How will you remember bush what will you tell your children and why?

At 3/30/03 09:00 PM, Newgrundling wrote: The war's outcome and events will determine much of this, so the question cannot really be answered yet.

Yeah, a lot depends on how the war ends off. Though, I still stand by my prediction that he will not be re-elected.

He will be re-elected, the democrats are too afraid of losing further senate influence to let anyone run for president other than the b-team (dean, edwards).

You fail to see the difference between hyperbole and beliefs, you sir, are a moron, and thus, should not post at forums....wait....

At 3/30/03 09:10 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: He will be re-elected, the democrats are too afraid of losing further senate influence to let anyone run for president other than the b-team (dean, edwards).

I haven't been following who of the Democrats are going for the ticket, but you're probably right about them keeping as many senators in the senate as possible.

However, it seems like the economy will become much worse before it gets better, and that's a big factor when it comes to an incumbent getting re-elected. Also, Bush has a lot of people that are still mad about his electorial college, even with it being such a long time ago. Also, most anti-war sentiment will vote against him.

I think he will get re-elected if the war continues till voting time comes around, and it very well could. If the war is still going on, people will vote for him out of fear of changing the head-of-state in such a situation.

I really wonder now who the Democrats can put up against him. Even though I feel Bush's chances aren't too high, its going to be a tough battle for that canditate.

Economics is a complicated business, but the basic element to fiscal policy is this:

To expand output, you spend money and lower taxes, which is precisely what bush is doing.

In full output economies, this will cause inflation, in recessionary economies, it works wonders.

At 3/30/03 09:34 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Economics is a complicated business, but the basic element to fiscal policy is this:

To expand output, you spend money and lower taxes, which is precisely what bush is doing.

In full output economies, this will cause inflation, in recessionary economies, it works wonders.

I've taken studies in economics, and I know people whose job it is to predict the future of the economy. I'm not sure what your expertise in ecomics is, but I don't think things will get better for a while. Nobody was spending money before, and now even less people are taking chances with it. Bush Sr. was a wartime president with much of the country behind his war policy, at lot more than presently. However, one reason for his 1 term presidency was the economy.

Let me translate this into racist terms acceptable on internet forums:

Rather than give money to poor people who spend it on crack, Bush is giving it to all big companies who build shit, whcih gives money to other big companies, eventually trickling down to consumers who buy things other than drugs.

That should explain it fairly well.

At 3/30/03 09:45 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Let me translate this into racist terms acceptable on internet forums:

Rather than give money to poor people who spend it on crack, Bush is giving it to all big companies who build shit, whcih gives money to other big companies, eventually trickling down to consumers who buy things other than drugs.

That should explain it fairly well.

Trickle down economics. Sure, I understand this well.
I don't think this practice works well in war time. Did you read my post? People are holding their money. Going in on investments now are very tricky and people aren't doing the spending they need to. Even if businesses were to expand, though they probably won't, the consumers, poor crack heads as you put it, aren't doing the purchasing needed to help out a stressing economy.

At 3/30/03 09:53 PM, VasIndustries wrote: Did you read my post?

I think it's pretty obvious I didn't, which is why I made a vague joke instead of mention anything you said.

At 3/30/03 09:55 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 3/30/03 09:53 PM, VasIndustries wrote: Did you read my post?

I think it's pretty obvious I didn't, which is why I made a vague joke instead of mention anything you said.

Ok, you turned my rhetorical question into a joke, by putting it out of context. Very clever.

I didn't get an analysis of my theory, so I'm going to take that as you can't dispute it, but I'd like to know why you're so confident that trickle down economics works.

Well President Bush will be remebered as a bringer of war and pain to my country.

Expansionary fiscal policy + increased money supply = AD shifts way out.

Dean will get the Democratic nomination and win...

the economy still sucks, and people dislike war, unless we are attacked first...

and once the body bags start piling up when we hit baghdad its going to turn a lot of people anti-war...

at least 50 will die in the first day of urban warfare in baghdad

Dean is less likely to get that nomination than Sharpton...what are you talking about?

Not to mention the latest poll said 71% approval for Bush...

At 3/30/03 10:19 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Dean is less likely to get that nomination than Sharpton...what are you talking about?

dean is polling second in new hampshire, and will get it... he is most likely to exceed expectations which is more important that winning in the primaries...

Not to mention the latest poll said 71% approval for Bush...

and his dad was at 90% after war in Iraq... yet lost the election in 1992 so polling NOW MEANS JACKSHIT... its all about sept-nov 2004 which will be the ballgame one way or the other

The democrats are done for a while, especially with someone like Dean (who won't get nominated in a million years).

At 3/30/03 10:29 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The democrats are done for a while, especially with someone like Dean (who won't get nominated in a million years).

based on what? give me examples and reasoning behind this or ur no better than the damn newbs that we all flame...

You've been here two weeks dude, you're a newb too.

At 3/30/03 10:31 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You've been here two weeks dude, you're a newb too.

2 weeks what the hell are u talking about? ive been posting since like december... where the fuck have u been?

and in case u arent sure thats 3 months since march is over

At 3/30/03 08:59 PM, RageAholic wrote: How will you remember bush what will you tell your children and why?

This is how I'd tell the story:

Once apon a time, the inbred son of a redneck named George Bush was elected in full controversy and numerical inferiority. Trying so hard to play the role of hero while his country's nazi-era foreign policy brought it reprisals from terrorists; he succeeded in bringing devastation to not one, but two third world countries. Let us not forget also how he survived a potentially fatal pretzel swallowing accident.

At 3/30/03 08:59 PM, RageAholic wrote: How will you remember bush what will you tell your children and why?

A Coke-snorting, Ebonics-speaking, Vietnam-dodging, DWI-getting, Election-stealing, Economy-crushing, Isolation-loving, Diplomacy-failing, Oil-hungering, War-mongering, Bible-thumping, Civil liberty-stripping hell of a guy.

How will Bush be remembered?

Some will remember him as a great president who toppled not one, but two terrorist regimes.

Others will remember him as a warmonger who fought a war without international approval.

With the economy slumping right now, it has yet to be determined how Bush will be remembered for domestic policy.

But mark my words on this: Bush will be remembered as a two-term president.

A recent poll had Bush losing to an unnamed Democrat if the election were held today. I can't remember who, but someone said, "It's the named Democrats who are the problem." :)

Nem: There are many problems that can not be solved with your policy. The best policy for reinvigorating the US economy is to increase demand by raising the minamum wage/ increase social security(I recommend this one personally.)

At 3/30/03 10:31 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You've been here two weeks dude, you're a newb too.

you were a newbie once, nemesis.

i probably wont tell my grandchildren about him, they probably wouldn't care. but if i did id tell him he was the president that turned 50% of the world against the yanks.

At 3/31/03 08:42 AM, Ruination wrote:

At 3/30/03 08:59 PM, RageAholic wrote: How will you remember bush what will you tell your children and why?

This is how I'd tell the story:

Once apon a time, the inbred son of a redneck named George Bush was elected in full controversy and numerical inferiority.

:Crack_Smoker wrote:
:Election-stealing

i cant believe you people. how could have he 'stolen' the election? PLEASE explain. did he do the recounts (which the crybaby goron wanted so many of) himself? did he add new ballots with him being the chosen president? is it something else?

what it boils down to is this: bush won the election by the standards that have been in place for longer than you or i have been alive. of course you idiotic anti-bush whiners will not concede to this, but i felt the truth needed to be on the BBS somewhere

He will be remembered through all 6 episodes of "That's my Bush" and the Bush plush dolls.

How will he be remembered, we'll have to wait and see until he exits the political spotlight.

But remember, the only difference between a war criminal and a hero for their country is the person who wins the war.

Bush'll probably be forgotten, consigned to the annals of Presidents that did nothing worthwhile. In the last 100 years, how many can you name off the top of your head? And of that, it'll be because:

FDR: WWII.
JFK: Shot.
LBJ: Started Vietnam.
Nixon: Watergate.
Reagan: You were born/lived during his Presidency.
Bush: See above.
Clinton: Blow jobs.
Carter, Ford: Jokes on The Simpsons.

You need to do something great or stupid to be remembered. The foremr won't happen, although the latter might well burn him a page in history yet as "President Pretzel."