Unlike a democrat, Bush has values that he will stick to.  He does not concede, he does not get nerved, all he does is stick to what he believes and that alone is enough for many faith-based Republicans to vote for him.

Bush also had the highest approval rating ever after starting his wars.
Approval of the american people isnt that important, because its not the product of rational thinking but daily changing mood of the mob.

well zarf you can't really say his policies didn't get time

everyone got 8 years, some even 4, and they did better for the people

yeah 9/11 happened, but the iraq war costed american BILLIONs and BILLIONs and 1000's and 1000's of lives, that was bush's fault, he in the end made the decision ..did he not?

and america's debts are in trillions, soon america will be all tied up in debts to countries recongized as enemies, mainly china

that was bushs fault, he's the president, everything done ties back to him, that's the job he took on, and he's righly blamed for a lot of the stuff

> Gladiator wrote:

> well zarf you can't really say his policies didn't get time

everyone got 8 years, some even 4, and they did better for the people

That's not long term.  Education policies take much longer than that for any benefits to be shown (aside from showing test scores, but there's issues with test scores).
Economic policies take a shitload of time to gauge inflation, long term supply and demand issues, etc.
If Bush passed an alt energy policy, do you really think it would be complete in 8 years?  Nobody drafted anything that works that quickly.
Wars require time for the emotional attachments to die down so we can analyze the causes and effects of the war from an unbiased perspective.

So, no, that's not long term.  Psychology and economics both screw you up on that.

> yeah 9/11 happened, but the iraq war costed american BILLIONs and BILLIONs and 1000's and 1000's of lives, that was bush's fault, he in the end made the decision ..did he not?

Yes.  But have you noticed that Iraq has slowly fallen from the front pages?  Now, health care and the economy are the issues.  So you can't cite that as the cause anyway.  Now, one year ago, I would have agreed with you.  But now it's different.

> and america's debts are in trillions, soon america will be all tied up in debts to countries recongized as enemies, mainly china

Holy shit!  Are you actually pinning China as an enemy nation?

China and the US share huge economic ties.  If either of us were to do anything to rock the boat, the other would almost immediately reply with economic sanctions, screwing over both nations.  If China was really an enemy, rather  simply a disagreeing nation, there would have been a Taiwan war a long time ago.

Besides, did you ever consider the benefits of debt, especially to a so-called "enemy" nation?  If China were to go Hitler on the US, there's no way the US would pay back those loans.  China suddenly has a vested interest in a continued good relationship with the US as a result of the debt.  In other words, the Iraq spending contributes to preventing war with China, strangely enough. 

> that was bushs fault, he's the president, everything done ties back to him, that's the job he took on, and he's righly blamed for a lot of the stuff

Addressed above.

Supall,

That is exactly Bush's problem. He has principles. The problem with principles is when they are maladaptive to the many different circumstances we may confront, and consequently lead to a costly outcome. In the case to principled people, adhering to them is often maladaptive to the circumstances they are facing, and then bad results happen.

Personally, I don't care about the principles, rather I care about the outcome. For me, the ends justify the means.

> Gladiator wrote:

> it's still happening though..is it not?? we're still spending millions EVERY day, EVERY day, for a goal that's not really clear, and a goal really really hard to accomplish and people are still dying,

Great.  It's still happening, but it doesn't influence Bush approval anymore.  It's been overshadowed.

As for the effects of the war, let's wait and see how it goes in the future.  Right now, it's too quick to judgement, really.  Long term benefits, such as military bases and an additional Islamic ally, could have impacts in the future that we don't see now.  However, at the same time, long term costs may be seen which are also unexpected.  In other words, let's just wait and see...

> well yeah maybe enemy was the wrong term, i simply meant that china and usa really don't have friendly terms...they're just going by
so are you saying debts are good?

there is no good side to debt PERIOD.

Um... yes, there is.  Maybe you should address my point, rather than simply saying "there's no good side."  I actually provided analysis on this one.  You didn't.

> and instead of reducing the debts are cutting spending, we're still fighting a pointless war, it's nothing more..nothing less

Addressed above.  Let's wait and see...

simple statement on republicans...

they have bandwagoned getting two things done if "their" president and congress was set up..

1) ban abortion
2) ban gay marriage

Bush had YEARS with a republican congress and a republican supreme court...

not once did he even attempt to get either set of legislation started....

Reagen did the same thing....Bush's dad did it as well.....

....and the Americans fall for it every time.....

> Themiddlekingdom (TMK) wrote:

> simple statement on republicans...

they have bandwagoned getting two things done if "their" president and congress was set up..

1) ban abortion
2) ban gay marriage

Bush had YEARS with a republican congress and a republican supreme court...

not once did he even attempt to get either set of legislation started....

Reagen did the same thing....Bush's dad did it as well.....

On gay marriage, you're just wrong there.  The 14th Amendment protects gay marriage, so only a Constitutional amendment can change it.  That requires 2/3 of both houses to pass it, plus 3/4 of the states.  The Republicans tried to push this a couple times, but it could never get through.

Abortion, however, is a tricky issue.  Labeling the Supreme Court members as either Republican or Democrat is kind of screwy, to be honest.  Not all Republicans agree on every issue, and neither do all Democrats.  And let's face facts: You're not going to make many Justices suddenly change their minds.  So the only hope for the GOP is for new judges to come in, replacing pro-choice justices.  That requires so many variables that it's difficult, requiring patience.  You need the following to happen:

1: GOP President and Senate in office
2: Pro-choice Justice resigns
3: President can find a pro-life judge that has a solid record in all other areas, and a clean history
4: Justice can't screw up in the Senate hearings.
5: Meanwhile, the GOP can't lose a single pro-life justice in the Supreme Court.  Not a one.  Otherwise, it'll end up being another 20 years before they get a chance.

Banning abortion is a pain in the ass for legislators, to be honest.  However, you need constant allies on the pro-life side to be elected in order to ban abortion because the movement is a long term movement, not a short term one.

> Themiddlekingdom (TMK) wrote:

> Zarf,

the 14th amendment doesnt do anything at all for or against gay marriage.

The 14th amendment includes artticles for due process and requires all states to provide protection for all citizens.

therefore, would not require ratification.     (do a little research and you can easily find several federal judges who have ruled that exact thing)

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://heroicsalmonleap.members.winisp.net/OhReally.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEti4L4h22YcEeZvErKrvwokbk3Cw

First, a copy of what we're talking about.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In particular, I'm referring to Section 1.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, considering the benefits associated with marriage in terms of government laws, wouldn't denial of marriage rights to homosexual couples be a denial of the equal protection of the law?  One group obtaining one state of laws, while another group denied those protections?

Not that I agree with gay marriage, necessarily.  I'm just saying that it requires a constitutional amendment, not a simple law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-scene.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1210996800&en=184fe9e64c13a342&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

Recent ruling... and by "recent," I mean "two days ago."

Also, how does the federal government have authority over marriage in the first place?  Marriage laws are all state laws.  Go ahead and explain that one.

> Gladiator wrote:

> refering to your response to me

are you kidding..the whole campaign of cliton and obama and even mccain is revolving around Iraq, Iraq is what obama is guna run on, and mccain will have to defend that issue

Not really... it's settling down, so it's becoming a non-issue.

But at this point, our debate on this is only going to degrade to a yes-no thing, just posting things to contradict each other without adding content.  If you want, you and I can start going through news sources to see what percentage of daily news is about Iraq.  Or we could accept that neither of us can come up with a clear answer on this one, and move on.  Your choice. 

> and yes zarf i might be wrong not to judge the effects but pardon me for caring more for the innocent people that die rather than care about the "terrorrists" who were non-existent in iraq untill USA troops showed up

I'm not even referring to the "terrorists" who were non-existent in Iraq until US troops showed up.  In fact, I'll grant you that one.  I'm referring to long term political, military, economic, and diplomatic benefits from the invasion that can save many more innocent lives around the world.

Now, these may never come to fruition, true.  However, judging whether the war was a good or bad thing now is bad because we don't know those long term effects.  From a purely utilitarian point of view, political actions that sacrifice some people to save many times more is justified.

I already cited oil as a potential benefit of the war.  Yeah, that's right.  Securing oil can actually be good.

Other benefits may come to happen that weren't laid out:

A military base in Iraq to better protect Saudi Arabia without as much of the political consequences of residing in Saudi Arabia, such as backing a dictator
A US-supporting Islamic nation... that's just awesome for counterterrorism
Increased potential power projection against Iran.  No, we don't need to invade Iran.  But if Iraq is stabilized, it can become a potential staging ground for operations in Iran.  That would scare Iran shitless, increasing diplomatic options.  Speak softly, and carry a big stick.

I could continue if you like.  You get the idea, though.

Justinian I:

"That is exactly Bush's problem. He has principles. The problem with principles is when they are maladaptive to the many different circumstances we may confront, and consequently lead to a costly outcome. In the case to principled people, adhering to them is often maladaptive to the circumstances they are facing, and then bad results happen.

Personally, I don't care about the principles, rather I care about the outcome. For me, the ends justify the means."

If you don't have principles, then there is nothing to judge cost with; you can have no concept of cost since nothing has a value. Likewise you cannot jugde the outcome. Basically you have to have some value system other than efficency.

Wow, Nolio.  Thanks for completely mischaracterizing my posts.  Go back to uni news, please.