President Bush's Resume

[jeff]

And both Democrats and Republicans put so much stupid pork into each thing they pass, it's no wonder we're in a deficit. I wish I could do that with MY budget.
Government economics gives me a headache.

If I were president, funding for fencing would go up a LOT...

[Tireur]

Really, both parties spend, so the label of "conservative" vs. "liberal" only applies to social policy. Fiscally, they're both "liberal", and it's a question of whether you want your tax dollars going to educate children or pad defense contractors' wallets?

darius

Much the way LBJ used the Vietnam War to pad the pockets of his good friends at Brown and Root.

[Tireur]

If I were president, funding for fencing would go up a LOT...

I only need to be chairman of a Public Utility Commission, make my fencing club a public utitlity and thereby guarantee it a 20% return on investment.

If the government would only grant every business that return...........

[jeff]

Much the way LBJ used the Vietnam War to pad the pockets of his good friends at Brown and Root.

Which is now part of Halliburton - the company Cheney became CEO of due to his Washington connections.

[Maeve_Mari]

Which is now part of Halliburton - the company Cheney became CEO of due to his Washington connections.

And Halliburton is by far the largest beneficiary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. With no-bid, no-ceiling contracts, the company has already amassed nearly $3 billion in work due to the Iraq invasion alone! It is doing everything from restoring oil facilities to providing toilets for troops. Just over a year ago Halliburton was staring at nearly a half-billion dollars in losses. In the second quarter of 2003 it posted a profit of $26 million.

And it goes on and on in this administration.

[Tireur]

And Halliburton is by far the largest beneficiary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. With no-bid, no-ceiling contracts, the company has already amassed nearly $3 billion in work due to the Iraq invasion alone! It is doing everything from restoring oil facilities to providing toilets for troops. Just over a year ago Halliburton was staring at nearly a half-billion dollars in losses. In the second quarter of 2003 it posted a profit of $26 million.

And it goes on and on in this administration.

Actually, Hallibuton won a competitive bid process for the Civil Augmentation Program. A multi year on-call contract for whatever services might be needed.

The Clinton administration, however, had given them a no-bid contract for work in the Balkans. So, if you're gonna point the finger at Bush, point it at Clinton as well. I wouldn't want anyone to think you were biased.

And it goes on and on..........

[Strytllr]

Just over a year ago Halliburton was staring at nearly a half-billion dollars in losses. In the second quarter of 2003 it posted a profit of $26 million.

The Clinton administration, however, had given them a no-bid contract for work in the Balkans.

hehe... obviously the Balkans weren't quite as good as an investment as Iraq.

[Maeve_Mari]

Actually, Hallibuton won a competitive bid process for the Civil Augmentation Program. A multi year on-call contract for whatever services might be needed.

The Clinton administration, however, had given them a no-bid contract for work in the Balkans. So, if you're gonna point the finger at Bush, point it at Clinton as well. I wouldn't want anyone to think you were biased.

And it goes on and on..........

At the time of the "no-bid contract" (also known as concessions to lend aid to/bail-out a failing US business) Cheney was not the Vice President of the U.S. nor had it been considered that he would still receiving salary payments (albeit via a insurance policy he took out that guaranteed him salary through 2008.)

[Tireur]

At the time of the "no-bid contract" (also known as concessions to lend aid to/bail-out a failing US business) Cheney was not the Vice President of the U.S. nor had it been considered that he would still receiving salary payments (albeit via a insurance policy he took out that guaranteed him salary through 2008.)

So.....what you're saying is he paid for that, via an insurance policy.

[Tireur]

hehe... obviously the Balkans weren't quite as good as an investment as Iraq.

Correct. Kinda like Whitewater..........

[jeff]

Or the Texas Rangers. Hey, that was cute. IIRC (my memory is rusty) there was a tie-in with getting land for the Rangers, approved by somebody who later got other contracts (in Texas educational system? Apologize for not remembering the details...) Anyhow GWB did well on that.

Isn't pointing out Clintonian lust and avarice ("waiter, one of each!") somehow supposed to prove Dubya's integrity? Clinton attracted tons of negative attention during his administration, and it's only fair to give GWB the equivalent now that it's his shift. Pointing the finger at his predecessor doesn't minimize the cronyocracy of the current administration.

[telkanuru]

I sort of see Bush as the Republican version of Clinton. They both managed to polarize the other party against them. I've heard that there are quite a few republicans who dislike clintion because he never got punished for what/who he did. There are quite a few democrats who are rather annoyed that Bush can pull the sh*t he does without getting any public outrage. Interesting parallel.

Personally, I dislike Bush and think Clinton's not so bad a guy. This is most likely because Bush is going out of his way to do things I don't like concerning the environment and the budgit and to shove them in my face. Anything Clinton really wanted to do was utterly squashed by the nice republican congress (Newt, newt, newt, newt!). I'm thinking that if Bush had to face a Democratic majority for his term, I wouldn't dislike him nearly as much. For one, he wouldn't have thrown the EPA into the wood chipper. Dissent in a gov't is a good thing. Heck, here in MA, Mitt the Git keeps Finneran under control, even if I don't like him all that much (on second thought, I don't like Finneran very much, either, but I don't have a witty nickname for him).

Why can't the major parties give me a candidate I like? Why!?!?!

[Strytllr]

Why can't the major parties give me a candidate I like? Why!?!?!

Heck... I'd even settle for a non-major party to give me a candidate I could like... but they're the most amazingly 2 dimensional platforms I could ever find!! It's ridiculous! Just once, I'd like to see a political candidate I could emphatically support instead of the usual "oh... I don't know... [Name of stupid candidate] isn't too bad..."

I DO have a link to a website that is supposed to help you figure out which presidential candidate best fits your opinions and beliefs. It's not too bad... as long as you double check the candidate vs. what you think is important.

http://www.presidentmatch.com/Guide.jsp2

The best I can get, is a 53% match... and it's for someone I CAN'T STAND!!!!

[Tireur]

Or the Texas Rangers. Hey, that was cute. IIRC (my memory is rusty) there was a tie-in with getting land for the Rangers, approved by somebody who later got other contracts (in Texas educational system? Apologize for not remembering the details...) Anyhow GWB did well on that.

Isn't pointing out Clintonian lust and avarice ("waiter, one of each!") somehow supposed to prove Dubya's integrity? Clinton attracted tons of negative attention during his administration, and it's only fair to give GWB the equivalent now that it's his shift. Pointing the finger at his predecessor doesn't minimize the cronyocracy of the current administration.

Well, let's not like him because he did well?????

Nope, Clinton's bad side does not prove anything about Bush, but, Clintonians pointed a lot of fingers at the Bush 1 admin AND the Reagan admin. All I ask is that the fingers be pointed fairly and equally. Some people (I don't mean you) ignore the Clinton failings and scream at the top of their lungs over Bush's.

All things considered, I think I'd prefer Bush to Gore. THAT Would have been fodder for the comics.........

[Tireur]

I sort of see Bush as the Republican version of Clinton. They both managed to polarize the other party against them. I've heard that there are quite a few republicans who dislike clintion because he never got punished for what/who he did. There are quite a few democrats who are rather annoyed that Bush can pull the sh*t he does without getting any public outrage. Interesting parallel.

Personally, I dislike Bush and think Clinton's not so bad a guy. This is most likely because Bush is going out of his way to do things I don't like concerning the environment and the budgit and to shove them in my face. Anything Clinton really wanted to do was utterly squashed by the nice republican congress (Newt, newt, newt, newt!). I'm thinking that if Bush had to face a Democratic majority for his term, I wouldn't dislike him nearly as much. For one, he wouldn't have thrown the EPA into the wood chipper. Dissent in a gov't is a good thing. Heck, here in MA, Mitt the Git keeps Finneran under control, even if I don't like him all that much (on second thought, I don't like Finneran very much, either, but I don't have a witty nickname for him).

Why can't the major parties give me a candidate I like? Why!?!?!

Well, I don't know Bush, but he seems an ok guy. I DO know Clinton and cannot stand the sight of him.

You must be quite the player if POTUS is going out of his way to shove things in your face. He must really want to piss you off.

What did you do, organize an elementary schoolers for Gore rally?

All seriousness aside, tho. Yes, dissent is a good thing.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I have no argument with people who dislike Bush, I see good and bad in him, but please, let's not get all misty-eyed for Clinton.

I think that this discussion proves that both Clinton and GW Bush must have been out of office for a much longer time before their final tally can be evaluated in something approximate to a true fashion.

I have long wondered what Tireur considers to be the "less civilized South", Care to go into detail?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Tireur]

Hi!
I have long wondered what Tireur considers to be the "less civilized South", Care to go into detail?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Gladly. I mean more civilized (in our relations with others) than other (unnamed) regions of the country.

[telkanuru]

All things considered, I think I'd prefer Bush to Gore. THAT Would have been fodder for the comics.........

I think we should have shot both of them and moved to Canada. Less problems.

Joking aside, America needs a viable third party. And a mandatory death penalty for all persons.

[Soldier]

We've got that mandatory death penalty, it's just really slow. And the time it takes to process depends on who you are.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I sort of see Bush as the Republican version of Clinton. They both managed to polarize the other party against them.

<big snip>
Why can't the major parties give me a candidate I like? Why!?!?!

Can anybody guess/name a politician who has had high ratings by both his own party members and voters for the other guy *during* his tenure? If one would rank all US. Presidents on their favorable rating among those who did not vot for them, who do you think would top the list? I have absolutely no idea.

To the questions at the end: blame, in a large part, the first-past-the-post voting system which is used in the USA. This system - somewhat of a speciality of the English-speaking world - strongly tends to produce a 2-party system. Already there, it limits your choices. (I, who live in a place with a proportional system, have 7 viable choices in parliamentary elections, and therefore much better chances in finding a better match. Not only that, I also know that a vote on a party that win not win locally is not a wasted vote.)

Also, this system tends to reward a strategy of "secure your base, win over some others, and forget about the rest". The FPTP voting system does not reward a politician for being somewhat palatable to his opponents, something that many other (Instant Runoff, Condorcet, Borda, etc) voting systems do. All of this drive - in a vicious circle - the voting percentage down (compare to proportional elections!), making the strategy even more workable. Thus the sucess of the two last presidents, despite their gall-inducing qualitites in their opponents. Akin to what is known in control theory as "bang-bang regulation", which is an inferior regulation system. (that is cold, hard, science!)

Oh, the electoral college used by USA only worsens the problem. It makes voters in many states (Utah, Washington DC, Alaska, Mass., for example) aware that their personal vote will not affect the outcome of the presidential vote by a very small amount - in contrast, it will affect the outcome exactly zero. In those states, one party can be dominant for very long times. This will attract spineless powercentered people to the perennial winner, and make otherwise good political canidates for the other parties to not take up a political career. Also, long reigns by any party tends to breed nepotistic arrangements, if not outright graft.

How to fix it? That is a question for a thread of itself.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson