The Straight Truth About the Bush Economy

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Yeah Tyrone, I know about the melting ice caps of fresh water effecting the entire oceanic circulation system of which the Gulf Stream is apart of. I also believe that effect has already started but it takes decades for the water to circulate the entire global oceanic system and thus one of the reasons the Russian scientists are predicting a mini ice age in about 40 years. It will take that long for the effects to finally show up and it's unlikely IMO to reverse it to any degree at this point. IMO solar output alone over the last several years was likely enough to cause some type of ripple effect many years down the road even without the impact of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases likely will only add to the effect not be the sole cause of it.

JMO.
 

Tyrone Slothrop

Well-Known Member
tieguy said:
Ah so what you mean to say is those who support the global warming concept tried to discredit those who did not. Again you support my point that the jury is out. Thanks again

tiegay,

As I said in post #47 in this thread, you can argue the causes, not the fact of global warming.

It seems that all your sources are proven to be absolute crap, but yet you think you've somehow 'won' the debate because you're 'browner'.

In the last twenty-four hours we have found out that January was the warmest ever, polar bears are about to be placed on the endangered species list because there are no longer ice floes for them, and the crony spokesman for Bush at NASA, who tried to silence real scientists, had to resign because he is a liar.

What a joke.
 

Tyrone Slothrop

Well-Known Member
wkmac said:
Yeah Tyrone, I know about the melting ice caps of fresh water effecting the entire oceanic circulation system of which the Gulf Stream is apart of. I also believe that effect has already started but it takes decades for the water to circulate the entire global oceanic system and thus one of the reasons the Russian scientists are predicting a mini ice age in about 40 years. It will take that long for the effects to finally show up and it's unlikely IMO to reverse it to any degree at this point. IMO solar output alone over the last several years was likely enough to cause some type of ripple effect many years down the road even without the impact of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases likely will only add to the effect not be the sole cause of it.

JMO.
So do you suggest we do nothing? Or try whatever we can, even it it doesn't change the inevitable? I wonder what $400billion put towards climate research and alternative energy could do? Where could we possibly come up with that much cash? Hmmmm...Just thinkin' aloud.:wink:
 

tieguy

Banned
Tyrone Slothrop said:
tiegay,

As I said in post #47 in this thread, you can argue the causes, not the fact of global warming.

It seems that all your sources are proven to be absolute crap, but yet you think you've somehow 'won' the debate because you're 'browner'.

In the last twenty-four hours we have found out that January was the warmest ever, polar bears are about to be placed on the endangered species list because there are no longer ice floes for them, and the crony spokesman for Bush at NASA, who tried to silence real scientists, had to resign because he is a liar.

What a joke.

I love it when I get a bleeding heart liberal who claims to fight for all the oppressed and despised of the world using terminology offensive to those he claims to support. Score another win for the management goon. :thumbup1:
 

tieguy

Banned
Tyrone Slothrop said:
tiegay,

As I said in post #47 in this thread, you can argue the causes, not the fact of global warming.

I never had to argue against the causes of global warming. My point from the beginning was that the jury was out on global warming. Its an easy point for me to make and an impossible one for you to dispute as you have shown.

It seems that all your sources are proven to be absolute crap, but yet you think you've somehow 'won' the debate because you're 'browner'.

Feel free to disprove my sources. Twenty thousand scientists petitioned against the Kyoto agreement. Start listing them and discredit them all one at a time.

In the last twenty-four hours we have found out that January was the warmest ever, polar bears are about to be placed on the endangered species list because there are no longer ice floes for them, and the crony spokesman for Bush at NASA, who tried to silence real scientists, had to resign because he is a liar.

No my friend be careful with the truth now. January was the warmest recorded month. We have only been recording temperatures for the last hundred and twenty years. Therefore January can not be the warmest ever recorded because no one kept score for the other 4 billion years this planet has been around. You really are too easy and you are so dang hardheaded. I'm not disputing the global warming theory , I'm saying the jury is out. You can't win this argument. What a joke is right.
 

tieguy

Banned
Tyrone Slothrop said:
So do you suggest we do nothing? Or try whatever we can, even it it doesn't change the inevitable? I wonder what $400billion put towards climate research and alternative energy could do? Where could we possibly come up with that much cash? Hmmmm...Just thinkin' aloud.:wink:

Ah so your theory would be that since you feel we wasted 400 billion dollars on one endeavor you did not agree with that we should waste it on another that does not have a proven need? Hmmmmm just thinking out loud.
 

Tyrone Slothrop

Well-Known Member
tieguy said:
I love it when I get a bleeding heart liberal who claims to fight for all the oppressed and despised of the world using terminology offensive to those he claims to support. Score another win for the management goon. :thumbup1:

crap=brown; you=browner:lol::lol::lol:
 

tieguy

Banned
Tyrone Slothrop said:
crap=brown; you=browner:lol::lol::lol:

ROFLMAO. are you now reverting to your grade school days. Its a shame. Your really humilate yourself before I even get the chance to do so.
 

tieguy

Banned
Unfortunately one part of the equation. To complete it you have to be able to determine the rate of warming that would have taken place without mankinds existence on this earth and also somehow factor in or out the weather cycles and patterns that may have been a factor in this weather event. As such the jury is still unfortunately out. :bored:
 

Tyrone Slothrop

Well-Known Member
tieguy said:
Unfortunately one part of the equation. To complete it you have to be able to determine the rate of warming that would have taken place without mankinds existence on this earth and also somehow factor in or out the weather cycles and patterns that may have been a factor in this weather event. As such the jury is still unfortunately out. :bored:

Unfortunately, it is what it is, with or without mankind; just like I've always stated. Remember...cause: up for debate...reality: it's happening. No need to deal with hypotheticals.
 

tieguy

Banned
Tyrone Slothrop said:
Unfortunately, it is what it is, with or without mankind; just like I've always stated. Remember...cause: up for debate...reality: it's happening. No need to deal with hypotheticals.

Why TS I'm sure the point would be totally irrelevant if there were no mankind. :lol:

Hypothetical is in fact the theory of global warming. The questions are:
is it a threat, how much , how soon? What forces of nature cause the same effect as part of the normal swings associated within the realms of climatology? If there was no mankind then would there be an upswing in temperature at this time and place. Until you can accurately apply the normal forces of nature and the ever change constant of changing climatic conditions the theory of mankind causing global warming is in fact hypothetical. And thus the jury continues to be out on the issue. :lol: :lol:
 

tieguy

Banned
Why T Susan I don't believe thats what he was referring to at all. I believe its what has happened the last two years that he was referring to.
I wonder How Clintons economy would have done if he had inherited a recession, had a 9/11 and actually exposed all the enron incidents that occured during the bush years?

Oh thats right I'm not supposed to bring up clinton because you're really not a liberal democrat but a conservative with a far left viewpoint. :lol:
 

Tyrone Slothrop

Well-Known Member
tieguy said:
Why T Susan I don't believe thats what he was referring to at all. I believe its what has happened the last two years that he was referring to.
I wonder How Clintons economy would have done if he had inherited a recession, had a 9/11 and actually exposed all the enron incidents that occured during the bush years?

Oh thats right I'm not supposed to bring up clinton because you're really not a liberal democrat but a conservative with a far left viewpoint. :lol:
That's exactly what he was referring to. Look at the hole that Dear Leader has put the economy into. We could only wish that Clinton was still in charge. He was the best Republican Pres since Eisenhower. Do us all a favor and point out just one thing GWB has succeeded in, just one. Bet you can't do it.

 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Tyrone Slothrop said:
Do us all a favor and point out just one thing GWB has succeeded in, just one. Bet you can't do it.

Oh yes I can! He's expanded the size and scope of gov't well beyond the hopes and wishes of any big gov't democrat and the only reason they are screaming about GW is he out "Big Gov't" them so it makes em' look bad!

Now pay up on that bet!:lol:
 

tieguy

Banned
LOL, I guess I couldn't name one thing since I have my conservative friend with the liberal perspective on ignore.

The difficult thing with bushs greatest accomplishment may very well be that we will never know the what ifs. What if an indecisive president like a Carter had been at the helm when we were hit by what could have been a crippling attack on the heart of our financial center. Followed by the revelation of one financial scandel after another highlighted by the enron fiasco. Is a complete financial disaster not a realistic outcome with indecisive leadership at the helm? How could any president possibly turn around an economy suffering from such devastating hits much less as quickly as George Bush did. Truly amazing. Why thanks to George Bush he was able to quickly stop the leaking , turn the economy around and protect the financial well being of Slothropes and Kennedys. Slothrope thus has been able to maintain her lifestyle and bad mouth her country free of financial ruin.

And if Mac is right and GW is infact a free spending liberal in conservative clothing than you would think Slothrope would be head over heels in love with him.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
tieguy said:
And if Mac is right and GW is infact a free spending liberal in conservative clothing than you would think Slothrope would be head over heels in love with him.

Gee Tie, of all people I thought you would have figured it out by now why Susie and the rest are screaming like he*l at Bush. They're jealous that he's out done them at being liberal!

:lol:

Seriously, "what if's" are just that, what if's and shouldn't really factor into any dicussion because like time itself you just can't go back. One of the basic principles of true conservative political thinking is smaller gov't with less spending and even if you take the added spending of the war on terror and the Iraq situation out of the picture, the simple truth is Bush has vastly increased gov't spending and the size and scope of gov't with it. This alone goes against the very economic core of the conservative principles that republicans have claimed to have in the last many years.

But there is bright side to all of this is the American public and voter is halfway smart enough to figure it out or even care. In Bush's shift to "the dark side" the democrats have been most vocal about the excessive spending and excessive growth of gov't. It's like in some respect we've entered an alternative universe or something. We now have plenty of video tape and printed word of a variety of democrats extolling the evils of deficent spendings, unbalanced budgets and excessive and unnecessary growth of gov't power. It's not a question of if but when they get the reins of power back in this country, the American people should hold them to what they said in the past.

Now there's good reason to do this on their part and play this dangerous political game. Their core like Susie won't go anywhere else so that vote is very safe just about no matter what they do. On the republican side or Bush side so to speak, I'd say in your case that you are unlike to venture over to the democratic side of the isle. So they (democrats) find themselves free to publically take up a bit of the conservative economic stance in the hopes of making that a part of the public discourse that some of the folks who voted republican in the past but aren't entrenched republicans will become disenchanted with the republicans as a result of economic policy and either vote democratic, 3rd party or not vote at all. In any of the 3 cases the democrats win because the republicans lost votes.

In the case of the republicans, they feel they have the core conservative vote or people who think they are conservative locked up so in their game plans it's all about trying to show the democratic voters on the edge that they can be liberal too. Like the scenario above the same is true except the republicans benefit.

America has 2 core divisions of voters of about 40% each that for all practical purposes will only vote the party and nothing else. The remaining 20% and that may be way to high aren't nearly as committed one way or the other and this is where the battle lies. That small uncommitted voter out there. The vote in America is so close it's come down to trying to sway that last tiny % vote that may make the difference in the next election.

On another note, have you ever been to the website for the Project for the New American Century and done any reading? You should. PNAC was started back in the latter 90's by Bill Kristol along with folks like Cheney, William Bennett, Rumsfeld and a number of other folks with many serving with the Bush adminstration. The vast majority of economic and especially foreign policy of the Bush adminstration has been driven by many of these folks.

As to the Iraq/foreign policy issue and it's effects on gov't spending one needs to understand timelines and events. One such event in the timeline is the "Clean Break" report that Richard Perle help draft and presented to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu back in the mid 90's. A copy of the report can be found at the link The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Jerusalem, Washington

On March 2, 2003' Maureen Dowd wrote the following in the New York Times:

"In 1992, Dick Cheney, the defense secretary for Bush 41, and his
aides, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, drafted a document
asserting that America should prepare to cast off formal
alliances and throw its military weight around to prevent the
rise of any `potential future global competitor' and to preclude
the spread of nuclear weapons."


The report entitled, "Defense Strategy for the 1990's" was released in Jan. 1993' a few weeks before Clinton took office and thus prevented Cheney and friends from implementing this policy that was drawn as a result of the collaspe of the Soviet Union thus making America the lone Superpower. Here's is a link to the report written by Cheney:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/naarpr_Defense.pdf

Understanding timelines and the persons involved does help present a clearer picture to what is happening and in some cases why. One of the best timelines I've seen can be found at :

Complete 911 Timeline

It doesn't answer all the questions but it fills in enough that you can then search for specific gov't documents and the like to get a vastly greater understanding of what is really driving much of this.

Ever heard the term "Greater Israel"? I had to but never gave it any thought at all nor knew it's meaning until I stumbled upon this map recently. If true, I can begin to understand the Arab world's anger.

Greater Israel - Wikipedia

Now I say if true because it's not definitive IMO but consider #3 at the article above. Consider this being passed about by various Arab outlets and then consider the persons and timelines and the reports of conquest of Iraq and it's westernization to American standards then one begins to see what the Arab street is really thinking and thus reacting like it is. If this was happening to us with the same circumstances I dare say most if not all of us here wouldn't be to happy now would we?

Lastly, the irony in all of this is the conservative position during the Clinton years on what is known as Nation Building. Clinton was lamblasted for his policy in the Balkans and IMO rightly so but it seems the current so-called conservatives have for gotten what they said at the time as they sit silent as Bush faces his own "Balkans" problem. The other irony is the same folks who themselves sat silent during the Clinton years have now taken up the anti-Nation building mantra as though they created it. That's the politics again that we face.

Bush on nation building, Iraq, bin Laden

Enjoy the beautiful spring weather as the flowers are a popping here and I'm sure will be there soon.

Take care!
 
Top