Citizen)COL GeneOctober 11, 2006 13:58:18Reply #42 Just John

So how do you address your objectivity issue? You can not claim to be objective when you only see one side.

Objectivity speaks of your credibility. I don't care if you hung the moon.

No I do not drive on the few occasions when I drink.

That was precisely my point! You said:

I was not arrested for driving drunk

From a less than objective point of view that means I was never caught driving drunk. I find it highly unlikely that you took the words (spoken or written) from your sources to the intended meaning. I find it more likely that you saw I was not arrested for driving drunk to mean you were never caught.

Just John

I have reported the results of the past 5.5 years accurately in my book. It is true that many of those results would be seen by most people as negative when judging the performance of Bush and the GOP Congress. For Example:

Turning a balanced budget to as high as a $600 Billion per year deficit is not positive.

Taking the National Debt from $5.7 Trillion to $8.5Trillion and heading toward $10 Trillion by the end of the Bush Term is a disaster.

The continued increase in the trade deficit after expanding a policy that did not work for 8 years under Clinton is not good for the U.S.

There are a lot of children being left behind by the Bush Education policies.

We are MORE not less dependent on foreign oil and the cost to heat our homes and drive our cars is much higher then when Bush took over which hurts MOST Americans.

The Border is not protected and we still are not inspecting over 90% of the containers coming into our ports.

The 16 Intelligence agencies have concluded the Iraq War; the central focus of the Bush security policy, is making us LESS not MORE safe.

Over 2,700 Lives and 20,000 injuries plus ½ Trillion dollars spent in Iraq with the violence getting worse EVERY DAY.

Afghanistan is returning to the same danger as just before 9/11 and the man responsible for 9/11 is free.

The great danger of North Korea and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is worse then ever despite the Tough talk by our President.

There is more discord in America then when Bush took office who pledged to reduce that discord.

The World opinion of our President and the U S in general is at an ALL TIME LOW.

The Average Worker has LESS money to spend after inflation then in 2001.

The continued outsourcing of our jobs.

An increase of about 2 Million Americans without health care since Jan 2001.

The way Bush and the Fed dealt with Katrina and the lack of rebuilding the Gulf is clear.

These are the things that have taken place since January 2001. I have documented these changes by sources that can not be disputed. If you believe, as most people looking at those changes, that our policies are not helping our country then you are not very pleased with GWB and the GOP leadership in Congress.

And you know col we have debunked most of the claims because you see it all one-sided. You don't take in account anything, but "it's Bushs fault". You look at nothing else except that.

Pathetic.

IslandDog

No you have not. My information about how the economy and the fiscal issues exist is from U.S. Government agencies that I sight. My military issues come from the MOST senior U.S. Commanders. You have NOT refuted ANY of the data in my book and since you most likely have not read my book your claims about what is contained in my book are absurd and ridiculous. It just shows how out to lunch you are with your meaningless comments.

Here is some more GOOD news:

Trade Deficit Hits New Record High
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP Economics Writer)
From Associated Press
October 12, 2006 7:39 AM EDT
WASHINGTON - America's trade deficit hit an all-time high as record imports of oil swamped a solid gain in U.S. exports. The politically sensitive deficit with China set a record, a point that Democrats are sure to use in attacking President Bush's trade policies in the closing weeks of the battle for Congress.

The deficit rose to $69.9 billion in August, up 2.7 percent from July's $68 billion deficit, which had also been a record. The sharp deterioration in the deficit in recent months has occurred because soaring global oil prices have pushed America's foreign oil bill to historic highs.

Analysts believe the deficit will begin to show improvements in coming months, reflecting the fact that oil prices, which had surged to $77 per barrel in July, have fallen by about 25 percent since that time.

In a second report, the number of newly laid off workers filing for unemployment benefits rose by 4,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted total of 308,000.

The widening trade gap occurred even though U.S. exports of goods and services set a record, rising by 2.3 percent to $122.4 billion. This increase, however, was offset by a 2.4 percent rise in imports, which also set a record at $192.3 billion.

The trade deficit is on track to set a record for a fifth consecutive year, running at an annual rate through August of $784.2 billion, 9.4 percent higher than last year's $716.7 billion record.

Democrats, campaigning to wrest control of Congress from the Republicans, contend that the string of record deficits documents failures of Bush administration trade policies that they contend have not addressed unfair trade practices by other nations, particularly China.

Oh, right, you cowardly lump of crap! Kim Yung Il had no plans to get Nukes until March of 2003. It had nothing to do with Clinton authorizing the sale of nuclear material to him right?

You putrid bit of entrails, it isn't up to Bush or any other US president, the useless UN has a ceasefire agreement with N. Korea, and should be enforcing it. But like you Kofi Annan would rather be a waste of human flesh than actually do anything about it.

Other than that, why should we base our foreign policy on fear of what others are doing. Oooooh, better not enforce the ceasefire of 91, Kim Yung Il might not like it! Oooooh, better just let the terrorists kill Americans at will, fighting back will just piss them off!

Now, leave those little boys alone and quit being a wimpering coward for once in your life!


::::: THis is me, vomiting in your pathetic, whiney face ::::

Parated2k

You are an ASS that does not warrent a response!

Col jihad, you are hillarious. You have totally ignored all the GOOD NEWS about the economy that is posted. Tell me right now you are not one-sided. You don't take an objective look at anything col, just "it's Bushs fault". Nothing else matters. How pathetic.

Why don't you tell us what democrats will do col? Nobody still can't tell us what the democrats plan for North Korea is. All you guys are is a bunch of crybabies who don't have any plans for anything but blaming Bush.

You have NOT refuted ANY of the data in my book and since you most likely have not read my book your claims about what is contained in my book are absurd and ridiculous.

This shows you are truely in another world. Myself and many others here have shown claims in your book, just like your blogs, are exaggerated, false, and one-sided.

Get help for your addiction.

Example of the hypocrisy of col jihad.

The dow drops 60 points and col claims the economy is terrible because of that drop. However, he never posted when news like this comes out.

"Stocks were climbing at the open Thursday amid a series of upbeat corporate earnings, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average continued to rewrite the record book with a new all-time intraday high.

The Dow was recently gaining 40 points at 11,892, but it briefly went above 11,900 for the first time ever. The S&P 500 was rising 5 points to 1355, and the Nasdaq Composite was higher by 14 points at 2322."

YOU ARE A DEFEATIST LIBERAL! The only news that makes you happy is bad news.

I'm not going to run down your list point for point but I'm going to show you the other side of the view on a couple of these points. I'm not trying to rewrite history or debunk your views. I simply want to point out that a hindsight view is different depending on your perspective.

There are a lot of children being left behind by the Bush Education policies.

I see kids in my area going beyond what I could have imagined. This change because of the continued programs offered by their school.

The great danger of North Korea and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is worse then ever despite the Tough talk by our President.

I see this as a failure in diplomacy by President Clinton. I don't believe that GW has done enough. I don't see where he made it worse by inaction though.

The way Bush and the Fed dealt with Katrina and the lack of rebuilding the Gulf is clear.

This is one of those that when I see what you write I frankly wish you would pull your head from your ass and then I remember you don't live here. Katrina would have been a non issue if the levees wouldn't have broke. There would have been a handful of deaths and some property damage but that would have been the sum of it. The levees broke because of backwoods, good ol' boy Louisiana politics. New Orleans had a separate levee board than the rest of the state.

The rebuilding effort has nothing to do with the feds. The much touted Road Home Program has had 13 billion for over six months now and they have made payments to 13 of almost 137,000 eligible families. They had more than a year now to plan for the disbursement of this money. Mississippi doesn't seem to have any problem getting money to their folks. In Louisiana we have to make sure there is enough red tape to siphon off at least 1/3 of that money. Case in point is the Governor's blatant self promotion in this program. It's federal money but she is spending almost 3 million of it telling people about Governor Blanco's road home program.

All of that to say, it's about perspective. We know where your perspective lies. I just think it's sad that you walk around pretending that the things that don't fit your agenda never happened.

IslandDog

This is the problem with your Economic Good News:

The latest poll about what Americans think of the way Bush is handling the economy continue to show 60% do not approve of the way Bush is handling the economy.

This morning on MSNBC was a discussion of why the record high stock market, higher corporate profits, higher tax collections and lower gas has prices have not been reflected in the way Americans think Bush is handling the economy.

Here is WHY. As to the stock market, 80% of the stocks are owned by 10% of Americans. Even though about ½ of Americans own stock, most of the middle income Americans own stock only in their retirement accounts. Thus increases in the market may show in higher retirement account balance but that does NOTHING to help them pay their bills. Only the top 10% derive any significant amount of income that they can spend from their Stock market Profits.

As to higher corporate profits and larger tax collections they too do not enable the vast majority to pay their monthly bills. When the poor and most of the middle income Americans hear the President and his other officials telling them how great the economy is and they have either no more or less money to meet their ever increasing bills they do not see how this “Great Economic News” Bush tells them about is possible. The truth is that for all but the top 10% the goods news means NOTHING.

Even the lower gas prices have not offset other increases and in comparison to gas prices two or even one year ago they are high.

I decided to look at my situation. I am a very typical retired American and had no changes in my spending patterns. I first took a look at my income. My Social Security and Military pensions went up but so did my Medicare premium which impacted my Social Security Increase. Bottom line I saw a $600 increase in my retired income.

I looked at my expenses that showed a significant increase. My Homeowners and Flood Insurance premiums went up OVER $600. Thus before I looked at anything else I was at break even. When I looked at the increase in gas prices on the 12,000 I drove last year I saw another $400 in gas cost. My energy cost jumped about 35% or about $400 and food prices were up about 4% which was another $300. The bottom line—I had a LOSS in REAL income of $1,100 without looking at all the smaller things that went up in price.

I do not point this out for any sympathy but to show WHY all the so called “GOOD ECONOMIC” news is not being received well in America. What Bush does not get is that you can not talk someone into having more money to spend. At the end of EACH month the Americans KNOW if they are better off or not. Although the data Bush uses is accurate, it does not translate into a better life for ANY of the POOR and not for the majority of Middle Income America. Do not be surprised in the future when the polls do not give Bush credit for the economy. If you were to poll only the top 20% the results would be positive but when you ask everyone the answer is just the opposite!

There were no nuclear tests during the Clinton term and these did not appear to be any Plutonium production by North Korea. Both of these things took place during the past 5 years. All the tough talk by Bush about NO Nukes in North Korea. The dummy in the White House Invades a country with no nuclear weapons and ignores the two countries that are most likely (North Korea and Iran) to either have them or close to having them. Great work George!!!!!!!

The dummy in the White House Invades a country with no nuclear weapons and ignores the two countries that are most likely (North Korea and Iran) to either have them or close to having them. Great work George!!!!!!!

So, would you have had us invade the countries that MIGHT have had nukes, and have had them POSSIBLY nuke us. Hmmm? Would you really risk that? What if he had invaded/taken care of those counries, would he still be at fault?


What would YOU have done?

Don't pay attention to this article. I wrote it after I had some drinks with some friends. Hell I can't even remember my password so I'm writing in annonimus, look at me, I still can't spell right. Anyways, please do me the favor and ignore any of my comments. I ran out of pills this morning and can not be responsible for my behaviour online. Thanks and sorry again.

OMG. LOL That is GREAT. Hahahahahaa.

OMG. LOL That is GREAT. Hahahahahaa.

I wonder if you would still think it's funny when I tell you that it was me who wrote that? I went in as annonymous and wrote it just for fun. Guess I didn't get his attention, or he just didn't notice it.

I wonder if you would still think it's funny when I tell you that it was me who wrote that? I went in as annonymous and wrote it just for fun. Guess I didn't get his attention, or he just didn't notice it.

Charles, you have your moments. If that WAS you, you done good.

What I said is how stupid was it to risk our troops and spend 1/2 Trillion dollars attacking a country that had no nuclear weapons and following an ineffective policy toward two countries that posed a REAL danger. If Bush had been president on December 7, 1941 he would have declared war on Poland or China.

Yes I saw your lame post trying to make it appear that it was from me. It was not worth a response. There is not one post so far that has shown that the original issue I raised in this Blog is not true. You could not document ONE policy of the Bush Administration that has achieved the objective and benefited the American People.

Here is what has taken place since January 2001:


Turning a balanced budget to as high as a $600 Billion per year deficit is not positive.

Taking the National Debt from $5.7 Trillion to $8.5Trillion and heading toward $10 Trillion by the end of the Bush Term is a disaster.

The continued increase in the trade deficit after expanding a policy that did not work for 8 years under Clinton is not good for the U.S.

There are a lot of children being left behind by the Bush Education policies.

We are MORE not less dependent on foreign oil and the cost to heat our homes and drive our cars is much higher then when Bush took over which hurts MOST Americans.

The Border is not protected and we still are not inspecting over 90% of the containers coming into our ports.

The 16 Intelligence agencies have concluded the Iraq War; the central focus of the Bush security policy, is making us LESS not MORE safe.

Over 2,700 Lives and 20,000 injuries plus ½ Trillion dollars spent in Iraq with the violence getting worse EVERY DAY.

Afghanistan is returning to the same danger as just before 9/11 and the man responsible for 9/11 is free.

The great danger of North Korea and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is worse then ever despite the Tough talk by our President.

There is more discord in America then when Bush took office who pledged to reduce that discord.

The World opinion of our President and the U S in general is at an ALL TIME LOW.

The Average Worker has LESS money to spend after inflation then in 2001.

The continued outsourcing of our jobs.

An increase of about 2 Million Americans without health care since Jan 2001.

The way Bush and the Fed dealt with Katrina and the lack of rebuilding the Gulf is clear.

Charles, you have your moments. If that WAS you, you done good.

Well thank you. I try my best.

There is not one post so far that has shown that the original issue I raised in this Blog is not true.

There is a reason for that. You never provided any factual, unbiased evidence. That's your problem. You can't site yourself as the source when none of us trust you.

For a moment I though I might get a real dialogue out of you. I was wrong. I would have some respect for you if you did anything more than complain.

Anyone here want to join in a google bomb for the Col?

There is more discord in America then when Bush took office who pledged to reduce that discord.

First thing first, that isn't bush's fault only. In fact, it's politics, and those who fall in line with it. (I.e. those who do not think for themselves.)

What I said is how stupid was it to risk our troops and spend 1/2 Trillion dollars attacking a country that had no nuclear weapons and following an ineffective policy toward two countries that posed a REAL danger. If Bush had been president on December 7, 1941 he would have declared war on Poland or China

You didn't answer my question CG.

The latest poll about what Americans think of the way Bush is handling the economy continue to show 60% do not approve of the way Bush is handling the economy.

Here you go again with the polls. Do you even listen to anything? Polls are not accurate and are media driven. Get that through your head.

Parated2k You are an ASS that does not warrent a response!

And yet, respond you did. ;~D

It's ok though, since you are almost universally wrong about everything, I figure I'm pretty safe.

Just John

You are WRONG. I sighted the opinion of an analyst with 30 years studying North Korea. In addition, there is logic that supports my Blog. Anyone that would argue that a dictator does not value the continuation of control over his country is just not sane. There is also no doubt that possessing a few nuclear weapons would be the ultimate deterrent for any country to attempt an invasion that could result in unacceptable casualties on the invading force. Thus the Bush policy of preemptively attacking dictators to effect régime change would cause dictators to seek ways to prevent Bush or some other like minded president from attempting régime change. Nuclear weapons are the BEST solution for any dictator that wants to reduce the possibility of an Iraq style invasion in the future!

There is not one post so far that has shown that the original issue I raised in this Blog is not true.

OK then I will bend to your wishes.

The drive of North Korea and Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons is not to attack the United States but to prevent the United States or any other country from attacking them.

First of all you said Iraq did not have a nuclear program so get your stories straight. Second of all, the same reason they want weapons are the same reasons we have them, Russia has them and others want them, for self protection and the right to defend themselves. Your point here is useless cause everyone has the same reason for wanting nukes. What you really fail to point out is that people like Kim Yong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saddam do not value life, are always threatening other countries with death and destruction and are very dangerous people in control of entire countries. This is what you should be pointing out.

It is true that both North Korea and Iran were trying to acquire nuclear weapons long before Bush invaded Iraq.

The fact that you wrote this statement alone defeats your entire argument so anything else said after this is pointless. And to be more accurate, they were both searching before Bush became President.

However the preemptive invasion and willingness to affect regime change by force has increased the desire of these two countries to obtain a small supply of these weapons.

OK, where is the proof, evidence, anything that can back this opinion? Cause in the end this is all it really is. This is not Bush truth, this is Bush opinion. Truth: a fact that has been verified, something you have not done. they wanted these weapons before, they want it know and they will continue to want it even when Bush is gone.

There is no question, if Iran or North Korea are successful in acquiring these weapons, they are far safer from attack by the United States.

No question? Do you even hear yourself? attack by the United States? You make it sound as if we are going around attacking countries like Alexander the Great. Bush is far from being great and with our military spread thin and only a few years for him to go, I see no unilateral wars toward North Korea any time soon. Keep in mind though that the US is not the only country concerned about this problem. I'm not sure you or anyone on this planet would want to be in South Korea or Japan at this moment. Last thing they need is a rouge nuclear missile flying over their country.

Now we have North Korea conducting a nuclear test. What Next?

OK so we have North Korea conducting a nuclear test, and neither China, Japan or Russia tried to stop them. I'm with you so far. Now Iran is also trying to mess with nuclear power, what are China, Russia, France and the UN trying to do to stop them again? Oh yea, I forgot, we, The US, are the ones responsible for stopping Iran. But how can we do that when you don't want preemptive strikes, don't want us sending our soldiers into harms way, don't want to upset the Muslims, don't want us to go without the the support of the UN, don't want Bush in charge in the first place. Now maybe you can explain to me how we can stop Iran from continuing their search for nuclear power when you have our hands and legs tied up? Keep in mind that we have been talking to these people for months now and it has not been working, so don't try to give me that as a solution cause while we talk they research, while we talk some more, the begin to build, by the time we realize that talking is futile they will have their first nuclear test. Just look at North Korea for proof.

When we look at the direction our foreign policy is taking it is clear we are moving into a MORE not LESS dangerous time in history.

Let's see, we are trying to deal with a bunch of nut cases who want nothing less than the death of all Americans and Jews. While we're trying to stop them from acquiring WMD, they are getting mad at us and are trying other means to do us harm. With me so far? Our only way to be safe from these nut cases is by facing them, right? Every heard of the saying "it will get worse before it gets better"? You didn't really think Iran, North Korea, Iraq, etc, would just have said "OK, OK, we give up, we will not pursue nuclear tech and we will live in peace with the rest of the world" did you? Just look at the reaction of the American people on 9/11; we all had sadness, confusion, but more than anything, anger. Why? Because they messed with us. See my point? It is more dangerous for everyone on this planet, not because Bush went to war in Iraq, but because Alqaeda declared war on us on 9/11.

It does not matter where you look. Relations with our traditional friends have been strained by our policy.

First of all they were our allies, not friends. Friends stick together. We were "friends with France, who was supplying Saddam with weapons illegally (don't forget the nice weapons cache found in the beginning of the invasion that clearly said France (and Germany)on them. They chose to side with the terrorist for financial reasons. Money was more important to them than making this world a better place to live. Remember, just like China has business relationships with North Korea, Germany and France had them with Iraq as well. They turned their backs on us when we needed them the most, this war in Iraq would have been less of a struggle had they joined and helped out from the beginning. They were never our friends, they were business partners and they felt our kind of financial business was not what they wanted.

The Middle-east is a disaster and the problems in the Americas is clearly evident.

You make it sound as if it all got bad in 2003. The Middle East has been a disaster for long before that and we have always had problems before, this is nothing new that we can't handle. We have survived worse and we are getting better even if you refuse to see it.

To give Bush and his Foreign Policy team a grade of a D- would be kind!

I wouldn't give him even a B, but this is not a unilateral situation. Bush is not and can not be responsible for the entire planet. We are not succeeding because our "friends" are more interested in the financial gains from places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. They would rather let then get nukes, as long as they continue to make money from them.

Hows that for taking on the issues you claim here? You continue to ignore the real threat and continue to attack the one that needs your help. Not once do you or will you point out the cruelty of the terrorist, their lack of respect for the rules of war (the same rules that are getting our men and women killed), the lack of respect for human life from Saddam and/or Kim Yong Il, the uselessness of the UN, the betrayal of some of our allies (not friends) for financial gains, the back tracking of those in the Democratic party who were in favor of the war in Iraq then cried we were tricked, the constant undermining of our President, etc. Never do you point out anything others do wrong, only Bush. You are not objective, you are not unbiased, you do not tell the truth cause you have no proof, facts or evidence to back anything you say. You simply provide opinions of people who's names can not be revealed, who have agendas against Bush, who are bias and non-objective; you provide poll after poll after poll that only you believe; you provide facts from Gov't sources but when these same sources are used to refute your claims you claim they are inaccurate and wrong.

What do you have to say now? Or copy/paste?

You are WRONG. I sighted the opinion of an analyst with 30 years studying North Korea.

You sighted the opinion of a ghost. The opinion of a person who you can't even prove exist cause his identity can not be revealed. God, do you even listen to yourself or do you put cotton balls in your ears and type with your eyes closed (would explain the many typos you make) to ignore what you yourself write?

In addition, there is logic that supports my Blog. Anyone that would argue that a dictator does not value the continuation of control over his country is just not sane.

You call this logic? You are not Kim Yong Il, you do not know the reasons for his lust for nukes. You have no proof or evidence to support this statement. You can not speak as if you have direct access to Kim Yong Il's brain and know exactly what he is thinking. Everyone, dictator or not, values their leadership position. That is no excuse to are yourself with nukes. Is Hugo Chaves actively seeking nukes? You would think so since he is on a role taunting the American President by calling him names and constantly bitching about him. Either than or he's the bravest idiot on this planet. If Iran wants nukes to protect themselves from us they would be doing in in secret. Otherwise we could take them out before they even began testing. You see how your logic is flawed?

Charles C


First of all you said Iraq did not have a nuclear program so get your stories straight. I typed Iraq. It should have been Iran. If you look at the Blog itself you will see that. You can not address the issue so you seize on a typo.