drmiler

We are not in court. The conversation between Prof Tsurumi and bush was first hand

The reason I hate his policies - They are not making life better for the vast majority of Americans!

I would define "vast majority" as being at least 50% of the population.  The economy expanded in 2004 at 4.2%, the best it's done in 5 years.

His policies have not created jobs to keep up with population growth, the middle income has sceen benefits go away, energy prices up, the poor got nothing. The only real winners ate the top 5%

You're right, Sarah. I'll be more polite in the future. I'm glad to see you didn't wait, but waded right in

About the "exporting democracy" dream: The Cold War isn't in effect anymore, to freeze up the status quo. Many previously weak nations are finally entering periods of massive industrialization. Nobody has to align with a superpower if they don't want to. Everybody is eager to see how far they can get, going their own way. I think there's bad times ahead. Tension, and trouble, and war, and death. I think this is only the beginning. From Kosovo to Mogadishu to Bagdhad. From Chechnya to the Sudan, from New York to Pyongyang.

I think our trouble is just beginning. I think the war our generation has to fight will make our parent's war look like a trip around the block selling girl scout cookies. I think that the lucky death of Arafat will be canceled out in a few years (or a few weeks) by the unfortunate death of the Pope. I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. I think the next thirty to fifty years are going to be full of turmoil and strife, no matter how it turns out.

I don't have a dream, Sarah. I have a nightmare. If exporting democracy now, early and often, can't help us, then nothing will. I'm just happy it seems to be working.

So far.

Bush is a hypocrit, plain and simple. It's no secret that he used the National Guard to excape a tour in Viet Nam. Of course, his record is debatable. But, what's not debatable is that while he was busy dodging the VietNam conflict, he was supporting that war. In other words, it's ok as long as others die for the "cause". He's a hypocrit.

Bush's stance on environmental issues is horrific. What he has called the "Clear Skies Initiative" is merely an easing of regulations that no longer requires industries to install pollution control measures when they upgraded their facilities. Instead, they are allowed to upgrade without the necessary scrubbers, only installing them when they build new facilities. This has resulted in more pollutants in the air, and greater profit margins for the CEO's. So, what's important here, people's health or industry profits? Clean skies, my ass.

How about the Healthy Forests Initiative? Just another mechanism to hand industries the rights to cut down timber on federal lands, under the guise of reducing fire threats. I suppose if the forests no longer have trees, then forest fires will be reduced. But, healthy? Talk about another misnomer.......... He's a hypocrit.

No Child Left Behind is just a sleazy way of reducing government expenditures on public education. In effect, what it has accomplished by not funding it properly is that schools fail the "tests" that the feds have mandated, thereby no longer qualifying for full, if any federal funding.

Budget cuts to the rich is a proven failure, in that the money will not trickle down to great numbers of individuals, and certainly not enough to stimulate the economy. As others, including draginol, have pointed out, it has enabled them to hire one or two more employees. Well, that's a drop in the bucket compared with what this country really needs, that being funding of education, health care, environmental protections, road rebuilding, etc. Wealthy CEO's do not need more profits.

And, why is Ken Lay, Bush's buddy, who stole millions upon millions of dollars still walking around today, a free man, while Martha Stewart is sitting in a jail cell for a stupid trade that she may or may not have gotten duped into making, and for which she earned peanuts compared to Lay? Double standards and hypocrisy is Bush's trademark.

How about lying our way to war? That's a biggie, as it is costing thousands upon thousands of deaths and maimings. For what? It's very clear now that Saddam, though a bully and bastard, to say the least, was NO immediate threat to the US. He had no WMD's. He had no ties to Al Qaida. He did monetarily support the Palestinians. But, biggest thing he actually did have - OIL. Bush is a lying sack of shit. Along with all his other neocon death cult war criminals.

I'm sorry, stutefish, that this has turned into a catalog of issues, which you requested that we don't do. The problem is that there isn't only one issue that really trumps everything else. It's the host of issues that pile up, over and over, again and again, that make me really hate this administration. They're hypocrits every step of the way, and on every issue imaginable.

I asked some people recently what Bush did that is really good. What? I really wanted to know. No one came up with anything. In other words, Bush is as much a failure at leading this country as he was in running the Texas Rangers.

So, please ask yourself, what had Bush really done that has benefitted anyone except the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, corporate CEO's and those at the top 5% of the economic profile in this country? What has he done? Ask yourself that, then decide who you would support.

it was a nice read out but i don't know why u seem such disappointed with bush.though he has created such frolic throughout the world he still must be praised for his war rebelling campaign.

And, why is Ken Lay, Bush's buddy, who stole millions upon millions of dollars still walking around today, a free man, while Martha Stewart is sitting in a jail cell for a stupid trade that she may or may not have gotten duped into making, and for which she earned peanuts compared to Lay? Double standards and hypocrisy is Bush's trademark.

What does that really have to do with Bush, absolutely nothing. If you have a problem with Ken Lay "walking around" then ask the prosecutors in Texas. And just in case you didn't know, Ken Lay's trial will start possibly later this year, so he will get his turn in court.

Budget cuts to the rich is a proven failure, in that the money will not trickle down to great numbers of individuals, and certainly not enough to stimulate the economy. As others, including draginol, have pointed out, it has enabled them to hire one or two more employees. Well, that's a drop in the bucket compared with what this country really needs, that being funding of education, health care, environmental protections, road rebuilding, etc. Wealthy CEO's do not need more profits.

The tax cuts have already stimulated the economy and helped many Americans that are not part of the "evil rich".

How about lying our way to war? That's a biggie, as it is costing thousands upon thousands of deaths and maimings. For what? It's very clear now that Saddam, though a bully and bastard, to say the least, was NO immediate threat to the US. He had no WMD's. He had no ties to Al Qaida. He did monetarily support the Palestinians. But, biggest thing he actually did have - OIL. Bush is a lying sack of shit. Along with all his other neocon death cult war criminals.

If Bush "lied" then so did John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and all the other democrats who said Saddam was a threat to this country and that he had WMD. I would go into more, but since you believe in the "oil war" conspiracy there really isn't much point in doing so.

So, please ask yourself, what had Bush really done that has benefitted anyone except the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, corporate CEO's and those at the top 5% of the economic profile in this country? What has he done? Ask yourself that, then decide who you would support.

A majority of voters just supported him enough to get him a second term. Instead of the constant complaining and conspiracy theories about Bush, why don't you tell the democratic party to get back to reality and come up with ideas instead of hate.

IslandDog

there is no question tax cuts have stimulated the economy but not nearly enough to replace the lost revenue and to balance the budget. In addition the GDP gains are not producing nearly enough jobs for the growing number of workers in this country.

The supply-side stimulation is not the most effective way to grow the economy and thus produce jobs and additional tax revenue to balance the budget. In a time of recovery to be experiencing an annual budget deficit in the range of 675 billion is simply unconscionable.

Bush is simply not facing up to the reality that his economic, tax and spending policies are not producing growth and the needed tax revenue to pay for the a defense, health and expenses relating to our growing and aging population. The imbalance can not be resolved buy just cutting spending.

Just answer this question lap dog and stupid fish. Would you send your child to fight in the IRAQ war for its current cause. Of course, you probably will find that easy to respond too since you obviously have never been close to that real lift situation. Oh, there will be some sore of goverment in IRAQ that might allow us to maintiain a military base in the area to use multi-million dollar weapons to blow up caves. But, it will be years before those people know and want a democarcy if ever. If we would have used diplomacy eventually, the regime would have collapsed and far fewer people would have died, in particular a bunch of kids that have to do what they are told and expect semi-wise decisions to be made.

Here is a fact for you two to dispute, Asama is currently in the US getting ready to stand trial for destroying 2 towers in New York and killing Americans..

Please: No laundry lists of complaints, no unsourced quotes or references, and no factual statements without supporting evidence.

Guess you didn't get much to hang a hat on.

Though I supported GW in the election, I'm certainly not entirely enamored with him (nor do I hate him).

My biggest gripes, adding a huge additional bill to medicare in the form of a prescription drug program (becoming more mandatory spending) and the huge increase in the Dept of Edu funding. Though, in my estimation, well intentioned, not appropriate for the Feds (seems to me that anything the Fed implements requires numerous revisions at additional cost because they NEVER get it right the first time). All that is needed to substaniate this claim is a review of SS, Medicare/Medicaid cost projections when implemented vs. actuals today (Medicare/Medicaid's share of mandatory spending continues to balloon - from 18% in '80 to 35% in '00 - can be found at the CBO site) and the number and frequency of submitted bills to revise and fix NAFTA, GATT, NCLB, ad infinitum which can be found at the Senate history site.