI Bill? Do you support the Republican version? Why not? Explain how you can support the troops and not support every version.

Do you agree with the stop-loss policy?

I will leave that to the ones affected by it.

Are you happy that private contractors are basically holding the army hostage in Iraq (see latest story re: KBR billion dollar overcharge and firing of army auditor who discovered it)?

Basically? basically we are all monkeys. Basically the democrats have written the policy on Iraq. basically we are all just corpses waiting to die.
Or do you want to infer that this is the first time in history that there has been fraud and waste in the federal government?

Are you pleased that the dollar has lost a third of its value under the Bush administration?

Are you? Do you like polution? Do you like the Greenhouse gasses effects? Do you want to poison the soil and the drinking water?

Re: references - I asked for the reference so I can see where the argument came from. It's not an argument I am familiar with, and of course I will have my own refutation. Feel free to ask any of my sources.

References to what? Your opinion? You ask some good questions, but then slant them by your own bias. Which is fine, we all do that. However, stating a loaded question based upon your bias does not require refernces, just opinions.

it came from the statement you made that because I was a Christian, it was disturbing to you, that I would speak out on politics.

Now as far as "my interpretation?" It has nothing to do with my interpretation. I gave you the source himself. His own words and actions. If you're going to make claims about what Jesus believed or meant, then you'd best be prepared to back up your claims. And you did not I see. This has nothing to do with opinion. So you keep belieivng what you want based on non-evidence. Nothing I can do about that.



Basically all I have to say is Farrakhan (leader of Islam) and Wright (not really a messenger from God) just to keep it simple.

Farrakhan called whites "blue-eyed devils" and the anti-christ." He described Jews as "bloodsuckers" who control the government and the media and some black organizatons.

Obama spent thousands of dollars giving support to his Rev Wright and I don't think I have to start putting down quotes from his hate America speeches do I? I don't claim to know alot about his Chicago affiliations but the word is out he hung with some pretty unsavory fellows there who weren't exactly looking out for America's best interest.



so how does this compare to Michelle Obama calling us "whiteys?"



so what? People are going to do these things on both sides. Who cares? It's their way of using their freedom of speech. I wouldn't be bothered myself and would rather take my time debating the issues but to each his own as they say.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

That's because they aren't questions, they are a study in logical fallacy.

They agree on much more than just the War in Iraq however. Winning :I would be interested in what others think winning the war is. It has very little to do with what has ever been told to the public.

I don't support either party but much of what is the same is very disturbing to me. Mostly in the enforcement (or actually lack thereof) of trade policy. After all that is one of the main duties of the federal government and it is the role of the executive branch to administer and enforce such policy. What I call the Wal-Mart business model has destroyed much of our economy. I do not blame Wal-Mart. It is a well managed company, however not enforcing trade policy fairly is becoming quite problematic. To compete fairly with China one of two things must happen. Their standard of living will rise to ours or ours will sink to theirs. Take your pick. Some people love to say it is all about business tax rates but what is the Chinese Business Tax rate for which we would have to compete with? I think it has more much more to do with the labor side of the story.

In any case we have been exporting U.S. wealth for a long time. Simply look at the trade imbalance. It was mainly due to to oil in the past but now an ever increasing portion is due to sending our manufacturing base overseas. So now all that is left is our financial markets and emerging technologies. Well, we have mostly ignored the education problems that have developed and have let scandal after scandal further weaken trust in the financial markets. Its only a matter of time before it all comes tumbling down.

I do believe in capitalism and free markets but there is nothing free in the market when you are competing against the economies of communist countries, and buying much of your energy from Princes and Dictators. There is nothing free in the market when you let corporate lobbyists write laws that make it very hard to see what is actually happening in financial markets.

The two biggest long-term issues of the day are Energy and Trade Policy. We need to stop exporting U.S. wealth. We also need to lower the deficit...and fast.

ya, agree. What we need in the White House are businessmen not politicians. Put a CPA who's run his own business in there and you'll see the deficit drop in a hurry.

NO! CPAs are good for figuring the bottom line. They suck at vision and understanding the intangibles. I have seen too many good companies ruined when a CFO gets the reigns.

You don't need businessmen or a CPA...U need a good group of economists. We needed to lower the value of the dollar vs. other currencies but some of our trade partners are manipulating their currencies to keep this from happening. So u have to tighten enforcement of agreements with those nations until they start to play nice.

Otherwise we need to address the federal deficit in terms of %GDP. You have two choices. Cut spending or increase tax revenues. Tax revenues will need to go up rather quickly. A decrease in defense spending will occur as the war winds down but there is nothing certain there. The Dems will more than likely be in control of Congress so you can throw out McCains tax proposals as being anything other than blah blah blah. In any case as the fed raises interest rates we will start to see how bad things really are. Cutting taxes are the ideal but if the investment it spurs isn't generating enough tax revenues because it is being invested and sheltered offshore than it isn't going to do anything to fix the federal deficit.