4 more years of George Bush!

[This_person]

:shrug: Since we've been there this long, haven't beaten the Taliban, haven't stopped the opium trade, and most important haven't turned OBL into an unrecognizable puddle....

I wouldn't call it one of his worst mistakes, but it's nothing to brag about, either.

I'll buy being there too long, kind of. We "beat" the Taliban in terms of their power structure over the country. But, much like the British in our revolutionary war being unprepared for our fighting style, and our being unprepared for the Vietnamese fighting style, we're unprepared for the current fighting style. They say you always fight the last war, until you figure out the new one. We're still trying to figure out how to take a huge, technologically advanced army and beat gangs of thugs.

I don't understand why we didn't/don't burn the poppy fields, though. You've definately got me on that one.

As far as OBL, I think he's been neutralized, just not caught. Who knows, he may be dead and we just don't know it yet. We tried to let the "coalition" get him, and failed. I'll take that hit, too.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Reagan supported the laughably named FOPA, and signed it into law effective May 1986. The act was a precedent-setting piece of legislation as it was the first law of it's type that banned the importation/manufacture of firearms by type. The FOPA banned the importation/manufacture of selective-fire weapons for sale to the public. Reagan was not alone in this effort as the leadership of the NRA, including LaPierre, also signed off on the bill.

...that's what I thought it was, but I couldn't remember the name of it.

Yup.

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

You wanted the government to do something about people taking loans they couldn't afford? Is this the same Larry that wants companies to stop paying people's taxes for them, 'cuz the people should do it themselves?

...hell no, I don't want any government intervention now. What would have been better, what would have been real leadership, would to have been to start reigning in the rush before it got ridiculous. I see a government roll in seeing to a relatively even amount of regulation that allows people and business to work with fairly consistent fundamentals, not wait and run around trying to put out fires after the fact.

All Bush had to do was push through a cap gains change that said you have to keep the home for 1 year to realize one cap gains rate and pay a higher one if you sell in less than a year.

 

[drmatsci]

On the gun issue, consider this:

I had a former coworker that felt the consitution meant that he could (should) be able to own any weapon that the military owned. He felt that the right to bare arms meant he had the right to own whatever weapon he wanted. I don't think anyone sane is going to argue joe shmo should own his own tank or flamethrower or nuclear device (granted, these are extremes, but they bring me to my point). If you accept that normal folk should not own ANY type of weapon that they want than you already accept the fact that the government has the right to control your firearms. They can decide what type and how many of any weapon you can have. The governemnt could say you are only allowed to own 1 single shot .22. That could fulfill the right to bare arms.

I am not really on either side of this issue, just wanted to point this out...
They either have implicit right to control firearms or they don't, it can't be halfway.

 

[This_person]

On the gun issue, consider this:

I had a former coworker that felt the consitution meant that he could (should) be able to own any weapon that the military owned. He felt that the right to bare arms meant he had the right to own whatever weapon he wanted. I don't think anyone sane is going to argue joe shmo should own his own tank or flamethrower or nuclear device (granted, these are extremes, but they bring me to my point). If you accept that normal folk should not own ANY type of weapon that they want than you already accept the fact that the government has the right to control your firearms. They can decide what type and how many of any weapon you can have. The governemnt could say you are only allowed to own 1 single shot .22. That could fulfill the right to bare arms.

I am not really on either side of this issue, just wanted to point this out...
They either have implicit right to control firearms or they don't, it can't be halfway.

There are some very minor limits, just like there are to free speech, or freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. A reasonable person would say that the press should not give away our war plans, for example. Or, the infamous "fire" in a crowded theater. When you put people at unreasonable risk, your rights have limits.

Personally, I think nuclear weapon is about the only limit there should be on firearms (as far as type). People who've proven untrustworthiness of the general population (ie, convicted felons), people who are not able to maturely and calmly know right from wrong (mentally retarded), etc., should also be limited.

However, the right was specifically mentioned in the constitution for a reason. The document was written and approved by a population that just threw out their old government, with war. The right can clearly be demonstrated, in context, to be a right of the people to have the armament to overthrow their current government, their future government. I don't believe it's about collectors, hunters, target shooting, etc., etc. It's as clear as my hand before my face that whatever the military should be able to have, I should be able to have.

 

[wintersprings]

"We're still trying to figure out how to take a huge, technologically advanced army and beat gangs of thugs.
"

I am confused. Are you talking about Washington DC, run by Dem Thugs? Because we have figured out how to beat the tribal thugs in the Middle East.

 

[Bann]

Bush will be seen as the new Ronald Reagan (Won the cold war much to the lefts hate)

Bush has the vision, we will miss him.

I too will miss him and Laura. Fortunately, when he leaves the People's House, it will still contain the silver, crystal, china and furniture.

And the computer keyboard W's!

Or would that be the B's, H's or O's? OR, maybe the... Nah, that would be just ...wrong on soo many levels. Besides, Laura would never allow it.

 

[Bann]

and thw "W"s

GMTA

 

[Bann]

Housing?

Pro: surrounded himself with competent cabinet.
Con: speaking ability, public image. Poor fiscal policy. Stimulus rebates.


I saw a news story that said we may get another round of "stimulus." I guess that since the last round didn't work, we need to try again. Isn't that the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I don't know why anyone in the news would be doing a story about another round of stimulus checks! Just this morning I heard Bush give a brief talk before he left on his trip. He said the checks should all be out now (or almost all) and to give the simulus checks time to work, etc., etc.

 

[MMDad]

I don't know why anyone in the news would be doing a story about another round of stimulus checks! Just this morning I heard Bush give a brief talk before he left on his trip. He said the checks should all be out now (or almost all) and to give the simulus checks time to work, etc., etc.

Bush Considers New Economic Stimulus , White House Weighs New Measures As Unemployment, Oil Prices Soar - CBS News

 

[PsyOps]

...at Reagan's legacy;

Pro; tax cuts, economic growth, rebuilt the military.
Con; spending, illegal immigration, Iran/Contra

Anyone feel free to chime in here with the pros and cons you remember.


Bush 43;

Pro's; tax cuts, Roberts, Alito
Con; Afghanistan, Iraq, spending, housing, illegal immigration.

Add your own pro and cons and discuss them.

Con: 911. Can't forget about 911. I mean it did happen on his watch and he did nothing about that memo.

 

[Bann]

Bush Considers New Economic Stimulus , White House Weighs New Measures As Unemployment, Oil Prices Soar - CBS News

Oops, pardon moi - I didn't mean that you didn't hear or read the story, at all. I was just surprised at the story because of what I heard Bush say just today!

OTOH, the title is a bit misleading since neither Bush nor the WH spokesman said they were considering another round of stimulus, just not ruling another stimulus out. (and not saying what kind of stimulus) Then later in the article, it said that Bush didn't say anything about it in his speech Friday and didn't even hint that he thought it necessary.

But it's typical reporting!

 

[wintersprings]

911...no attacks since...kinda hard for Dem's to ignore