ForumGarden

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."



- Marcus Tullius Cicero -

55 BC

Maybe you Republicans oughta bring yourselves a little more up to date :wah:

hoppy;1302028 wrote: "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."



- Marcus Tullius Cicero -

55 BC


Given the thread title, I've a question for you :-

Do you consider that Bush was listening and balanced the budget, refilled the treasury, reduced public debt, tempered official arrogance and moved towards isolationist policies?

Bryn Mawr;1302084 wrote: Given the thread title, I've a question for you :-

Do you consider that Bush was listening and balanced the budget, refilled the treasury, reduced public debt, tempered official arrogance and moved towards isolationist policies?


Who knows what could have been, had 9/11 not happened. The 'crats held control of the house and senate since 2007. You can see where that's getting us.

hoppy;1302098 wrote: Who knows what could have been, had 9/11 not happened. The 'crats held control of the house and senate since 2007. You can see where that's getting us.


I'm not asking what could have been - just what was.

Simple question really

Bryn Mawr;1302100 wrote: I'm not asking what could have been - just what was.

Simple question really


I get it. Just black or white. No gray. Okay. Not since 2007.

We can't ignore the role 9/11 played in things. So, there is no simple answer.

hoppy;1302102 wrote: I get it. Just black or white. No gray. Okay. Not since 2007.


Your original post admitted no grey but history speaks both ways - I'm quite happy seeing all politicians as conniving crooks.

Bryn Mawr;1302105 wrote: Your original post admitted no grey but history speaks both ways - I'm quite happy seeing all politicians as conniving crooks.


Well, we agree on that then. I'll go one better. I not only hate politicians but lawyers too.

Snowfire;1302029 wrote: Maybe you Republicans oughta bring yourselves a little more up to date :wah:


:yh_rotfl



I love heated discussions

"History Speaks" seems fitting enough to place my insertion of the fact I'm reading "Market Driven Health Care" by Regina Herzlinger and she brings about the point that while our manufacturing sectors "abandoned the old modo "big is beautiful"" and placed their emphasis on "the focus factor" and has proven to do well. She continues to ask why health care cannot take pointers from multi-billion dollar organizations like McDonalds, Federal Express, UPS, and Walmart among others, when it comes to providing services and the only conclusion to this is the fact the U.S. health care system couldn't collectively care any less about remaining focused on the end results of a patients health rather "as long as their current symptoms are minimized". How is this something any moral body can live with? I'll tell you how,..IGNORANCE!

COMPLETE AND UTTER IGNORANCE THAT CAPITALISM THRIVES OFF OF

How it can be that the U.S. has some of the greatest technologies in the World yet anyone that's ever been a patient knows that their care is sub-par and the cost is as much as the leg they might lose anyway.

I was speaking with someone and she'd mentioned she may come to Dayton Ohio to have a surgical procedure that only one other place in the country performs but was much further away...I never in the World would have guessed that Dayton Ohio would be a viable option until last night in class my instructor mentioned that Dayton Ohio houses two of the countries most renowned hospitals, Miami Valley Hospital and Dayton Heart Hospital. Why was I amazed? Because everyone I've known complains about the treatment they'd received...This gap is far too great to ignore and the only option is to undo the monopolies the health industry has obtained and doing it is PUBLIC HEALTH CARE.

hoppy;1302102 wrote: I get it. Just black or white. No gray. Okay. Not since 2007.

We can't ignore the role 9/11 played in things. So, there is no simple answer.
Partisan politics to one side a moment.

Hoppy do you find it wearisome at times to always be blaming 9/11, or using it as an excuse for the states to redact citizen rights and become more militaristic in nature? I'm not digging, but asking a philosophical question. I think the states have gone way too far because of 9/11. Its like they are using it as an excuse to invade the world and beat back the objections of it's citizens to become a militaristic jackass of a country. Other countries of the world, including the one i currently reside in, have had their own buildings bombed down by terrorists, so why is it, we of the U.S. have to go all paranoid, and become nasty? Thats not who we are! .....sorry...just wondering. We need to get over it, and move on.

Raven;1302221 wrote: Partisan politics to one side a moment.

Hoppy do you find it wearisome at times to always be blaming 9/11, or using it as an excuse for the states to redact citizen rights and become more militaristic in nature? I'm not digging, but asking a philosophical question. I think the states have gone way too far because of 9/11. Its like they are using it as an excuse to invade the world and beat back the objections of it's citizens to become a militaristic jackass of a country. Other countries of the world, including the one i currently reside in, have had their own buildings bombed down by terrorists, so why is it, we of the U.S. have to go all paranoid, and become nasty? Thats not who we are! .....sorry...just wondering. We need to get over it, and move on.


Well, if France gets occupied by a hostile country and London gets bombed, I'll ask you the same question.

I was asked a question about Bush's term. You cannot compare Bush's term with Obama's and answer "yes" or "no" to what whoever asked. So, sorry but that is how it is.

France DID get occupied, and London has been bombed several times. IRA etc...As a mater of fact, London lost more in civillian casualties by being bombed than new york did.

And how is America occupied by a hostile country? All I can see is us doing the hostile occupying!

Raven;1302228 wrote: France DID get occupied, and London has been bombed several times. IRA etc...As a mater of fact, London lost more in civillian casualties by being bombed than new york did.

And how is America occupied by a hostile country? All I can see is us doing the hostile occupying!


And what has England done about the IRA?

hoppy;1302233 wrote: And what has England done about the IRA?


Well one thing they didn't do was invade southern ireland accusing them of harbouring terrorists. I am sure you know Ireland has been an independent nation since 1922. Were you also aware that americans were actively supporting and financing the IRA for many years? It took 911 for it to dawn on many in america that terrorism was not necessarily all about gallant freedom fighters fighting for their freedom, it took 911 for the states to finally acknowledge that the ira were in fact a terrorist organisation and that maybe sending them money was not a good idea.

BBC News | AMERICAS | Rich friends in New York

Arguably it was stopping the finance that had most to do with the current peace process. International terrorism is hardly a new phenomenon.

gmc;1302364 wrote: Well one thing they didn't do was invade southern ireland accusing them of harbouring terrorists. I am sure you know Ireland has been an independent nation since 1922. Were you also aware that americans were actively supporting and financing the IRA for many years? It took 911 for it to dawn on many in america that terrorism was not necessarily all about gallant freedom fighters fighting for their freedom, it took 911 for the states to finally acknowledge that the ira were in fact a terrorist organisation and that maybe sending them money was not a good idea.

BBC News | AMERICAS | Rich friends in New York

Arguably it was stopping the finance that had most to do with the current peace process. International terrorism is hardly a new phenomenon.


I believe we are working on cutting the money flow to terrorists. Maybe, when and if it starts working, we'll back off.

hoppy;1302419 wrote: I believe we are working on cutting the money flow to terrorists. Maybe, when and if it starts working, we'll back off.


The money flows through saudi arabia, it could be cut off very easily but that isn't happening for fear of upsetting your main source of oil in the middle east. The threat to start trading oil in euros rather than dollars is enough to have your govt wetting itself in panic. OK call me cynical if you want.