Bush's Legacy

[AspenAdventures]

I read TF's post on Bush's Legacy and it confirmed a lot of things I have feared. I listen to Michael Savage on the radio every once in a while and he has started calling Bush by a new name, Mush. He says he is to soft on many issues and has not stuck to the conservative values. Here is a list of things I am disappointed with.

1. Soft on illegal immigration.
2. Investing our Social Security instead of spending it.
3. Fiscal spending that makes a teenage girl in a mall look conservative.
4. Lack of communication on issues.
5. Letting the endangered species act get in the way of things like eliminating wolves or drilling in ANWR.
6. Failure to secure our borders.
7. Failure to make any lasting changes to our tax structure.
8. Largest increase in spending on education in the history of government.

HOWEVER, I do think he has a legacy that every lib is peeing their pants over.

1. Two new conservative judges in the Supreme Court.
2. Two new conservative judges in the Supreme Court.
3. Two new conservative judges in the Supreme Court.
4. Sarbanes Oxley Act - to keep Enron & Worldcom's in check. (by the way this is the largest sweeping reform of the American financial markets since the SEC was created in the 30's)
5. Hanging of Sadam Hussein.

Anyone else have any others?

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

[huntindude]

So 3 of his top 5 were his supreme court judges, with a little luck Hillary or Obama could a few appoint moderate judges to counter them. these appointments took no brains, just a sick or old supreme court justice.

You think hanging a two bit dictator was a high point, I think the failure to hang Bin Laden more than cancels that out.

Sen Paul Sarbanes is a democrat, the only thing Bush did was sign the bill rather than fight or veto it.


The one good thing he's tried to do is get a worker visa program, if some idiots would listen to him on that it would solve a lot of our border problems and labor issues.

 

[TFinalshot]

Matthew 25:41-45
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'

 

[TFinalshot]

"Nothing better captures the debilitating nature of America's dependence on imported oil than President Bush's humiliating recent performance in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He quite literally begged Saudi King Abdullah to increase the kingdom's output of crude oil in order to lower the domestic price of gasoline. "My point to His Majesty is going to be, when consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline - in other words, when it affects their families, it could cause this economy to slow down," he told an interviewer before his royal audience. "If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of [Saudi] oil purchased."
Needless to say, the Saudi leadership dismissed this implied threat for the pathetic bathos it was. The Saudis, indicated Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, would raise production only "when the market justifies it." With that, they made clear what the whole world now knows: The American bubble has burst - and it was oil that popped it. Thus are those with an "oil addiction" (as President Bush once termed it) forced to grovel before the select few who can supply the needed fix."

Get the whole story here: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174888/michael_klare_barreling_into_recession

I know it's not fox and friends, but it is an interesting piece. . .

 

[huntindude]

I'm surprised it took as long as it did, a few years ago the talk of oil prices going up sent the stock market into panic, the last few years it's been " whatever "

 

[eelgrass]

Bush was not much of a communicator, but I did hear him say on many, many occassions that the best way to protect Americans was to spread the message of freedom to other parts of the world. His main reason, he said, for going into Iraq. You may agree, or disagree, but that was his stand from day one. Maybe he felt that fit into Matthew 25:41-45?

 

[Cali4x4]

I did not know he had a (Mathews) Legacy bow. See what you can learn here!

 

[TFinalshot]

exactly, all the more reason to get someone in the white house that will put the USA first . . .

 

[CAelknuts]

I just find it ironic as all get-out that we have a proud liberal spouting scripture....

 

[CAelknuts]

And by the way T, if we could drill in ANWR and build some dammed refineries in this country, we could tell the whole of the middle east and Venezuela to kiss our rosy red behinds. THAT would really alter the world political landscape if we had those two things. BUT, the left side of the aisle just can't stand to allow either of these things to happen.

Heck, maybe we could start a movement and get the religious right to concede Roe v Wade to be the law of the land, if the left could concede to allow ANWR and refineries to go through. THAT WOULD BE HUGE PROGRESS FOR THIS COUNTRY.

 

[TFinalshot]

Hey CAnuts, the right does not have a monopoly on religion, God does.

you said,

"if we could drill in ANWR and build some dammed refineries in this country, we could tell the whole of the middle east and Venezuela to kiss our rosy red behinds."


answer us a couple small questions, for how long will the oil last, and what do we do once it's gone?

You see, most of the rest of the world has been living without it for thousands of years, they know how to live with donkeys and wash their close in a river. If you think it's wise for us to use our oil reserves now you must really be from the left coast. . .I say be a true conservative and conserve it for leaner times when our demand for it is much greater. You see, it is better to control demand with dealing with the a finite resources, the fact is that no matter how hard you wish, oil will run out. . . better get on with finding new supplies of energy now when we can afford it because when times get real lean, we wont have the money to support R&D, we will need every ounce of oil to defend ourselves from the rest of the world. . .

 

[CAelknuts]

Gee Tony, I don't realize how advocating taking steps that would help our country immensely in the short term, means we shouldn't do things to move toward newer technologies for the future. I agree with you that we need to move toward other means of energy, but until those technologies are viable, we still need to operate with what gets it done today.

Ethanol may become more viable, but not based on corn. Cellulosic ehtanol is thought to be much more environmentally friendly and cost effective eventually, but the technology isn't caught up with corn based production today. Perhaps fuel cells will someday become more viable, I certainly hope so. Over the years, I've invested in Ballard, though I don't currently own their stock. They are a company likely to be at the forefront when fuel cells finally become viable on a mass scale. They're working hard on it, in fact there is a large facility about 30 miles from my house that focuses on development of fuel cell technology, the California Fuel Cell Initiative is the name of the venture. It is a partnership between the public and private sectors.

T, you finish by saying "better get on with finding new suppplies of energy now when we can afford it...... Isn't that the same as what I'm saying about ANWR? ANWR is a gigantic energy source, perhaps the largest known in the world, but the left is blocking development of it. Same thing goes for fields off the east and west coasts.

 

[TFinalshot]

it is not wise to use up the limited supply of the most valuable natural resources on the planet when there still are great strides to be had in conservation and more importantly managing demand. Heck, if we stopped selling SUV's to every living person in cali we would be making real strides.

My point is that we must control the demand. We must decide that it is unwise for every foot in california to throttle down on an SUV. This is a demand side problem that can and should be solved. If we do not get control of it very soon, it will be a supply side problem and that is when you will see the real killing. . .

 

[AspenAdventures]

The day you open up ANWR is the day you see oil prices drop. Oil is traded on the futures market. It is the expectation of what supply and demand will be that affects the price. If we threaten to supply ourselves with cheap oil the towel heads will have to lower their price to compete. They would suffer immensly if we stopped buying for a week. The supply would be potentially huge and thus the demand supply crossing point would be moved towards lower prices. Basic economics.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

[TFinalshot]

and what would happen to the global oil market if we stopped buying? tell us what china and Russia would do. If we stopped buying, we would end up in the dark ages my friend, I'm glad youre not involved in homeland security. . .

 

[d13r]

"'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'"

Who said it??

JB

 

[TFinalshot]

It was RR, the leader who marks the start of the demolition of the real republican party. . .

But, dcup, rather than sound bites, put up some numbers or some "legacy" data that will help other's decided if Bush was the decider or if he was the dumb dumb that he now looks to be. . .

 

[CAelknuts]

Developing ANWR would solve a couple problems for quite a few years, adding to it with development off both coasts would take us even further. I'm not saying that we shouldn't work toward conservation at all, we need to do this and also keep working to develop alternative technologies that are viable.

If we developed ANWR, we would see markedly lower energy prices, and more importantly, reduce our need to get our energy supplies from hostile foreign regions, including the Russians and Chinese. Don't forget that militarily/strategically, neither of these countries is our ally.

Why is it that we get beat over the head every day about Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Big Oil, Bush Administration foreign and energy policies; but we never hear anything about the Sierra Club or similar groups that are holding our government hostage by their ability to intimidate policymakers and legislaters to not allow more development of energy sources near to home and development of refineries that can process more energy feedstock?

The Sierra Club and their ilk are a big part of the problem, but it seems society just wants to conveniently overlook their role. It is analogous to the media attention paid to every plane crash and the few hundred people who are killed, while we ignore highway traffic deaths that total in the tens of thousands across the country each year.

 

[d13r]

Bush's Budget: $3,100,000,000,000.00

 

[huntindude]

You beat me to it, how many trillion does the deficit have to be to get any attention anymore? a few trillion here, a few trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking some big money.

 

[AspenAdventures]

When I said stop buying I meant that if we cna produce 30% of our own oil now and ANWR would give us the ability (theoretically) to produce another 30%, then we would only need 40% from outside sources. I did not mean we should go cold turkey.

The real issue is that the free market will decide what is right as long as the all mighty hand stays out of the way.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."