Bush’s approval rating falls to new low

[dpesec]

CAnnoneer,
Part of the reason the US was the world's leading economy after WWII was that our infrastructure wasn't destroyed. Look at the rest of the industrialized world, what was left? England's was limited, Germany stone age, France stone age. Russia, slightly advanced from stone age to iron age.
But the point was there was nobody else butthe US and the ramp up to make war material didn't hurt too.

 

[Art Eatman]

Funny-odd: Roosevelt's first campaign in 1932 included much blasting of Hoover for "wasteful spending policies" in his efforts at what later, under Roosevelt, became known as "pump priming".

There are quite a number of rational economists who have concluded that FDR's policies of the middle 1930s exacerbated and lengthened the Great Depression. The length of the Depression prolonged the period in which the Communist Party of the USA could propagandize about the perceived failure of Capitalism...

Art

 

[Dannyboy]

Maybe because the industrial capacity built with government orders now turned around and churned out civilian production?

Considering there were Ford (and others) plants building airplanes and tanks, I'd have to say that the industrial capacity was already there. But, sure, you can credit FDR with our industrial might. Most people know better but whatever floats you boat, pal.

 

[R.H. Lee]

And history may well determine that George Bush prolonged the international Islamic terrorist threat. He's apparently unable to eradicate them from the small area of Iraq, let alone the rest of the world. His policies are certainly not winning any converts to 'westernization'. Government has told us repeatedly that an attacks are inevitable and cannot be stopped.

 

[GT]

Thank you Art.

CAnnoneer...
Yeah FDR is a hero and GWB is a villain
That's straight out of the Socialist Creed

G

 

[JohnBT]

"And history may well determine that George Bush prolonged the international Islamic terrorist threat."

Right, we should just roll over and play dead.

History will likely determine that he did the only thing possible to deter the threat. Maybe not eliminate it, but deter it. Everybody has an opinion and I disagree with yours.

Don't upset them - now there's a fine plan. Note. they were already upset. And Iraq is over twice the size of Idaho with much rougher conditions and numerous porous borders to retreat across. Only 12% of Iraq is even arable and then there're the 10,000+ foot tall mountains.

John

 

[Sleeping Dog]

he did the only thing possible to deter the (islamic terrorist) threat

Yes, he invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taliban govt, and did serious damage to Al Qaeda. I agree with that one.

What's that got to do with Iraq, pretty much a self-contained Thugdom where capitalism had a pretty good foothold. Why mess with that, when we could just do business with them?

On a terror scale, Iraq may have had some involvement, but far less than a few other places. Syria, lebanon, saudi arabia, iran, sudan, yemen, probably some others. Why mess with Iraq?

 

[bogie]

Iraq was an example to the rest of the middle east. The leadership was a hazard - funding/training terrorists, and manufacturing and actively using weapons of mass destruction.

Now, unless you think that it's permissible to treat women like property, or worse, what else do you have to say?

We now have a foothold in the middle east. We can actively effect massive change, stabilizing a region that's been unstable for centuries. The world's a lot smaller place now.

 

[thorn726]

Now, unless you think that it's permissible to treat women like property, or worse, what else do you have to say?

i really REALLY dont get all the anti war women in particular, the aobve being the reason.

personally, i could care less whether iraq hd wmds or whatever, Saddam is a total tyrant, and the US has everything to do with world oil prices.
we were supporting his regime, it had to go.

even better are the folks who say "well we put him in power!"
isn't that all the more reason for US to take him out when he became such a tyrant? duh.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Education shouid be a process of seeking out the truly inquiring and lively minds and encouraging their intellectual development with all available resources. Who cares about the gifted any more? (Answer: The Indians and the Chinese!) This system is about creating consumers and keeping the natives from getting too restless (Ritalin seems to help).

I completely agree.

It is indeed quite strange that a capitalist society rewarding economic merit seems to have so much trouble rewarding scholarly merit. There should be a hierarchy of schools with tests at different levels to allow the gifted maximal upward mobility. Anything else is the least able dragging everybody else back. But, to be able to do anything like this restructuring, first a complete redefinition of values is necessary to allow it. Otherwise, pointless half-measures are inevitable and certainly wasteful.

There are quite a number of rational economists who have concluded that FDR's policies of the middle 1930s exacerbated and lengthened the Great Depression. The length of the Depression prolonged the period in which the Communist Party of the USA could propagandize about the perceived failure of Capitalism...

Economists? Economists planned the end of capitalism by 1900s, promised unlimited expansion and blue skies in the 1920s, were for regulation, were for deregulation, predicted the doom of capitalism again, proclaimed unlimited expansion of the dotcoms and telecoms, and now teach trickle-down economy. I'd put more stock in fortune tellers, astologers, (and pimps).

Don't upset them - now there's a fine plan. Note. they were already upset.

I agree in the sentiment and final goal, but not in the chosen methods and pathways.

+1 Sleeping Dog

If we become the world policeman, it will be the end of us. A world policeman is a leftist statist on global scale.

personally, i could care less whether iraq hd wmds or whatever, Saddam is a total tyrant, and the US has everything to do with world oil prices. we were supporting his regime, it had to go.

So, what is the next move? Saudi Arabia or Iran?

 

[GoRon]

So, what is the next move? Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Iran of course.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Reading this thread gets me upset, which is why I suggested to CAnnoneer that he and I just agree to disagree. Any additional comments I make would just be repetitions of what I've already posted, just in different words.

What's remarkable about this thread, though, is the divergency of opinion. I wish the NY Times would publish it, just to show that gun owners don't walk in lockstep with any party, political philosophy, or even political figure.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

bogie, I'm going to respectfully disagree with most of your reply:

Iraq was an example to the rest of the middle east

Uh, which countries were saying "I wanna be like Iraq"?

actively using weapons of mass destruction.

Internally, against Iraqis. Very bad, but way different than exporting the same. Normally we don't bother about internal thuggery, like Darfur, or Rhodesia (whatever it's called now, Zimbabwe?), or Idi Amin having his fun, or Tutsis killing Hutus (or was it the other way round?). Why are we suddenly interested in a country's internal affairs?

you think that it's permissible to treat women like property, or worse

I'll have to try that, see how the wife reacts Is that why we invaded Iraq? Treatment of women? And the newly elected democratic Shiite / Ayatollah / Talibanista government, they're going to give a rat's rectum about women's rights? (Apologies to Art's grandma).

stabilizing a region that's been unstable

I hope so. That's a good goal. But, now that we've gotten Saddam out of there, it's like we're performing brain surgery on an ant hill. The skull is open, and we're spending our energy and money and men trying to keep the ants out of the head, while trying to repair and replace the government. I'm just not sure we're up to the task, how's our track record of regime-building? So the best I hope for is a secular thug to ride herd on the rabble, and keep the lid on. And get our soldiers home safe.

what else do you have to say?

Lots. But I don't think bogie and I are gonna ever see eye-to-eye on the Iraq issues. I think Prez Bush should have just left it alone. And I mean GHWB, back in 1990. GWB is just trying to clean up Dad's mess.

Regards.

 

[dpesec]

Art,
that tactic is called reframing, change the wording into something that is less offensive to the potential buyers. It's one of the concepts I teach in my Business 300 Psychology of Decision Making

 

[GunGoBoom]

Sleeping Dog, you are right on.... +1

 

[CAnnoneer]

Reading this thread gets me upset, which is why I suggested to CAnnoneer that he and I just agree to disagree. Any additional comments I make would just be repetitions of what I've already posted, just in different words.

It's a deal! I agree to disagree. If I say anything against GWB from this point on, I'll assume you hold the opposite stance and implicitly admit that I neither try nor can change your mind but do respect your opposing opinion.

What's remarkable about this thread, though, is the divergency of opinion. I wish the NY Times would publish it, just to show that gun owners don't walk in lockstep with any party, political philosophy, or even political figure.

It would certainly surprise a few "experts" on both ends of the political spectrum.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Thanks for the mutual ceasefire, CAnnoneer.

Truth be told, I'm downright tired of arguing politics. Each side is dug in so far that the only people left to sway are those who don't read newspapers or watch the news. Personally, I'd rather those folks didn't vote. (Oops, there's a whole other topic).

Yet another reason I really don't want to argue is that we're going to have a CCW bill introduced here in WI in a couple of weeks. Any of the WI volunteers who've been working on getting that bill passed in the last four years is sick of politics, especially those who've had the "privelege" of seeing the law-making process up close and personal.

IOW, there's a whole bunch of us who are going to be committing a few hours, several hours, weeks, or even months to the political process.

It's a real burn-out experience, so any time away from politics is a luxury.

Thanks for the respite, CAnnoneer.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Right, we should just roll over and play dead.

History will likely determine that he did the only thing possible to deter the threat. Maybe not eliminate it, but deter it. Everybody has an opinion and I disagree with yours.

He's not doing enough of it. The 'war' with Iraq should be long over by now. But his administration is too timid to win it. There is also the issue of Saudi Arabia, whose government promotes and sponsors terrorism. Yet nothing, nada, in terms of sanctions or condemnation for them, Iran, or Syria either. We can't afford $300 billion and 2500 lost American lives and 30,000 mangled soldiers per country. If it's worth it to go to war, go to war dammit. Win. Get the hell out.

Before there can be peace there must be victory. Before there can be victory there must be defeat. That is how wars are won. You crush, annihilate your enemy. GWB thinks he can avoid all that unpleasantness and just make the enemy his friend. He's wrong. He wanted to go to 'war' but doesn't understand what war is.

 

[Art Eatman]

CAnnoneer, not all economists are Keynesians. You can look up von Mises, for instance. The "Austrian School" is probably quite close to your view of how things ought to be.

Certainly, J.M. Keynes and his influence on FDR led to many problems, including the exacerbation of the Depression. And, for that matter, today's continuation of the degradation of the buying power of the dollar.

I'm always amused when people class Bush II as a Conservative, and even when he himself does so. After all, he was raised within the family of a lifelong government employee, and within the influence of LBJ's Great Society. He obviously believes that government not only has the power but the duty to solve social problems. While he has business backgrounds, those businesses depended heavily on government and tax structure for profitability. I really can't come up with a fair and reasonable label for him...

, Art

, Art