pendog Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Well said Snarc! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldksnarc Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I am active duty military. First, and again, well said. Second, Thank You For Your Service. And, ain't it amazing how the Johnny-come-lately seem to all have the same frame of mind? But, then again, I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggs Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 They say a picture speaks a thousand words so here you go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 They say a picture speaks a thousand words so here you go... I don't get it? Gas prices (when adjusted for inflation) will be lower when Bush leaves office than when he took office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I don't get it? Gas prices (when adjusted for inflation) will be lower when Bush leaves office than when he took office. Mike, and I am not saying it is what Eric believes, but think some people believe there was some sort of conspiracy that Bush and Cheney were solely responsible for the global rise in fuel prices. Guessing those same folks would speculate that with Obama coming in, that Obama is somehow responsible for the lower prices we are now seeing, even though he has yet to take office. Funny thing is prices at the pump around here are back on the rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 ...some people believe there was some sort of conspiracy that Bush and Cheney were solely responsible for the global rise in fuel prices. Guessing those same folks would speculate that with Obama coming in, that Obama is somehow responsible for the lower prices we are now seeing, even though he has yet to take office...Well that doesn't make any sense either. If the President (or Vice President ) could actually control prices, why wouldn't Bush just leave them sky high? What's to be gained by driving them down suddenly? In all reality, here's what the President, along with Congress, can do to influence prices. He can raise or lower taxes at the pump. He can raise or lower taxes on the oil companies. He can tighten or loosen regulations on dilling and exploration. And he can mandate certain pollution standards that require refineries to adjust their formulas. Other than that, it's mostly a supply and demand market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Well that doesn't make any sense either. If the President (or Vice President ) could actually control prices, why wouldn't Bush just leave them sky high? What's to be gained by driving them down suddenly? In all reality, here's what the President, along with Congress, can do to influence prices. He can raise or lower taxes at the pump. He can raise or lower taxes on the oil companies. He can tighten or loosen regulations on dilling and exploration. And he can mandate certain pollution standards that require refineries to adjust their formulas. Other than that, it's mostly a supply and demand market. You and I both know that Mike, but seems anymore things don't have to make any sense. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who disregard reality and want to believe these Michael Moore'ish type conspiracy theories and look to lay blame on Bush for anything they can. The Bush blaming and bashing seems is/has been a popular thing to do for many, which has had an obvious effect on his popularity and how he has been viewed as our leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sambar Hunter Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Gun slinging dumb red neck, I support the Iraqi journalist who throw his shoes at him, should have hit him in the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawg Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Gun slinging dumb red neck, I support the Iraqi journalist who throw his shoes at him, should have hit him in the head. Guess I'm a gun slinging dumb redneck too because I support him and believe he has done very well. But that's coming from someone who actually lives in the U.S. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun-101 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Guess I'm a gun slinging dumb redneck too because I support him and believe he has done very well. But that's coming from someone who actually lives in the U.S. . im with you hogg... sambar let the us citizens talk. You just keep you mind on australia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OUTSIDER Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Well...The commander in chief put myself, my dad, my brother, my friends, and my brothers and sisters of the US Military in harms way many times, asked us to put our lives on the line time and time again, and for that some paid the ultimate price....What do I think? I think that president bush did a wonderful job at being president, we are still the United States, one nation under GOD. He liberated the people of Iraq from a ruthless dictator, has taken out over 2/3's of Al-quaeda's top ranking members, Found Saddam's hiding place, and has helped to thwart terrorism worldwide. We still have our second amendment...(for how long when BHO gets in office, god help us) Yeah, our gas prices got bad...not as bad as some other places, our economy is shot, our military is starting to be stretched thin...my question to you is....Could you do any better?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Gun slinging dumb red neck, I support the Iraqi journalist who throw his shoes at him, should have hit him in the head. Then I suggest you go live in Iraq. Gun slinging red neck? Possibly. Depends on your definition. Dumb? Not by a long shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sambar Hunter Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) im with you hogg... sambar let the us citizens talk. You just keep you mind on australia. Well mate, you have got to realize what ever bush said goes, no arguments, even if that meant sending US allied soldiers to the middle east to get slaughtered, there are to many things to mention that Bush screwed up or stuffed up, that’s what the majority of Australian public think and that’s what the general consensus of what people think in Europe as well. Edited January 10, 2009 by Sambar Hunter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebeilgard Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 They say a picture speaks a thousand words so here you go... mark my words. in 3 years of less, you'll look at those prices as "the good old days." i predict $6.50 or better gas. remember, when it was this high, obama clearly said he was o.k. with it and thinks it will be $12.00 a gallon. and he's now off to the races. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebeilgard Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Gun slinging dumb red neck, I support the Iraqi journalist who throw his shoes at him, should have hit him in the head. if this same guy had done the same thing to saddam, he'd have his head cut off by now. and don't forget about the tons of yellowcake that was found in iraq. i know the news hates to report that kind of thing, but it's been found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawg Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Well mate, you have got to realize what ever bush said goes, no arguments, even if that meant sending US allied soldiers to the middle east to get slaughtered, there are to many things to mention that Bush screwed up or stuffed up, that’s what the majority of Australian public think and that’s what the general consensus of what people think in Europe as well. Bush didn't send the allied troops over there, that was a decision that your PM decided to do. If you and the majority of Australia have a problem with that then take it up with your PM and not blame it on President Bush. Your PM could have said no. Look at the facts, not everything President Bush said "went" as you suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativetexan Posted January 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Well mate, you have got to realize what ever bush said goes, no arguments, even if that meant sending US allied soldiers to the middle east to get slaughtered, there are to many things to mention that Bush screwed up or stuffed up, that’s what the majority of Australian public think and that’s what the general consensus of what people think in Europe as well. 1. What is a U.S. Allied Soldier sent to slaughter? Check the death toll of terrorists, extremist fighters, and the remnants of dictator governments...Whose getting slaughtered now? Patriotism is a great thing, you should try it sometime. 2. Fraid you haven't been paying too much attention to the news over the last couple of years if you think Bush got everything he ever wanted. Unfortunately for us, those who put Obama and all of his constituents in office, I am afraid they have taken on a more European/Australian way of thinking. Hide our heads and hope it goes away.... 3. I don't have to "realize" anything from a country who lets their government "run" everything. So I don't really care what Australians think. Our governments are very different. Comparing the two is apples and oranges. 4. Last time I checked, historically, we left Europe for a reason. Recently? Those people left for a reason too. So I don't much care what Europe thinks either. Got a beef? Throw shoes at your own government and hope a 9/11 doesn't happen on your soil...After all, they will most certainly buy you a new pair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebeilgard Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Steve, your entitled to your opinion. Answer your own question---Are you better off now than when Bush took office? Answer is a resounding NO. We went to heck in a hand basket under him. As far as if Gore or Kerry would have been better or worse----Who knows. But it would have been different. I voted for W the 1st go round but not the 2nd. I was around for Jimmy. Best one in my liftime-----from JKF to present. Most are mediocre. Obama has a big hole to come out of----We all better hope he does well. CB sorry again, bob, but i am much better off now than when bush took office. i voted for him the first time, then voted against kerry for the second term. i only had 2 options, and bush was better than kerry. i also voted against obama rather than for mccain. i'm a conservative and these guys are liberals. but i'm a bunch of dollars ahead of the case if gore or kerry got in. and jimmy:confused:. 21% inflation and 18% interest? he was by far the worst to date. and look what reagan did in just 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 mark my words. in 3 years of less, you'll look at those prices as "the good old days." i predict $6.50 or better gas. remember, when it was this high, obama clearly said he was o.k. with it and thinks it will be $12.00 a gallon. and he's now off to the races. Too many people are too quick to forget about those comments aren't they Steve. I will not forget what the man said. He in those comments showed his true thoughts and I for one believe it was quite ignorant and also arrogant for him to say. It does show that he has no regard for working class people who were/will be struggling with being able to afford to keep fuel in their cars to be able to get to and from work. Very sad so many people in this country just do not get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossyhorn Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) I feel W. did a good job. Yeah some thing I may not be happy with. But most people just by into the media.Imho Obama would have never won had it not been for the media giving so much hype. But thats a different story. I am guessing if you feel like Bush did a terrible job then you also feel like you got ripped off when you seen your stimulus check. Did anyone else hear people doing this. To think some people are so greedy that they can really get mad about the amount of free money they get. Edited January 21, 2009 by mossyhorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUNTINGMAN Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I think he protected our freedom the best he could,I dont get why everyone says he done such a bad job.When congress has the final say in anything a president wants to do,wouldnt this make congresses fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldksnarc Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 wouldn't this make it congresses fault. Yes. But, why did the democratic Congress spend so many days holding hearings on whose fault the housing/financial crisis was? To point blame in other directions than where it belonged - with them, Carter and Clinton because of the community re-investment act (CRA). Just as it's congress' fault social security is bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy. The money put in the fund is put there by the workers and their employers. It's not congress' money but they have raped and pillaged it and expanded it to those who haven't contributed to it to the point that when I retire in 10 years and have paid into it for 37 years so far - it won't be there. Can I/we sue to get it returned. No. What recourse do we have under a democracy? None. Under a democracy the rule of government is absolute. We have them telling us what's best for us and what we can do. I apologize for hijacking another thread - History 101. http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Country Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 For what it is worth, I believe that GWB did an admirable job as the 43rd POTUS. Twenty years from now, history will look back on the challenges he faced, and the successes and failures of his administration with a view of the years before and the years following. Without that perspective, anything else is simply biased speculation. GWB was the first president (that I can remember) that did what he thought (right or wrong) was necessary and actually stood for something (without conducting popularity polls to tell him how to believe). His beliefs tended to be mirrored by conservatives and despised by liberals, but that is the way the political system works. Did GWB make mistakes? IMO, absolutely...so would anyone else in his position, and so will BHO. Are we safer than before 9/11? Absolutely, though I am not sure for how long. In less than one week, BHO has turned the Intelligence community on its head...operatives now have to decide if doing the jobs they are assigned to do to keep us safe will jeopardize themselves, legally. The barbarian me must admit that IMO GWB did make a mistake in his restraint of the military (the poor UN might decide that we used "overwhelming" force in the prosecution of a war). Had he allowed the US military to display what it was truly capable of (sorry UN), then "shock and awe" may have given terrorists (or at least the countries sponsoring them) pause. ***Then again, Hamas did claim victory in the last incident with Israel, of course Israel did pull out of Gaza, when there was nothing left to hit*** UBL made one mistake on 9-11. He did indeed recognize the USAs ability to strike back, he simply did not think that GWB or the US as a whole had the will to strike back. He was only half-wrong IMO. May GWB accept the rest that he has worked for. And the rest of us, pray that BHO turns out better than I fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuffnufOutdoors Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) I voted for Bush both times. He faced from very hard things to deal with. I do believe he became to focused on the wars without showing us that he cared about what was going on here in the US. But that is a tricky spot for me. That is what I believe the president is suppose to focus on (foreign affairs) . I also know that I will not put the blame for the economy on GW. What about all those over sight committees that are in place to watch over these concerns. They are the ones that drop the ball. These problems stem back to the Clinton years. But end result when people are losing jobs and suffering like this country are the top guy is the one who is going to take the blame. Unfortunately most people voting do not dig deep enough to understand the issues. INMO Obama is not taking the steps that will help us get out of this issue. Butr then again I diont know if anyone really knows what will get us out of this. How do you build confidance because that is what we need to get things moving. Edited February 1, 2009 by TuffnufOutdoors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I too voted for GW both times. Voted Obama this time. Our country is in deep and bad times are just starting to be seen. I don't think the worst has been seen. My opinion was/is that Obama was the person most capable to help. Back to GW: At the time I was all for the war on Iraq. Now if there is some sort of proof (that could not be disputed) out there that GW lied about Saddam not letting us inspect the nuclear power plant then I'd feel like he was a really bad president. However, I've yet to see/hear that proof. Now we all know there were no weapons of mass destruction found so perhaps going to war wasn't the right decission after all. However, I didn't know that at the time and until it's proven I'll give GW the benifit of the doubt as well. Economy wise, I honestly don't know what percentage (if any) GW is to blame. I do feel he tried to make it seem less severe than it really was/is. Not the best move. Overall I don't think of GW's 8 years as great by any means, but then I don't think he is the worst president either. So what do I think of GW? Eh, from what I know I'd say that overall he was just ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.