The Disgust of the "Bush Legacy"

1. 63

   RKHenryposted 15 years ago

   The disgust of the "Bush Legacy" seems to be an never ending road trip, packed full of crooked easements that lead to injustice.
   
   Senator Stevens' conviction is overturned on technicalities.  What a waste of taxpayers time, money and resources. 
   
   It seems that Americans might be dealing with "Bush's legacy" for quite sometime.  How can the GOP continue to make excuses for this man?
   
   http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/ … ion-trial/

   replyreport
   1. 71

      AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It is professionalism at its' finest, so to answer on my part, I haven't any idea.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, what a tangled web we weave.  This Stevens is the guy who was responsible for Sarah Palin getting her 'corruption busting' pedigree within her own party.  Now I see he's managed to come out smelling like a rose.  I wonder if this has to do with something else other than the prosecutors' incompetence.  Isn't it convenient, too, after the election?

      replyreport
2. 59

   VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

   As far as I am concerned, Mr.George Bush need not be treated with aversion or hatred. He had acted according to circumstances. For all ills of America, he will not be the cause. He was a man of circumstances. Imagine the twin towers... How costly it was... how many workers were working inside... Just one aeroplance ploughed through each building and it collapsed.. killing more than 3000 people working inside.. At that time what can a president do.. except waging war on terrorists? Without blaming terrorists, Bush cannot be held responsible. He is a hero and time will tell the full impact of his 8 year rule. If his legacy is discontinued, America will suffer much by terrorists.

   replyreport
3. 71

   William F. Torpeyposted 15 years ago

   George W. Bush not only did nothing to bring the 9/11 terrorists to justice, he brought initiated a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, ultimately making us less safe. He certainly was no "hero." I hope Congress will put aside politics long enough to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the many wrongdoings of Bush, Dick Cheney and others in the Bush Administration.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The present war on terror in Iraq and Afganistan are certainly in search of terrorists of 9/11. The main culprit is elusive and all the countries are soft with him and he can elude capture by walking barefoot on the mountains. The respective governments do not favour capturing him.
      
      Iraq's Sadam Hussein was certainly a threat to American security. During the 1991 and 2001 wars, he fired missiles on Israel which did nothing against Iraq. As Israel is America's protectorate, Iraq had to be controlled.
      
      But America thrusts its nose everywhere.... Korea, Tibet, Kashmir, Palestine, Taiwan, etc.

      replyreport
   2. 63

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think that is ever likely to happen.  I concur with you that a special prosecutor should be appointed, if for no other reason- war crimes against humanity.  Just because he was President of USA, doesn't mean that he should be allowed to let that be his escape goat from of justice.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         If it is so, separate tribunals should be appointed for nuclear bombing of Japan (over 3 lakh people killed instantly by the two bombs), massacre at Mylai-Vietnam, and destruction of a whole city (Berlin) at the end of ww-2. Those respective presidents are also liable for action by tribunals.  Because they are dead, their sins never die. 
         There are justifications for every military action. No one will go and bomb an innocent country.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Where as see what point you're trying to make, George Bush knew the difference.  He created this mess.  Tens upon thousands of innocent lives have been lost.  Noway, I don't buy it.  He should be tried.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               How can we say that Hon.George Bush created this mess? Did he bomb the twin towers?.... Is it not the responsibility of the ruler to take punitive action on terrorists? Do you expect that a president will keep quiet after seeing two whole towers fall down?  Will he keep quiet after seeing the very heart of America's security setup going in flames?.... (Pentagon)... Will he keep quiet after knowing that another plane was on its way towards White House to destroy it? How can you justify all these?  If anything is done against Mr.George Bush,  it will surely prove a historic blunder and America will never rise again.... Because, the terrorists will be encouraged to do more.
               Continueing Bush legacy (political, not economic) is the only guarantee for America's survival.

               replyreport
   3. 0

      issues veritasposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      There you go again and again and again

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

           Thought you weren't partisan, issues ver?

         replyreport
4. 60

   caesar 56posted 15 years ago

   The disgusting part to me is that GW left such a tangled mess behind him that no one entity, including the government, has time or energy to really focus on "suspicious deeds" - my own personal phrase regarding the past 8 years.  The real culprit wasn't Bush anyway...he was just the front man - it was really Cheney - with Karl Rove singing back-up...

   replyreport
5. 0

   Direxmdposted 15 years ago

   I fully agree with you, but I'm pretty done with the topic of George W. Bush.  1,000,000 people a day grind at him on forums worldwide; so I find the topic pretty flooded and boring.  I will leave it to others to utilize their energy and heartbeats about him.
   
   We all know what he has done, and the depth to which he has harmed the nation and the world's well being.  Lets move on.
   
   Just a boring topic these days--the guy is probably brushing his teeth on his Texas ranch, questioning the legitimacy of his presidential run and it's antics. He probably thinks about it constantly.
   
   It's over, lets all move on from the gossip of his life and presidency. Use your time to further a good cause or talk about an issue that few know of yet.  Give your voice some value.

   replyreport
6. 78

   Mighty Momposted 15 years ago

   Caesar 56 I am with you 100%. It's hard to imagine what motivated this administration. They left no part of our great country untouched by their evil arrogance. If America hadn't launched a misdirected and very expensive war against Iraq we might have had the resources to actually capture Osama bin Laden. We might not be in the huge deficit we are in now.
   
   Then there are the basic issues of Bush stealing the 2000 election in the first place. And I'm sorry, but it's a little too convenient that we ended up at war during his administration, thus ensuring his being re-elected in 2004. How much better off we would be had Gore assumed his rightful place in the White House in 2000...

   replyreport
   1. 63

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      You know Mighty Mom, not for one second do I believe that Bush or Cheney didn't know where Osama Bin Laden was located.  They knew.  But if they captured him, they'd lose lots of money.  It was after all Cheney's construction companies that got all the government contracts.  And Bush is a large share holder in said companies.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, RK.  Have you ever heard the term "busy giddy minds with foreign wars?"  Shakespeare was brilliant about human nature, and therefore, politics.

         replyreport
7. 63

   Mishaposted 15 years ago

   Yeah, we all know that William is devoted democrat

   replyreport
8. 60

   johnb0127posted 15 years ago

   I cant wait for the forum post of the "Obama Legacy"

   replyreport
   1. 63

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well at least he tried to give money for special, educational needs to schools, for handicapped children. 
      
      Bush never did that.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         johnb0127posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         At the same time, he supports the killing of children!

         replyreport
9. 68

   bgamallposted 15 years ago

   George Bush allowed the pearl harbor of 9/11. His PNAC buddies called for a "new Pearl Harbor" in 2000 on their website. One member of PNAC was Cheney. Another was Jeb Bush.  Then he used that as a way of going into Afghanistan to extend a pipeline. You all do know that the Taliban was in texas in 1997 and refused a bribe to build the pipeline from Unocal. You knew that right?
   
   So we went into Afghanistan for a pipeline, and we went into Iraq for the oil.
   
   This all is war criminality. Bush and Cheney are war criminals of the first order.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Bribing Taliban is really bad... When there was a govt. in Afganistan, they should have been approached and all action should have followed through them.  Laying pipeline from Afganistan is not a sin.. It is a trade relating to gas and oil. Oil and gas were there in Iraq and Afganistan. If the war was for these, it would have happened 50 or more years before.  Linking these two is not a good argument.  The previous rulers in Iraq and Afganistan also sold oil and gas. They sent it by ships then... now they would have tried to lay pipes.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         bgamallposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         On the contrary, laying a pipeline through a sovereign nation when that nation doesn't want it is a sin. It violates international law, and it is successful only through war. That war was never against Al Qaeda, as that was a smokescreen. To start a war to build a pipeline is imperialism and is a violation of the UN Charter, established by the US and other nations.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      You have no idea how much your statement may be indeed true. Its a little known historical (seemingly) truth that the events around Pearl Harbor it's self was allowed to happen simply because at the time the United States was quite the isolationist. Even if we helped out the war. We profited from both the Allies and Axis.
      
      For example, Henry Ford (as well as other people--like someone in the Bush family tree, too.) showed much love to Hitler. And GM built planes for the Japanese.
      
      I'm not happy with giving them bailout money.
      
      But also, realize, that you're pointing a finger at the wrong people. If all the implications are true, its more likely that there's a group of people operating behind the scenes. Whether or not its organized in concert is entirely a different question.
      
      Cordially,
      
      G|M
      
      P.S.
      
      While RK has made an intriguing line of questioning, we must all remember that before we pledge to a political party we are all Americans all the same.
      
      A two party system, as it exists today, is rather choking. We're all about choice, right?

      replyreport
      1. 63

         RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         We don't have a two party system.  It's just that most Americans freely choose to be Rep. or Dem.  That's the great thing about us Americans, one thing is certain we are all united under the freedom of choice.  There are many political parties to chose from.  I so happen to be Dem.  I don't like the Constitutional Party, or the Republican Party, or the Libertarian Party.  I like the Democratic party.  But let us make no mistake in believing that in America there are only two parties to choose from.  Because that is simply wrong.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            You're right, there's more than one party. But right now there's only one party that rules the roost and makes certain "obligations" to presidential candidates to full fill before they can be nominated by the RNC or DNC. (<--notice how I mention both? both of them are affectively closing any gaps to any other parties. Why would they do that?)
            
            Like...raising millions of bucks. If Lincoln had to do that, we'd never have had our history as it stands today.
            
            Dood was poor. He wanted to be president to affect change for the greater good, not for fame and money.
            
            Cheers,
            
            G|M

            replyreport
   3. 66

      Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Although both Hamid Karzai and Unocal deny it these days, in 2002 it was widely reported that "Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader"
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html
      
      It would be a disgrace if these war criminals got off without standing trial.
      
      And bgamall you are right when you called it a "false flag operation".

      replyreport
      1. 61

         GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for the good link Make Money. Very intriguing.
         
         G|M

         replyreport
10. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    For once, at least in part, Mr. Venugopal & I agree ( I think, lol) on a matter.
    
    I believe is a greater good in just leaving the last president's 'legacy' alone.  The Bush administration, as well as being a greed mill, was famously incompetent at handling anything.  Bush may have caused the mess, and I perhaps believe he even knew the 'difference.'  But knowing that and knowing how to handle situations adequately are very different things.
    
    Now is the time for the U.S. to heal and grow strong.  History and God will judge the Bush dynasty (and I wouldn't want to be against that tribunal).

    replyreport
11. 61

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "Is it not the responsibility of the ruler to take punitive action on terrorists?" Yes the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and got their flight training in the US. They should have invaded Saudi Arabia and Florida and bombed flight schools.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       If it was known that they are going for a terrorist attack, no fool would have given training to them.  It was only after their attack did the Americans were fooled. Deception is not bravery.
       
       No one can buy this argument.

       replyreport
12. 73

    Quilligrapherposted 15 years ago

    I suspect that VP Cheney and President George W. Bush orchestrated 8 years of decline both nationally and internationally because they knew they could get away it.  For a democracy to remain free, all must be on the alert to insure that political parties, industries, religions, and special interest groups never become so powerful, so influential, that they can act with impunity. The one outstanding feature of the Bush White House was its arrogance.  If the electorate had been alert and informed, there never would have been a second Bush term.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       All White Houses were arrogant.
       American electorate is always alert. But it seemed at that time of vote counting there was some by-passing and there were protests outside the oath taking place.

       replyreport
13. 59

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

    Mr.bgamail should be aware of the fact that most governments in Afganistan, Iran, Iraq ane elswhere are not legitimate governments. They have no right to rule their countries unless elected or selected according to a written constitution. So, their arrogance in refusing pipelines and deny access to natural resources is not good to humanity. By force or intimidation, those governments should be made to sell oil and gas to other countries. The above resources are most wanted to America and so they are in the frontline in these matters.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       bgamallposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Who is to say that they are not legitimate? You are defining legitimacy in a very narrow way. Kings have ruled for centuries without written constitutions. All you can really say is that governments with written constitutions tend to be more stable.
       
       But to use that argument as an excuse for wars of aggression is simply not valid. Countries should be able to sell or not sell their natural resources as they see fit. I don't see countries invading the US requiring us to produce coal products. That would be absurd.

       replyreport
14. 59

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

    Kings of previous era would never have encouraged terrorism. They would have been selected by the elders of that country or by a religious person like Pope. But the present rulers came to their positions by bloody coups, treason, or by armed help from other countries. If such groups are called leaders, where should the democratically elected leaders go? Because they use their natural resources only for terrorism and not for the people's welfare, either they should be removed or their natural resources removed from them. In all such countries like Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, and other countries around, how many universities are there... how many hospitals are there? How many cultivated lands are there? They just send their uneducated children across the border and instigate them to fight till "their end".
    Such leaders should be allowed to use their resources only if they look after their people's welfare.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       bgamallposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       But just think of what Bush did. He used 9/11 to invade Iraq. There were no WMD's and while Paul Wolfowitz made up the lie of WMD he was in Europe saying that Iraq was swimming on a sea of oil.
       
       Then Bush used 9/11 to attack the Taliban who were in Texas and refused to bargain. He later said he didn't care about Al Qaeda, but he surely cared about defeating the Taliban. That pipeline had to go through. You have to understand that Bush's motives were born out of greed and imperialism. Bush was a king for 8 years, undermining the democratic institutions of the United States and weakening our moral impact on the world.
       
       And of course I believe that Bush allowed 9/11 just as the government almost allowed Operation Northwoods in the 60's. 9/11 was the same method of operation, involving planes. Northwoods was declassified, and it was a plan of the military and the CIA. Bush's daddy was in that CIA.
       
       So, for 8 years one has to question the legitimacy of the United States government which clearly allowed and even assisted a false flag operation against her own people. This shameful behavior disqualifies the United States from any moral influence on any other country in the world. You are on your own because the United States is morally bankrupt.
       
       I believe in separation of church and state, but I don't believe that any country should have leaders who reject their own moral compass. You can see here that Bush most certainly abandoned his moral compass and engaged in an OJ Simpson type meltdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrtzWoESry0

       replyreport
    2. 66

       Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Well if that is the case then maybe the leaders of India should use the resources of India to look after their people's welfare too.  Out of the 100 most wealthiest people in the world 10 of them are east Indians, yet myself and many others are sponsoring poor foster children in India.

       replyreport
15. 59

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

    Pakistan is the only country in this region which has a legitimate government, legal system, agricultural land and a regularly trained army. They can develop it into a modern country but their friends on the other side of their borders would not allow them to be more cultured and civilised than themselves. So, it is slowly going into the fanatic way, shown by the Talibans..... 1000 years back! Sooner Pakistan shirks the dust on them, better it would be.

    replyreport
16. 59

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

    Mr.George Bush may have made some mistakes. He believed Iraq was armed with nuclear weapons. That may have worried him about the safety of his homeland. As a ruler, he is expected to remove any threat to his country, if possible from where it originates. So, he may have waged war on Iraq. That is a tragedy.
    But I wonder why Americans do not worry about the misbehaviour of financial companies and their auditors, which resulted in this depression. Had they worked with some conscience, all of MR.Bush's actions would have been justified... be it Iraq or Afganistan. The real issue is being sidelined. Public opinion should be against erring entrepreneurs and auditors. At least from now on, I request Americans to create an awareness on the misdeeds of big business houses and tax evaders... and save the rulers from being branded "criminals".
    Political decisions of rulers should not be questioned by common people. Public should keep themselves restricted to welfare plans, awareness against crimes, etc.
    Every ruler has the right to take any action he thinks fit to safeguard the sovereignty and safety of his country.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       bgamallposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Bush knew that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and he cooked the intelligence. Bush planned to go into Iraq as early as he started to run for president. PNAC wanted to invade the middle east and they called for a new pearl harbor in order to go into the middle east sooner. It happened just as they wanted. What they wanted happened. Wake up man. Go read wikipedia. Look up "PNAC", "Leo Strauss", etc. Leo Strauss taught that you keep the shell of democracy but that the elite should lie to the masses. Leo Strauss was an amoral person by his own admission. His prize pupil did lie about WMD. His prize pupil at the University of Chicago was Paul Wolfowitz.
       
       He was nearly worshipped by Irving Kristol and his son, William Kristol, of Fox News and a COFOUNDER of PNAC. Again, you are being very sleepy about this issue. This entire episode of the excursion into the middle east was preplanned. It was a diabolical and murderous plan.

       replyreport
       1. 63

          RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I wouldn't go so far as to credit Bush as being the mastermind of the Iraq lie conflicts, that smelled like Cheney's cooking not Bush's.

          replyreport
17. 63

    RKHenryposted 15 years ago

    With all due respect................
    
    Some mistakes?  Are you kidding me?  He made more than some.  He made more than some.  Everyday he was in office, that man made some kind of mistake.

    replyreport
18. 59

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

    Mr.Bgamall should understand that Bush-baiting does not mean that he is awake. Neither have I to refer to Wikipedia. I am following the news right from Bush Sr.  Can anyone deny that the twin towers were destroyed by Alqaeda?
    
    I cant understand who is cooking what. But a group is turning the table upside down to make criminals as martyrs. First understand that if the perpetrators and supporters of a crime is so sensitive to tell stories that the crime was preplanned by the rulers of the affected country, the other side will be more sensitive to rout out the criminals.
    
    I am commenting on the news that happened; all the world is aware what is happening in the middle east.....  Do whatever possible to spread Islam... to destroy Israel... after sensing defeat, make a hue and cry...

    replyreport
19. 59

    skydiverposted 15 years ago

    George W Bush was a clown, cheating his way into office using his family ties only to run the country into the ground. It should have been Al Gore, and there is an inconvenient truth for you. Bring on Barack Obama, he'll sort the USA out!
    Fortunately all Americans I have ever spoke to have openly said they disliked Bush, otherwise I admit that I would have stereotyped all Americans as being like him (idiots!)

    replyreport
20. 61

    GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years ago

    And in case anyone thinks I'm nuts...
    
    Let me ask a few questions;
    
    When exactly in history does anything happen at random? Very little.
    
    Don't think people could manipulate each other to achieve the goals I mentioned?
    
    Well, I guess you're right...I mean, besides Manifest Destiny, the Colonial period, and the Spaniards almost annihilating the natives in south america for gold doesn't really mean people never want to abuse their powers.
    
    This is all history, right? We're better, right?
    
    Now you may say "Gee, GM is an idiot." I mean, how can my claims go on without being ever substantiated by the mainstream media?
    
    Answer, Question:
    Who owns the Encylopedia Britannica? Who was instrumental to building the foundation for our higher education system?
    
    We can't change the past, but we can re-write it by telling each other different versions of the truth.
    
    Follow the money, honey.
    
    Oh well, who needs progress when you've got profit...
    
    Sincerely,
    
    G|M

    replyreport
21. 66

    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    Your welcome G|M
    
    Mike

    replyreport
    1. 63

       RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Glad to read that your not bashing or calling some other hubbers names, such as "war monger".  Your points come across a lot clearer when you're not trying to mimic Mark.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Two things...
          
          Directed towards Mike or me? Sorry, a bit confuzzled.
          
          Also...you make some good points (to either of us) but the devil is in the details. Watch the sharp tongue or you may instigate the very same thing that you were pointing out (one) of us was doing.
          
          Not trying to put you down, just want you to know.
          
          Thanks for all your responses, RK.
          
          Sincerely,
          
          G|M

          replyreport
          1. 63

             RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             NO, no, no, not you.  I've never seen you rude.  You're always precise and dead on. 
             
             No Mike has a bad habit of following people around and calling them war monger.  And you know, I'll call someone out on something like that any day.  Especially if he uses that term way too loosely and always right after Mark usually says it.  I don't care if someone doesn't like it that I just point it out.  I didn't bash him.  I didn't call him names.  I believe I was praising his behavior.  So be it.

             replyreport
             1. 61

                GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Indeed, you WERE praising him RK. But see how even I can get misconstrued? Our perceptions of each other don't always flow right when we say things in a certain manor.
                
                But you have done well here, and like I said, I wasn't putting you down.

                replyreport
                1. 63

                   RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   I see.  Fine.

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                      On second thought, I like your attitude. ;P
                      Just disregard my idiotic philosophical rantings when you think I'm conflicting.
                      
                      Peace,
                      
                      G|M

                      replyreport
                      1. 63

                         RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                         Oh no you don't!  No way.  Stick to your guns.  You have very admiral points and philosophical views.  You just don't get to back track out them.  You're right.  That's why I said "I see" and that is why I wrote "fine" I conceded.  SO............ no, you don't get to do that.  GeneriqueMedia, your my favorite hubber here.  And I value you.  But you and I aren't always going to agree, or see the same things equally.  But it is how we address the matter, grow and move on- is what's important. Back tracking isn't your style anyways.  Turd. lol

                         replyreport
                         1. 61

                            GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                            Ah, ya caught me. Thanks for hitting me in the head.

                            replyreport
       2. 66

          Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Just so you know RK, Mark Knowles and I have agreed on a lot of things long before you started to post in these forums, especially on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and many other things.  Just because Mark is an atheist and I am a Christian it doesn't mean that we can not agree on things.  It's not a black and white world.  I wasn't mimicking Mark in that other thread, I was voicing my opinion.  In fact I hadn't realized that Mark had previously called you a war monger in that other thread before I did.  It was nice to see that you had changed your mind before the end of that other thread.
          
          Mike

          replyreport
          1. 63

             RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             really?  I see how you are Mike Ole Boy.  I see you perfectly.

             replyreport
22. 68

    bgamallposted 15 years ago

    Hey guys, I appreciate your support. And your stand against the government.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I don't stand against the government per se. I like the Constitution, and I'll love it more when the Federal Government once again shifts back to using it as well.
       
       Our founding fathers envisioned a land of supreme "freedom," as long as it harmed no one else.
       
       They realized that the best government is the weakest government, focused solely on one goal: to keep invaders out.
       
       Thats it.
       
       Sure, liberals go "I want welfare! I want healthcare!" Which I totally understand, and I do support it. But it needs to come from Doctors, from those who have the money and the will to dole it out to needy people.
       
       This way its done in a productive, and hopefully, less corrupt manner.
       
       Your government isn't a doctor, and as much as you'd like to think else, its also not a bank.
       
       They screwed up the economy to begin with. Both "major" parties had a hand in it. And ontop of that, no ones bitching about Goldmann Sachs who "invented" much of the "investment instruments" that were key to our economy's downfall.
       
       Of course, all "bubbles" pop. Its just a matter of why..
       
       I have had faith in many politicians throughout history. All of them have one thing in common: they're great manipulators.
       
       When its done well, we land on the Moon.
       
       When its not done well, we have World War II.
       
       Sincerely,
       
       G|M

       replyreport
       1. 68

          bgamallposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I am not a libertarian. I believe the government can protect against the abuses of the capitalists. Teddy Roosevelt did it. And certainly someone needs to protect us from the medical pricing abuses. But there is a danger too that the government will take over rather than just competing. Let the government compete, but not replace, capitalism.
          
          I do believe, as you know, generique, that the bankers have literally captured the sovereign government of the United States. That has big repercussions. Boycott the banks!!!
          
          Oh, and thanks for being friends.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             I'm with you man! I have a fireproof mattress. I am not a credit score.
             
             And you're right, government can help, but again, as the founding fathers believed, its not the place of the central government. Its all about our cities, our communities, our states. Fifty flavors of democracy.
             
             According to the Constitution the individual and then the States have the most power, not the Federal Government, who has consistently acted in an illegal (to the Constitution, anyway) manner.
             
             Some Federal government politicians make great strides.... however, most do not.
             
             And there's a reason....they're at the top, dealing with a lot of stuff, and again..its not there place to change society, only hold it together. Thats why we have States.
             
             Sincerely,
             
             G|M
             
             P.S.
             
             In a perfect world we can trust those we elect at the top. In reality, this is seldom the case. The Fed (both the bank and Government) loves money, because its power. And that's what happens when a bunch of egotistical blow hards get together to form a governmental body.

             replyreport
23. 0

    issues veritasposted 15 years ago

    Is this forum really working for anyone?
    Can you make believe that you are in a card game, and a new hand has been dealt. Play the cards you have in your current hand.
    
    If you want to go back into history, then why don't we ask why Congress did nothing, for thirty years after the two major oil scams in the 70s

    replyreport
    1. 61

       GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       If I wanted to go back in History I'd call Mr. Peabody.
       
       The hand we're dealt with today forces us to either become a Global society living in Corporate Fiefdoms, or a Global society where we aren't slaves to anyone but learn to help each other out as needed etc.
       
       The latter probably won't happen, but I'm not about to join an IBM-like rank and file. Our Government is being pushed around by banks and people with money...and all the wrong ideas, with the drive to get them done.
       
       So YES, I'd like to return to the way things USED to be. Because society today is better and the constitution has only gotten better with age. We now have the power to use it the way it was intended to be used.
       
       Or, again, become dominated by greed and go back to the middle ages (but with computers!)
       
       Its your choice.
       
       G|M

       replyreport