posted on January 26, 2003 05:43:14 PM new
And you forget he was elected by those who support his beliefs.
Okay...here's where you say he wasn't elected. But he's in office so you'll just have to live with it a little longer....or maybe another 5 years...who knows.
posted on January 26, 2003 06:06:03 PM new
If Bush is re-elected by the polulous vote you can kiss this countries position as a world leader goodbye. We first became a laughing stock by making such a big deal over Clintons sex life. Then we baffled the world when Bush became president despite loosing the popular vote. We are currently falling in the eyes of many as our president is pushing his agenda over the objections of the UN. If we re-elect this man our ability to pressure other governments to bend to our will is gone.
Now the question is, could this be a hidden positive. If we stop trying to save the world, could we just maybe direct our energies at saving ourselves?
posted on January 27, 2003 10:15:43 AM new
I thought I would add this to the discussion. It is by Peggy Noonan, right winger extraordinaire, and published in the Wall Street Journal editorial page today, Jan 27. If you want to read the whole thing you can pick up a link from Drudge.com or I guess go to WSJ.com.
"In a surprising way, by the way, the personal Bush-to-Saddam invective may tend to prove to Saddam what his intelligence services are no doubt telling him: this is all personal with Mr. Bush, he thinks you tried to kill his dad, he's mad for war--and a Christian fanatic who thinks God wants him to invade. Mr. Bush's comments and actions may, who knows, get Saddam to blink.
As a strategy, forcing the moment to its crisis with hot talk and troop movements carries dangers, as all strategies do. But it could reap the great reward: war averted and victory won.
But one of the problems with the strategy, if it is a strategy--and one certainly hopes it is for if it's not there's a lot of messy swaggering going on at the White House--is this: It leaves the world and the American people wondering if Mr. Bush isn't a little too hot, too quick on the draw, too personal in his handling of international challenges.
In an odd way Mr. Bush's passion about Iraq is getting in the way of his message on Iraq. It's not carrying the message forth forcefully, which is what passion is supposed to do. At this point his passion seems to be distracting from the message.
posted on January 27, 2003 11:04:08 AM new
If religion is not subject to critical views, then it makes no difference what one's religion is. They are all of equal value.
posted on January 27, 2003 11:31:54 AM new
LindaK says:And you forget he was elected by those who support his beliefs.
Actually Linda, a lot of people that voted for Bush voted for him simply because he was a republican not because of his religious views. They voted for him because they thought they were going to get smaller government and lower taxes.Less government intrusion into their lives.That is why they voted republican.There are several members of my own family that voted for Bush in the last election and are stunned by his ongoing push to get more religion into the government.They do not like it one bit. Nor are they happy with the push to war. Not a one of them will vote for Bush again and some of them say they will never vote republican again.One of them even lives in Texas and was a staunch,indeed almost militant Bush supporter.You should hear her now......music to my ears.
I know others that are not family members that voted Bush that feel the same way.
A vote for Bush,for many folks, was not NOT a vote to put more religion in government no matter what you might think. I think that a lot of people had no idea how far to the right he really was.
posted on January 27, 2003 11:41:21 AM new
Rawbunzel - Yes, you very well may be correct. And I understand that there are some who may have changed there minds. But if they had objected at the time of the November elections, I think we would have seen different results. A lot will depend on what happens between now and 2004.
posted on January 27, 2003 11:47:01 AM new
My personal belief is that the November elections were less a vote for Bush and more a vote against the Democrats and their apparent apathy about what is going on in this country. Finally, FINALLY they are beginning to speak out. Elections are coming again. Sad that they have gone so far down that they can't hold up their principals all the time. Of course, it doesn't help that if anyone does speak out against this administration they are labeled un-American or worse.
We are floundering in this country waiting for someone to come along that actually has principals and is not afraid to speak up.
You know, it won't take that many to change thier minds about Bush for Bush to lose the next election.He did not win the popular vote and indeed lost it by a greater margin than any since the 60's. How many voters can he afford to lose and still win?
posted on January 27, 2003 11:54:23 AM new
Again, you may be right about the apathy. I don't see it that way, but rather the country was starting to see the dems as obstructionists.
Critical...with no offer of solutions themselves.
A lot is going to depend on how Bush treats this Iraq issue. If we do go to war and all goes relatively well...I don't think a democrat will stand a chance. UNLESS the economy doesn't improve. But if we'd EVER get this Iraq situation settled, one way or the other, I think our economy will pick up even more. All of us are concerned about what's going to happen.
posted on January 27, 2003 12:17:57 PM new
You are correct in that if the Iraq mess ever gets cleared up the economy will improve.
The only flaw in that is that there are no good jobs being created and no good jobs will be created no matter what as almost all the good jobs are now in China or Mexico with more going all the time. [did you know that Maytag has very recently pulled out of the US?]That ,of course, is thanks to NAFTA.We have become a service industry driven country no longer are we a industrial powerhouse. That is where the good jobs are not in flipping burgers at McD's or making lattes at Starbucks.Building Airplanes,cars and computers and even TVs was where the money was. Those jobs are nearly all gone. All we are doing is selling food and our services...like housecleaning.... to others. I suppose we could all be lawyers, they still seem to make money.
I am deeply saddened by the state of this once truly great country.
posted on January 27, 2003 12:51:39 PM new
::The only flaw in that is that there are no good jobs being created and no good jobs will be created no matter what as almost all the good jobs are now in China or Mexico with more going all the time.::
Actually, a great deal of the maquiladoras in Mexico have shut down in the past year. Jobs are not going to Mexico, they are drying up there. When the American economy hits the skids and people stop buying thennmanufacturing stops as well. The only large company to move into Mexico lately has been the Toyota plant oing into Baja but the goal of that plant is to grow from a parts plant to a full production plant making vehicles for sale in Mexico and South Ameica so it relly has no impact on the US. Also Tiawans pennies a day labor is affecting Mexico as well. There are Mexican manufacturers moving to eastern locations.
posted on January 27, 2003 01:20:23 PM new
rawbunzel - Try to remain positive. Things will reverse again...they always have. A lot of countries are struggling, not just the US. And that's not the presidents fault
Yes, pretty much looks like NAFTA isn't working well. Recent article said tensions with Mexico are becoming more and more strained [because of the NAFTA agreement]. But that was your guys idea
posted on January 27, 2003 01:37:36 PM new
> A lot of countries are struggling, not just the US. And that's not the presidents fault
How can I say this without sounding condesending, Linda? Lesse. You seem not to be aware of how closely the world economy is tied to the American economy. I'll leave it at that.
Even though there will be mass protests against Bush's re-Election as President fo the United States, he will win by a DECISIVE landslide!
posted on January 27, 2003 01:55:33 PM new
Thank you for working so very hard not to be condesending to me. I know that really took a lot of effort on your part.
I am quite aware that our world economy is tied together. And knowing you're hatred of Bush, I have no doubt you blame EVERY problem in the WORLD on something he has done or has done incorrectly. No one else...just Bush.
posted on January 27, 2003 02:20:58 PM new
Neonmania, that is interesting and I have not heard or read anything about that. I'll have to search the web. Certainly no new industry is moving here on the west coast.Certainly I do not see many goods made in the USA.
Linda, I do not have any "guys". I am not a Democrat or Republican. Clinton inherited the NAFTA agreement from the first Bush. It was on the table and nearly done when Clinton took office. I wish to goodness he had not signed it. That is my biggest gripe with him.
As for it turning around? Even if it does in the next five years it is too late for some of us that have lost our jobs, lost our retirements and getting close to retirement age.We have no hope of ever recouping what has been lost and old age is not looking pretty. I do hope it does turn around at least maybe SS can be saved. And maybe others won't end up like some of us will.
posted on January 27, 2003 02:28:10 PM new
::Yes, pretty much looks like NAFTA isn't working well. Recent article said tensions with Mexico are becoming more and more strained [because of the NAFTA agreement]. But that was your guys idea ::
What world do you live in? Relationships with Mexico are not strained due to NAFTA. Relationships with Mexico are strained because Fox is fristrated with promises not kept. Bush made many promises to the latino population and to Mexico to help bring the Latino vote to the republications and since 9-11 everything hs been forgotten. Mexican citizens are being arrested for having expired papers despite the fact that they have done everything asked of them, have filed for citizenship, are working and paying taxes but since nothing is being processed timelines are expiring. HUGE tax cuts and concessions were given to American businesses coming into Mexico on the reciprocal deal that more considerations would be made regarding immigration and they are now being ignored. American companies are shutting down plants in Mexico and leaving like a thief in the night without paying severence packages that are required by the deals that were originally made and your hero Bush, who presented himself to Mexican leaders and people is doing nothing. Mexico is getting sick and tired of promises broken, most have which have been by the current administration and it's friends. Nafta has nothing to do with it.
posted on January 27, 2003 02:43:48 PM new
Linda,
I think its good to keep a constant eye on leaders and to criticise them for any and ALL actions we don't agree with.
As we sometimes say in Australia, 'keep the ba$tards honest'.
Too follow blindly is a recipe for disaster.
Religion, as I see it and I think you & most would agree, requires a leap of faith.
Save that leap for your God not your President.
posted on January 27, 2003 03:01:19 PM new
rawbunzel - I'm very sorry to hear you've fallen on rough times. I truly am sorry to hear that. I'm not sure about the tax situation on corporations in your area but could that be why no/few new companies are moving into the area?
What world do I live in? The same one you do. As I said there's an article on the internet today that spoke to what I just stated. IMO, Bush is draging his feet NOT to honor some NAFTA requirements. It won't work for long.
posted on January 27, 2003 03:08:52 PM new
Questioning our politicians, I have no problem with. Might not agree and might post my disagreement. But when anyone attacks anothers religion I will object. As you saw when you came to our board and started making your statements. You offend....you'll hear about it around here...from many. Am I different? No.
Save that leap for your God not your President. Please don't tell me how to practice my religion. It's none of your business. And I can and will back anyone I please, thank you.
Rawbunzel did not say that she had "fallen on rough times". That was just another figment of your imagination. She was describing the plight of others.
posted on January 27, 2003 04:10:04 PM new
::Neonmania, that is interesting and I have not heard or read anything about that. I'll have to search the web. Certainly no new industry is moving here on the west coast.Certainly I do not see many goods made in the USA. ::
rawbunzel - I think because I am down by the border we get more news on shut downs. I also tend to pay more attention to news on what's going on there because I am considering a move across the border in the next couple years. Since 9-11 there have been about 7 factory shutdown in Tijuana/Mexicali alone. The companies were all under commitment that if they did shut down their workers were to be paid a severence of 1 days pay for each month of employment. Those commitments were not met.
It always amazes me that people complain about foreign countries stealing manufacturing jobs. I often wonder if those are the same people who bank their retirement on stocks in companies or parent companies that rely upon that cheap labor to create their profit margin. Or are they the ones bargain hunting in Best Buy for the least expensive flat screen they can find.
We as americans are spoiled. We want value, we want the lowest possible prices and then we complain that in order to acheive those prices, manufacturers are forced to reduce overhead by heading overseas for cheaper labor.
posted on January 27, 2003 04:12:14 PM newYes, pretty much looks like NAFTA isn't working well. Recent article said tensions with Mexico are becoming more and more strained [because of the NAFTA agreement]. But that was your guys idea
Uhhhh.....If you are talking about Clinton, I think you had better think again. Get in your wayback machine and go a few years back to the Reagan era when NAFTA was first conceived. It was finalized in the Bush Sr. years(Remember Perot railing against it during the Bush, Clinton, and Perot debates). Clinton just let it happen, just the way your Conservative buddies wanted it to.
But hey, fall back on the Neo-Conservative mantra when you can "When it goes wrong, blame it on the liberals, even if they had nothing to do with it"
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 27, 2003 06:38:29 PM new
>And knowing you're hatred of Bush,
Linda, let me make this absolutely clear. I do not hate George Herbert Walker Bush, Junior as I do not personally know the man and can not know his true nature. While I can not know this man directly and closely I can certainly follow what he says and what he actually does and for whom he does it for. +IF+ Dubya would suddenly become an advocate for the People of the United States of America, I would support him one-hundred percent! However, that isn't the case and that is clearly shown by his record. What I hate is his passionate dislike of America, American traditions, and Americans in particular. That is what his record has shown to be true.
Until Dubya decides in the Best Interests of the American People at each and every turn of events, until every policy reflects the Public Good, until he is on OUR side, I will continue to cast whatever dispersions and hateful venom that I can conjure up and get as many others as mad as possible at him.
posted on January 27, 2003 07:01:53 PM new
Borillar
I don't seriously consider anything that Linda says about another poster. She apparently believes that she can divine unexpressed thoughts and words. At least she hasn't quized you about the possibility that you are a Communist. (like she asked me) HaHaHa!
posted on January 27, 2003 08:57:23 PM new
neonmania,I dont understand your statement.
------------------------------------
It always amazes me that people complain about foreign countries stealing manufacturing jobs. I often wonder if those are the same people who bank their retirement on stocks in companies or parent companies that rely upon that cheap labor to create their profit margin. Or are they the ones bargain hunting in Best Buy for the least expensive flat screen they can find.
We as americans are spoiled. We want value, we want the lowest possible prices and then we complain that in order to acheive those prices, manufacturers are forced to reduce overhead by heading overseas for cheaper labor.
We cannot have our cake and eat it too.
------------------------------------------
I'll complain very loudly,has nothing to do with "stuff" cheap.Millions of jobs are gone,People are in the streets and hungry.The Companys left out of greed,Most got caught with their pants down 9/11.
All the stuff" has been overpriced for a long time.They all took the cowardly and greedy way out.There are no redeaming arguments for the rapeing of America.I hope their greed bites them in the butt.
posted on January 27, 2003 10:30:33 PM new
Junque - what don't you understand?
American consumers want items as cheap as possible.
Cost of living expenses in the US do not lend themselves to companies being able to manufacture items in the United States at a competative prices.
Manufacturing goes overseas to bring overhead down.
What I don't understand is that Americans then complain that evil foreigners are stealing their jobs.
posted on January 27, 2003 11:36:05 PM new
This is silly. Of course EVERYONE wants cheap prices! But not everyone wants to buy cheap crap either. Many are those who have learned their lesson and stopped buying the cheapest whatever -- especially for things to work and last longer than six months. That rules out most of this downright junk being made overseas.
Yes, American quality is often shoddy anymore. You know, we used to be the pride of the world for our quality. That was back when there were plenty of unions, coincidently, with well-paid and cared for workers.
So the problem is NOT that Americans are demnding price over quality, but investors in the stock market who want to see a constant profit. That's why the first thing to go these days is labor. As soon as a quarterly report looks like it's going down below expected growth, say from nine percent to six percent, then begin the rounds of layoffs. And for the reason that investors want a consistant upward performance or else they'll ditch the stocks.
My suggestion is:
a) Buy Qualty everytime, not shoddy workmanship.
b) Make the corporations give out less of their stock into the market.
I know that sounds odd, but it would fix the problem. In a recession or depression like the one that we have right now, corporations are better off buying back their own stock and regaining control of their company. When times are good, let out more stock and let everyone join the ride and the corporation can continue to retain control. As it is, the corps are at the mercy of investors and we're all getting screwed.
posted on January 27, 2003 11:52:58 PM new
Bush may be religious. That is certainly his right, last time I checked. To label him as a "fundamentalist like Jerry Falwell" is nothing more than a straw man tactic. Build up Bush as something he's not, and then attack that image. I've never seen Bush push his religion on anyone. What he believes in private is his own business.
The same one you do. As I said there's an article on the internet today that spoke to what I just stated. IMO, Bush is draging his feet NOT to honor some NAFTA requirements. It won't work for long.