What grade would you give?

[cheri1122]

Flattop: had you asked "who whizzed in your Cheerios?" I wouldn't have taken offense, but your remark was sexist, demeaning, unfunny, and offensive. I'm happy to defend my words &/or opinions, but expect to be treated with the same respect I extend to those whose opinions I happen to see as utter hogwash, ok?
Like I said: if you really, truly, believe that Bush deserves the credit for America having not been attacked by terrorists again, then I have got some deals for you, all proven effective under those same standards.
PT Barnum was sooooo right!

[aristotle]

George w. Bush's stock is rising. I am correcting his grade to a "B" .

[cheri1122]

Sounds like typical liberals to me. Do as I say but not as I do. Whats good for the goose is NOT good for the gander.

Take a little 'gander' at the posts about Obama, and remind me: who is guilty of the childish name calling here? (Hint: it's NOT the "liberals"!)
And about the 'wink'? That's a classic rejoinder from a bully: "I was just kidding! Can't you take a joke?"
I accept the apology, and trust you will be more thoughtful when 'joking' in the future. (Because if I can't beat you up, I bet
Highway Star can, lol)
Private note to HS: Will be happy to trade cookies (chocolate chip ok?) for bodyguard duty.

[layoutshooter]

In reality Cheri, I can PROVE that Bush's policies and emphisis on defense DID do much to deter additional attacks on our HOMELAND. I don't wish to argue with you but I do think I have a better insight in defense matters than you. Just based on years of experiance. You know, what many in here see no need for. We can argue all you want about morals etc. but the Defense of the Nation IS the primary role of the Federal Government and for the most part Bush had the right stratigic idea but was weak on the tactical side. His main emphisis when take office was correcting the horrible mess that Clinton left our defenses in. Due to that mess Bush was thrust into fighting this war on a minimum of 3 fronts. In fact, we are fighting on more like 20 fronts, it is a very confusing mess we have to deal with. Thank you Jimmy Carter, the original Goober. Layoutshooter

[cheri1122]

Sounds like typical liberals to me. Do as I say but not as I do. Whats good for the goose is NOT good for the gander.

Take a little 'gander' at the posts about Obama, and remind me: who is guilty of the childish name calling here? (Hint: it's NOT the "liberals"!)
And about the 'wink'? That's a classic rejoinder from a bully: "I was just kidding! Can't you take a joke?"
I accept the apology, and trust you will be more thoughtful when 'joking' in the future. (Because if I can't beat you up, I bet
Highway Star can, lol)
Private note to HS: Will be happy to trade cookies (chocolate chip ok?) for bodyguard duty., if need be.

[layoutshooter]

I like acting childish, it matches the liberal mind set!!! Just joking. I seem to remember Lilbs comparing Bush to Hilter. Making movies about killing him. Blaming him for every disater under the sun. I even heard one LIB, a woman who lives nears us, blame Bush for creating hurricanes. My wife told her that if Bush is that powerful she had better not "P*ss" him off!!! LOL. I remeber Spike Lee accusing Bush of blowing up leeves to kill black people. Obama never once denounced any of that stuff. SOOOO What is good for Bush is good for Obama. I can't wait for tomorrow, then I can blame Osama Obama for EVERYTHING that goes wrong anywhere any time. What fun that will be!!! LOL Layoutshooter

[cheri1122]

Shooter: I bow to your superior knowledge of defense strategy and intelligence - but that doesn't change anything I said. Even if Bush were solely responsible for preventing another attack, that's hardly a legacy to rejoice in, particularly in light of the mess he left everything else in.
"Provide for the common defense, and promote the common welfare" sounds to me as if the common welfare takes priority, because promoting is far more assertive than providing, no? It demands more attention, not less.
You, with your background, place a priority on defense (particularly intelligence) that most Americans don't. It's a trite bumpersticker, but profound in it's truth: War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
Maybe Obama will place enough priority on being proactive that war won't be necessary, and I believe most Americans would appreciate that very much - I know I would.

[flattop40]

PT Barnum was sooooo right!

Cheri I am glad you accept my apology. I was not trying to be demeaning or anything else but just could tell from your posts that you are adimit about this.

But as far as your PT Barnum comment you should look in the mirror before casting any stones.

Sounds like you have bit hook, line, and sinker.

[Scott101]

There have been many, many terrorist plots thwarted since 9/11. Of course the anti-bushies will downplay the significance of the plots.

It is easy to claim a thwarted attack was insignificant. But just imagine if Bush stood up in front of the Nation on 09-10-01 and said they foiled the worst pending attack on US soil by arresting a few guys taking flight lessons that were talking in chat rooms about sneeking box cutters on planes... Oh btw, based on new intel; Starting tomorrow you will have to have your shoes x-rayed before you can board any commercial flight...

My guess is the guy would have been laughed out of office. But as we all know now; a few guys with box cutters CAN do a lot of damage! Yet there are still people who downplay how serious our safety is on our own soil today.

And as for the Iraq war... I can't believe we are all still stuck on this after 7 years. It's real simple. in the course of 12 years the guy violated 17 UN resolutions. I believe many if not all of the resolutions had to do with him granting access to his weapons programs to assure the WORLD he was complying. He still jerked the World around up to the final days leading to the war. I remember in the final days inspectors did find something like a dozen or so long range (illegal to sadam) missiles. And as a final act of non-compliance sadam destroyed the missiles at a measly rate of one missile a day. The one guy that could have stopped the war was saddam hussein not George Bush.

I could fill these pages with quotes from congressional democrats back in the 90's telling us just how bad Sadam was and talking about all his WMD's. They even voted in support of regime change for Iraq. Hmm.

And America isn't a self proclaimed Master of the Universe. Just the opposite. Considering we contribute the bulk of financing and military might to the U.N. all the while having no more voting power then any other Country says a lot.

[layoutshooter]

Provide mean that PROVIDE you have to do it. It is the primary function of government. The main funtion of our Intell and military is to AVOID fighting a war. Something that Carter, Clinton and Obama just cannot grasp. Obama will cost as many or more lives as Carter/Clinton combined. Why do I say this? He sides with our enemies. Carter and Clinton did not nearly as much. I consider Obama a traitor. Sorry, but I do. He associates with traitors therefor he is a traitor. I live in a very black and white world. (not racially speaking)
I spent a lifetime and then some dealing with the total destruction of life as we know it every day. In my world you were friend or enemy. I saw the silo doors open 6 times in my career and I can tell you I used a lot of toliet paper on those days. No one in the business ever wanted to fight that "War to end All Wars" the nuke one. We avoided it. At least so far. Obama is weak. Weakness invites attack. Attack insure retaliation and the downward spiral. Obama will talk with Iran, Iran is VERY similar to Nazi Germany. We should have taken out Nazi Germany in 1937 and avoided WW2. We should have put a stop to Soviet Russia in 1948, when they started the so-called cold war, before they had nukes. If we have Eastern Europe would have never been enslaved and more than 25 million lives would not have been snuffed out. Obama is either very very foolish or is truely out to destroy this country. I do believe the latter. His every move so far proves that to me. I pray I am wrong, but I doubt it. I was 100% correct about what Clinton would do, I am willing to bet I am right about Obama. I am not willing to bet my life on this bum, what a shame you are. I pray you don't loose any friends or reletives to the horror he will bring on us. I know I will. Layoutshooter

[cheri1122]

Cheri I am glad you accept my apology. I was not trying to be demeaning or anything else but just could tell from your posts that you are adimit about this.

But as far as your PT Barnum comment you should look in the mirror before casting any stones.

Sounds like you have bit hook, line, and sinker.

"Bit" what, exactly? If you mean the Obama as Messiah notion: not hardly, I haven't. Just don't see how he could be much worse than the past administrations have been - America is in truly sad shape, you know? And I'm willing to wait until he proves himself one way or another, to make judgment of his Presidency.
PS That last line: "the weak take from the Government"? Pretty funny, considering who's been given subsidies, tax breaks, incentives, and let's don't forget BAILOUTS

[flattop40]

Obama is weak. Weakness invites attack. Attack insure retaliation and the downward spiral.

VERY WELL PUT!!!!!

You don't mess with the big dog on the block. Kinda like you don't whiss in someones Cheerio's that can kick your arse.

If you cut the bull's horns off theres no fear in messing with the bull.

So I again go back to my opening post. National security he gets an A but as far as this financial mess we are in I gave him an F only because he didn't have the guts to change the lending practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that had been loosened during the Clinton Era.

Prior to my Expiditing business I was the sales manager for the largest residential building company in NE Michigan. I saw it on a daily basis of people getting loans for homes that should not have been getting them. The biggest culprit of all were the lenders like Lending Tree, and Green Tree and so on. These people would have given the devil himself their soul for a loan. They were blatantly open about "cooking the books". Just a do anything mentality. They would give a 125% equity loan and if the people defaulted the lender would lose money. So what they did to combat that is they got the Appraisers to start inflating the value of homes so they could get more financing. You see Appraisers don't make money unless people apply for loans. And this took place all over the country. Which in turn brought on a new wave of "flipping" houses. Now with the inflating values people were buying houses they could not afford with the thought of selling in 2 years and pocketing a nice chunk of change.

Well it all had to crash soon or later as we all know it did and all this actually started back in the 90's. However, Bush did not have the guts to stand up and right the ship when he could have and for that I gave him an F in the last 2 years when actually it should have been in his second half of his first term but like all politions he didn't want to lose votes.

And the ironic thing is everyone is again screaming for the banks to loosen up and thats what got us into this mess to begin with.

[layoutshooter]

Thanks Flattop. I thought Bush did make a speech about the poor health of Fannie and Fredie back in 2001. The Dumbecrats, like Sir (I like little boys) Barney Frank shot the idea down. I only give him a c- on defense. I think I would have prosecuted the Iraq theater of operation a bit different. I would have attacked, but about a year or two later. AFTER I had a chance to re-build my active duty forces to AT LEAST WW2 levels. All services. I would have had a hugh stockpile of munitions and hit Iran and Syria at the same time. No use cutting off the tail of the snake if you don't kill the head. My first move would have been to occuppy Lebenon and seal the border between them and Syria. I would then give Syria the chance to play with us if they want to get out from under the thumb of Iran, if not, poof! The fact is, thanks to Carter Iran is now a world power. We are going to have to deal with them sooner or later. Sooner is always better. Every day they gian strength and influance while every day under Obama we will become weaker and more impotent. Layoutshooter

[flattop40]

"Bit" what, exactly? If you mean the Obama as Messiah notion: not hardly, I haven't. Just don't see how he could be much worse than the past administrations have been - America is in truly sad shape, you know? And I'm willing to wait until he proves himself one way or another, to make judgment of his Presidency.
PS That last line: "the weak take from the Government"? Pretty funny, considering who's been given subsidies, tax breaks, incentives, and let's don't forget BAILOUTS

The weak do take from the government. Yeah with all the bull**** bailouts thats been going on I see your point but all that is is the government greasing the palms of their buddies. And WHO has been incharge of both the house and the senate during these bailouts?

Thanks for bringing that up. The ONLY bailout that I half agree with was for the auto makers. Do you realize what kind of mess we would be in if they went under. Now that WOULD send us into a depression. They are quick to say we are in a depression but I dissagree. We do not have 20+% unemployment. The last I checked it was just a touch over 6%. NOT saving the auto makers would put us at 20+ for sure. Intrest rates are at an alltime low not the 15-20% like then or in the late 70's early 80's and inflation has been at or around 3-4% for years now and that is a good thing believe it or not. During the great depression we had a deinflation of almost double digits.

We have gotten so soft. We have taken for granted that our 401k's should make at least 10%/year and anything else we think the world is coming to an end. We have become a nation Chicken Littles.

And to answer the question as for the "bit" refrence, I was referring to your Bush hatred that is pushed so hard from the left.

[flattop40]

Facts about the depression found on Wikipedia:

13 million people became unemployed.
Industrial production fell by nearly 45% between the years 1929 and 1932.
Home-building dropped by 80% between the years 1929 and 1932.
From the years 1929 to 1932, about 5,000 banks went out of business.
By 1933, 11,000 of the US' 25,000 banks had failed.
In 1933, 25% of all workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.
Between 1929 and 1932 the income of the average American family was reduced by 40%.

So I ask you this? Are we this bad off?