The Bush administration

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by w.anchor, Jan 8, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Bush administration is in the last year of it's 8 year run.
    The economy is down and there may be worst to come.
    They are stuck in a unwindable war.
    There standing in world opinion is at a all time low.
    The gap between rich and poor has increased.
    Climate change is at at the bottom of the agenda.

    Are there any redeeming points to this administration.
  2. Yes there is a redeeming point - they're a very long distance away from us across a very large pond !!

    That said, why do you think the UK is any better - New Labour coming to the end of it's third term in office.

    Enconomy is taking a down-turn due to the sh!te incompetent economic policies (prudence my arse) of Gordon Brown as Chancellor with worse probably to come.

    WE are stuck in an un-winnable war with them.

    Labour polls getting a kicking by the Tory party who are on a big up, if you can ever believe a poll.

    The gap between the rich and poor is ever increasing.

    But we are slightly better at climate change, if you believe anything our Labour spin doctors pump out.
  3. I don't think the U.K. is any better
  4. 1. Well, it would be, wouldn't it?
    2. Yes, let's blame Bush for a worldwide (standfast China) economic turndown. You wouldn't give him credit for a booming economy, would you?
    3. Doesn't look unwindable from here!
    4. What a glib statement. Do you have any research to prove this?
    5. AOB is at the bottom of the agenda, ergo climate change cannot be!

    Are there any redeeming points to your posts?
  5. I would hope that there are no redeeming points to any of my posts.
    The question is are there any redeeming points to the Bush administration.
    Google world opinion on the Bush admistration.And count the hits for and aginst.Or read any good news paper or political journal and do the same.
    Stand fast China. India.,Russia and parts Europe so fare not contaminated form the sub prime rate fiasco emanating from the good old United States of Amnesia.The dollar at the lowest level for more than I can remember and U.S banks borrowing from China and the Golf States like it's going out of fashion.Your right I can't see the Administration taking the credit of that.
  6. Democracy in action, I'm afraid. IMO, when a minority of the electorate votes in a system of first past the post, there should be a cutoff, below which the result cannot stand e.g. less than 60% voting means the result is void and the election must be rerun.

    We (the West) extol the virtues of democracy, to the extent that we are prepared to invade other sovereign nations to ensure that it is instituted, while we allow a system that accepts a patently undemocratic election result to stand.

    I'm with Clare Short - votes cast should decide the government i.e. 25% voting Labour means 25% of the government should be Labour members, 21% Conservative = 21% of the government Conservative and whatever the low percentage is that the LibDems achieve, they get that representation in government. Whichever party gets the biggest overall vote gets to lead.

    The Septics are routinely hoodwinked by the party political machines in the US, so that even though their Head of State might be a proven liar (perm any of the Presidents that have held the post during my lifetime), he still gets a second term. At least they don't allow what is happening in Russia, where the President can change the system to suit his own aspirations.
  7. Glib maybe but the absolute truth certainly. :thumright:

    WASHINGTON — The income gap between the rich and the rest of the U.S. population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself.

    And that's a line from the recent public testimony of a champion of the free market: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

    As for the standing of the USA in world opinion; it has never been lower. This from VOA which is typical of numerous other investigations:-

    Attitudes towards the United States have become increasingly negative among people in the Middle East and other parts of the world, according to recent international public opinion polls. Experts agree that the war in Iraq is a major reason behind the shift, but they disagree on how to reverse the trend. Some believe a policy change is the answer, while others stress the need to bolster America's public diplomacy.

    According to a recent BBC World Service poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries (mostly non-Arab), just 29 percent now feel the United States exerts a mainly positive influence on the world. That compares with 36 percent who felt that way a year ago and 40 percent two years ago. When asked about the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, an average of 68 percent of respondents across the 25 countries
    answered that it provokes more conflict than it prevents.

    Redeeming features of W_Anchor's post??? How about relevant and pertinent questions for a start??

  8. The British Government's position on climate change is clear. Their rhetoric seeks to suggest that Britain leads Europe and the World in its efforts to tackle climate change. In fact, as the Ecomomist have repeadedly pointed out, Germany leads in Europe whilst saying little about it: modesty for once. Policy and action clearly indicate that we are as committed to tackling global warming as Bush: but at least he has the honesty to be open about his comtempt. What HMG want is to score Broonie points by exhorting householders to make, what at best are peripheral environmental contributions, whilst the primary polluters DON'T pay.

    The problem is of course the way in which a concerted environmental policy to seriously tackle climate change conflicts with the creation of wealth. To make a significant difference would involve Britain making significant sacrifices to her economic growth and wellbeing which in practice is likely to have detrimental political consequences at the ballot box. No sensible political party is going to voluntarily commit political suicide when the vast bulk of those who vote at general elections are older people, many of whom can expect to benefit from increased expenditure on welfare. That expenditure requires economic growth to provide the increased tax revinue to pay for it. Thus:

    Pain later means electoral gains now!

    Well that's my humble opinion, anyway.
  9. Thankyou, Bergen, for providing W.Anchor's justification. They are impeccable sources (though Alan Greenspan is now the ex-chairman of the Fed, and may have his own agenda). However, your assertion that he has asked 'relevant and pertinent questions' is flawed, as all he has done is make a series of contentious statements, and asked one question which is quite obviously rhetorical. This is not the precursor to a serious and enlightened discussion. More likely, it is a regurgitation of the opinions of some other person, and W.Anchor is trying to make out that he is an erudite person when he is, in all probability, as thick as pig-shit.
  10. Carrying on from Bergen's quote, on the funny side a German comedian (yes they do exist) cracked a joke about 2 years ago " I love President Bush and the Americans, at long last there's somebody less popular than us Germans". Many a true word--.
  11. This is part of what irks me about the nay-sayers. "Going green" needn't be a drain on the long term economy. If there is suitable legislation and regulation, as well as fiscal incentives, then the market will alter to encompass those pressures. In other words, there can be money to be made while embracing the changes needed to minimise emissions, use more recycled materials, etc. But that requires a strong leadership not afraid to do what is right, not only what is acceptable. No Broonie points for that!
  12. I have no doubt that W_Anchor is big enough and certainly ugly enough to defend himself; but let me jump in here with a couple of comments. He has recently retired after a very successful career as a Saturation Diver. I only mention this because the attrition rate in deep-diving is high and the real dummies didn't survive. Basic Darwinian selection in action.

    My second point is that his statements have provoked a debate and an exchange of views which is what RR is all about. The points that he listed don't need to be suffixed with erotemes to be considered questions; indeed his initial response as to whether his post had any redeeming features whilst very self-deprecating indicated that he was already aware of the limitations of what he had written.

    I have been in the USA off and on for the past 20 years and my personal opinion is that the Bush administration will be remembered historically as a criminal presidency. The entire country is sliding into a major but entirely avoidable recession and the knock-on effects to the UK will be dire.

    To paraphrase Winston Churchill's comments about Poland "There are few virtues that Americans do not possess and few errors that they have ever avoided".

  13. Wow What an erudite precursor of unenlightened regurgitation of pig shit.
    You may or may not find my post relevant or pertinent.But to call some one you don't know as thick as pig shit only shows a sign of emotional immaturity.

  14. Must be half term…
  15. :w00t:

Share This Page