Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The point is though, when do we ever start with that diet to make my analogy?<< At about noon on January 20, 2009.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>The point is though, when do we ever start with that diet to make my analogy?<< At about noon on January 20, 2009.<< Amen!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy mrichmond is right, the UAE has a lot of ways to tell us to go screw ourselves now that we have shown we don't like or trust them. Bush understands that to win the war on terror and to actually make some real progress, we are going to need help in that region. To bad our politicians react to polls and fear instead of doing what is right. No wonder Bush got ticked and threatened to Veto congress.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<At about noon on January 20, 2009.<< You excited for the next Republican to be sworn in? You know that's what is going to happen.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>we are going to need help in that region<< You never commented on Duncan Hunter's concerns about materials passing through Dubai ports, nor why you think his information is wrong, Beau.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You excited for the next Republican to be sworn in? You know that's what is going to happen.<< Could be. But I bet it's a different kind of Republican. One that's truly not into 'nation building' and might actually be a fiscal conservative. That'd be cool.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe 2009 might be too late so amen might be an after thought to Armageddon I know you guys are being facetious but mrich is right. On this earth the golden rule is he who has the oil and gas rules.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe 2oon----That is the best post idea in a long time i.e. a ficscal conservative! Stop spending my money on things I don't want USED to be the Republican watchword. What happened?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I think Duncan Hunter might have some points. I also know France, Russia and Germany do things we don't like such as selling arms to communists and Iran. But the UAE has done more to fight terrorism than any country over there. They have rejected radical Islam and have instead embraced western capitlasm. So Duncan thinks we should push away our biggest friend because he sees some things he didn't like? Well, I hjope he's happy because there in NO WAY we are safer now that we punked the UAE. Duncan could never explain how a port under UAE management was any more dangerous than British mangement. Also, the UAE was the FIRST country to sign the cargo container security bill... learned that from the homeland security website. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the UAE isn't on the not wire tapped phone to Iran telling them how foolish they were to trust the great satan that is america. I also heard that Michael Savage is the guy who got this whole thing going.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think Duncan Hunter might have some points.<< That;s how these things get hashed out, Beau. There should be rigorous debate on stuff like this, concerns addressed and a consensus reached. It doesn't have to be an "all" or "nothing" scenario until someone starts right away hollering about VETO! and TRUST ME, I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING! The President and his administration let ths whole thing get out of hand. Hopefully they learned from it. A uniter, not a divider, would understand this.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Britain never managed any U.S. ports (at least, not since 1776).
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The thing is Bush was right and people should have trusted him. I know he said VETO because he was ticked people in congress were running around spreading misinformation and as a result hurting our efforts on the war on terror. How can Bush be a uniter when he is surrounded by idots who can't get a story straight and who constantly undermine his effort to keep the country safe?
Originally Posted By mele <<The thing is Bush was right and people should have trusted him.>> Why should people have trusted him?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>You excited for the next Republican to be sworn in? You know that's what is going to happen.<< I'm excited for the current one to be gone. He's a failure as a leader.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Such a failure that Bush is... low unemployment, people buying houses everywhere, people with so much extra money to spend Disneyland is packed in Feb., military recruitment is over 100%, 50 million people freed in Iraq and Afghanistan, no terrorists attacks on our soil since 9/11. Yep, he is a total faiure. But those democrats... man, have they been putting out the great ideas to help this country or what!! Gay marriage and welfare for all!!!
Originally Posted By mrichmondj low unemployment: not hard to do when your work force is retiring faster than there are younger people to replace the retirees. people buying houses everywhere: are they really buying them? interest only loans = homeowners that will never own their home, just a tax break. people with so much extra money to spend: more like people borrowing money to maintain a lifestyle they can no longer afford. The savings rate in America has been in negative territory now for a year and not getting any better. military recruitment over 100%: Wanna know the secret to military recruiting -- always adjust your recruitment goals downward to the point where you know you can meet them. We've consistently done this for 15 years now. Not hard to meet goals that are constantly ratcheted downward. Meanwhile, our armed forces now have the highest percent of recruits without high school diplomas than at any other time in the past 15 years. We're really bringing in the quality folks here.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA mrichmondj, I'll politely ask you to stop bringing logic into this discussion. Good points all.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj i didn't want to bring up all the drug addicts that we are providing "waivers" for to get in the military -- another depressing topic altogether!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <i didn't want to bring up all the drug addicts that we are providing "waivers" for to get in the military -- another depressing topic altogether!> As long as they're straight drug addicts. But a gay man or woman at the top of their class who has never had a run-in with the law? Nope, sorry.
Originally Posted By woody >mrichmondj, I'll politely ask you to stop bringing logic into this discussion. >Good points all.< LOL! They are not logical arguments. They don't mean anything in economics. 1. A young person will not replace a retiring person. The skill sets do not match. Young people in the work force is usually generated by the creation of new jobs. 2. People buying house can afford it. They have jobs. Who should we thank for that? 3. The low savings rate means consumer spending is fueling the economy as usual. What's wrong with that? It will be the same if the Democrats are in office. 4. Military recruitment. So what if they are making their goals with non-high school graduates. They receive training and discipline. If they lower their recruitment goals consistently, who would eventually suffer? The military isn't as dumb as you think. It would run out of people, but you know that. Where's the LOGIC?
