HurricaneKyle, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 10:40 PM, said:
You do realize that the economy is in pretty good shape overall at the moment. While I understand the need to be harsh on W because you don't like him, be fair. The economy was not in very good shape and in a state of decline in the last year under Clinton. If Gore won, there would have been economic turmoil as well under his first term. Throw in the 9/11 disaster with the bad state of oil prices(neither of which a president could really be responsible for) and the economy is doing about as well as could be hoped. Politicians as a whole get far too much credit when things go well and far too much blame when things are going poorly. I don't agree with everything W does, but overall I like him. Whether you disagree or agree with his politics you can at least know that he is being honest and that he does have some convictions, none of which can be said for the previous regime. Not that I think Clinton was a disaster, he wasn't. It was just that almost EVERY decision he made was based on whether it was a prudent political move instead of whether it helped the country.
The economy moves in cycles. Bush did inherit an economy in a state of decline, but I could've been president, and it would've quickly moved out of this state. Also, the OP's statement "despite the war" is laughable. Nothing stimulates an economy like a good war.I'm more interested on the long-term effects of Bush's actions, and from an economic perspective, he has significantly worsened the long-term outlook. I also believe the economy could be doing better than it is now, although 9/11 and the oil situation have not made it the easiest decision.I just don't know how you could like dubya. he seems smug, he is a liar, etc. frankly, i think "convictions" are a terrible thing for a leader of a democracy to act on. he should act in the best interest of the populace, as opposed to his own opinions. where they conflict, the former should take precendence. that's just my opinion though, and of very little value.
pete_95973, on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 10:27 PM, said:
That statement boggles my mind. Innocent? It is one thing to think that the war in IRAQ is not the best focus of our resources in the War on Terror....It is a crazy thing to think that the regime was innocent.
why do you have to have resources for war? why do you have a War on Terror? your arguments are ludicrous. The regime was not innocent, I agree. But lack of innocence does not necessarily require colonization.
Long signatures are really annoying.