[redmenace]

Then in that case, someone completely fouling up could be your hero if you are benefitted indirectly.

as the US economy tanks, it'll have quite the ripple effect actually.

That might be related to Bush, but it is also related to long standing trade policies and the dependence upon foreign energy sources.

[aldo_14]

As not an american citizen, Bush doesn't really affect you. [Unless you live in Iraq]

I call bollocks on that statement.

(for example; the woefully useless yet horribly intrusive airport security of the US, that requires facial id and fingerprints yet fails to detect a metal rectangular box sitting in my trouser pocket through 2 pat-down searches)

[Kosh]

That might be related to Bush, but it is also related to long standing trade policies and the dependence upon foreign energy sources.

His fiscal policies leave much to be desired though.......

[redmenace]

That might be related to Bush, but it is also related to long standing trade policies and the dependence upon foreign energy sources.

His fiscal policies leave much to be desired though.......

Oh I agree, but the climbing defecit has been going on for decades.

[BlackDove]

BlackDove: Don't think I'm not onto your funny business, you young whipper-snapper.

Henny-Penny I'm in trouble now!

[Kosh]

Oh I agree, but the climbing defecit has been going on for decades

Yes, but he has done nothing but deliberately make things worse.

"Hey, let's cut taxes on the rich and get into an expensive new war that will drag on for years and years with no end in sight to cut the deficeit"


What the hell kind of logic is that?

[redmenace]

What kind of logic is involved in a 70% top tax bracket? I completely admit, Bush is a horrible president and possibly the worst ever with LBJ coming in on a close second. Point is that both of these parties wish to take things to an extreme. Clinton and the republican congress had an opportunity to pass a balance budget admendment but did not. They did make progress and the market reacted positively to those changes. But, I would be careful not to simply make what Bush is doing to be deliberate and retarded in the light of what others have done or not done.

Yes the war in Iraq is useless and a waste in resources, but saying it was conducted and started to **** the economy is stupid.

[vyper]

It was probably started to rescue your economy actually. Nothing like a boost to the good old arms industry to keep the wheels of industry turning. Unfortunately it's impossible to replace soldiers as easily as Black Hawks and Hummers.

[Kosh]

Yes the war in Iraq is useless and a waste in resources, but saying it was conducted and started to **** the economy is stupid.

What exactly do you mean by "conducted"?

I never said it was ****ing up the economy, but it does put a huge drag on the governments bottom line, which does effect other things. It won't hurt the economy too much unless large numbers of people need to be sent there who would otherwise be doing their normal jobs.

Clinton and the republican congress had an opportunity to pass a balance budget admendment but did not.

Clinton wanted to use it for something useful like paying down the debt (which hedid to some degree), but the Republican congress just wanted to piss it away on tax cuts.

[Nuclear1]

What an idiot.

No one should get special treatment. I hope everyone that does this gets fired/suspended from school.

Wow, you have no idea how much you disgust me right now. In all honesty, i've got no strong feelings one way or the other regarding this 'walkout' business, but your attitude towards it just invites me to loathe you. Weird.

But enough of that unsightly business. While their hearts are most certainly in the right place, things like this never gain enough momentum to mean anything. Keep in mind a good portion of Americans don't even have internet access, and even more a too stupid to use it.

Civil disobedience is still disobedience.

Sure, that's the whole point.  If they really think the issue is that important to have to walk out of school or work and are willing to suffer the consequences, then let them.  I'm not willing to say that it should be condoned or opposed by the school either.

As not an american citizen, Bush doesn't really affect you. [Unless you live in Iraq]

If it were any other country, I would say yes, but the US is just simply too influential for that statement to be true. What the US administration does has a drastic effect on one area of the world or another. 

Yes the war in Iraq is useless and a waste in resources, but saying it was conducted and started to **** the economy is stupid.

I can agree on that.  While I believe the war is being mismanaged, I don't believe that even Bush would actually sabotage the American economy intentionally.  There's simply no logic at all behind it; a bad economy means no money for Halliburton, and no more money for the war.

What the hell kind of logic is that?

It's not exactly news that administrations do nonsensical things; why did Clinton, for example, hardly respond to the '93 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, or the Kenya/Tanzania bombings?  Not that I'm criticizing Clinton in particular; I just threw that out there for the sake of example. 

[Turambar]

well, if you were a terrorist, how would you feel if when you bombed something, you barely got any response?

[redmenace]

Yes the war in Iraq is useless and a waste in resources, but saying it was conducted and started to **** the economy is stupid.

What exactly do you mean by "conducted"?

I never said it was ****ing up the economy, but it does put a huge drag on the governments bottom line, which does effect other things. It won't hurt the economy too much unless large numbers of people need to be sent there who would otherwise be doing their normal jobs.

Clinton and the republican congress had an opportunity to pass a balance budget admendment but did not.

Clinton wanted to use it for something useful like paying down the debt (which hedid to some degree), but the Republican congress just wanted to piss it away on tax cuts.

Not quite, clinton had a democractically controlled congress, and it wasn't until the republicans took control that cuts in spending were made. There is nothing wrong with tax cuts so much as they are used properly. But raising taxes on the middle class is kinda disruptive and counter productive. The thing about both parties in this country is that they can't display any fiscal responcibility. They all do earmarks to keep their jobs and accept campaign donations for access.

[Kosh]

It's not exactly news that administrations do nonsensical things; why did Clinton, for example, hardly respond to the '93 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, or the Kenya/Tanzania bombings?

What makes you so sure that he didn't do anything? Or do you mean that he "hardly did anything" because he did not go off and invade Iraq?

There is nothing wrong with tax cuts so much as they are used properly. But raising taxes on the middle class is kinda disruptive and counter productive.

Considering how large the national debt has gotten, lowering taxes like what Bush did only makes the problem worse.

[Nuclear1]

well, if you were a terrorist, how would you feel if when you bombed something, you barely got any response?

Sure, full-on invasions of other countries aren't even what I'm calling for though.  All I'm asking is why Clinton didn't attempt to disrupt the terror networks after the first or second attack.  There's such a thing as not being shaken by terrorists, but there's also such a thing as bending over and taking it.  A few missiles into Afghanistan and the Sudan after the embassy bombings isn't going to disrupt a terror network, nor is arresting a few people responsible for a bombing and investigating no further.  I'm not debating whether Clinton did anything; he did, but he just didn't do enough.

[Blue Lion]

Somalia, that's why.

[Kosh]

Sure, full-on invasions of other countries aren't even what I'm calling for though.  All I'm asking is why Clinton didn't attempt to disrupt the terror networks after the first or second attack.

What makes you so sure that he didn't?

[Triple Ace]

What an idiot.

No one should get special treatment. I hope everyone that does this gets fired/suspended from school.

I'm in total agreement with you on this one. If I pulled a stunt like that, not only would I lose my job, it would keep me from working anywhere else as most places call up your previous employers to get info on you. Even though I'm a hard worker and bust my ass everyday I have to work, doing something as stupid as this would be unacceptable. You call me ignorant all you like, this is what I think and I'm sticking to it.

[aldo_14]

well, if you were a terrorist, how would you feel if when you bombed something, you barely got any response?

Sure, full-on invasions of other countries aren't even what I'm calling for though.  All I'm asking is why Clinton didn't attempt to disrupt the terror networks after the first or second attack.  There's such a thing as not being shaken by terrorists, but there's also such a thing as bending over and taking it.  A few missiles into Afghanistan and the Sudan after the embassy bombings isn't going to disrupt a terror network, nor is arresting a few people responsible for a bombing and investigating no further.  I'm not debating whether Clinton did anything; he did, but he just didn't do enough.

Please list all the CIA and other covert government and military agencies anti-terrorism actions up to 2001.  Thanks.

[Polpolion]

The consequences of a Bush assasinaton would simply be oppression in the name of 'liberty' and 'security'.

As i'm not an American citizen, that's a risk i'm willing to take!

Yes, lets all assasinate all of the American goverment. That would really help everyone out and not cause large-scale riots and anarchy in the U.S' states and territories. :

[Blue Lion]

I totally can't see the entire US rioting