actually after reading this I think I"m going to update my resume.... That was one of the big things about the FEMA guy is he didn't have the quilifications for the job
Poll
Is Bush an Idiot?
| Yes | 69% | 69% - 377 | ||||
| No | 30% | 30% - 166 | ||||
| Total: 543 | ||||||
I'm talking about the FEMA director not the Nagin..Kmarion wrote:
I'm guessing the manager would be the people who elected them?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Nope but you can blame the manager who hired him?
What makes you think he didn't have qualifications??
Yes, but someone had to take the fall. Was he unqualified?.. maybe. But FEMA is not a first response organization.cpt.fass1 wrote:
actually after reading this I think I"m going to update my resume.... That was one of the big things about the FEMA guy is he didn't have the quilifications for the job
Right now we have our Governor talking on TV about a possible Cat 2 Hurricane hitting our state. We have trucks stationed all over the state with water, a state of emergency already in effect and evacuation routes already to go. Once he shares all this in English he immediately starts to explain it in Spanish (He is fluent). While many people hate his brother, most everyone in Florida is fortunate to have Jeb.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
no wonder we cant find the terrorests.... its george W bush. hes the terrorest.
[Project.D]-Demon wrote:
no wonder we cant find the terrorests.... its george W bush. hes the terrorest.
Once again, another wonderfully intelligent comment from Demon......just wow.
1) only time will tell....AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
1) Hmmm, I think you're reading too many talking points and not the financial times. Sure there are a couple of problems, but the economy is on a very good track right now. I don't know where you've been, but take an economics class my friend. And we're ranked 12th (Ranked Report as of 2004) But those reports are as anecdotal as it gets. Its only a small portion of each country that responds, you can't accurately base any claims off that.cpt.fass1 wrote:
1. I'm really not to confident of our econimic stability right now, I feel like some numbers are inflated considering they did change how they look at unemployeement. Also we are in the largest foreclosure with homes right now due to trying to offset inflation and this will cause a huge problem in a few years. Jobs are good but quality of jobs are good too, remember we are 13th ranked in the world in Quality of Life.
2. I need the link and that's a huge diss to the common man.
3. I look at the government as a company you have your local who handles small matters, state who handles biger problems, then Federal who handles big problems. Now even though the Mayor droped the ball and I know he did too I think he should have retired(forceablly too), when hireing people who are not qualified for a job you get this kinda response. If you going to hired a casher for a fast food joint are you going to hire the kid who droped out of school at 12 years old? or look for someone who can do math?
2) I agree with you it is.
3) Yes I agree with you completely, but you implied it was Bush's fault directly........so I responded accordingly.
2.. What who is this??
3.. I'm really quit hung over so I'll start really posting tomorrow maybe.
1) Yep.cpt.fass1 wrote:
1) only time will tell....
2.. What who is this??
3.. I'm really quit hung over so I'll start really posting tomorrow maybe.
2) LOL, I dunno either.
3) Niiiiice. Drink plenty of water.
george w. bush...worst president ever...
LOL not behind Carter, thats for sure.BillyMack wrote:
george w. bush...worst president ever...
Whats with the rag on carter sentiment in the US? He never did anything bad. Heck, he didn't do ANYTHING at all, too many politicians blocked him at every attempt.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
LOL not behind Carter, thats for sure.BillyMack wrote:
george w. bush...worst president ever...
Well even as polarizing as Bush is even the most liberal liberals will admit that Bush has at least done SOME good things in this country.jonsimon wrote:
Heck, he didn't do ANYTHING at all
Honestly I'd rather a president did nothing than changed many things. And I don't know what good things you're talking about, I haven't really heard of any.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Well even as polarizing as Bush is even the most liberal liberals will admit that Bush has at least done SOME good things in this country.jonsimon wrote:
Heck, he didn't do ANYTHING at all
Well you see, there are the democrats, the liberals, the liberal liberals, and than theres jonsimon. Some people just have SOO much hatred and soo much bias, they only see bad things. Maybe you should try to be a little more open minded and not so hateful.jonsimon wrote:
Honestly I'd rather a president did nothing than changed many things. And I don't know what good things you're talking about, I haven't really heard of any.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Well even as polarizing as Bush is even the most liberal liberals will admit that Bush has at least done SOME good things in this country.jonsimon wrote:
Heck, he didn't do ANYTHING at all
How can I be open minded to a case that has never been presented to me? Honestly, I have no incentive to learn of Bush's positive contributions to American policy, and the media makes it far easier to learn of his faults.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Well you see, there are the democrats, the liberals, the liberal liberals, and than theres jonsimon. Some people just have SOO much hatred and soo much bias, they only see bad things. Maybe you should try to be a little more open minded and not so hateful.jonsimon wrote:
Honestly I'd rather a president did nothing than changed many things. And I don't know what good things you're talking about, I haven't really heard of any.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Well even as polarizing as Bush is even the most liberal liberals will admit that Bush has at least done SOME good things in this country.
For one that likes facts as much as I know you do, you sure seem unwont to present them.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-28 14:55:41)
Wow unwont....You haven't even asked me, you just stated you didn't know, for someone that is as interesting as you, you sure seem so fast to assume things, oh wait, you've always done that. Nevermind. What, specifically, would you like to know? Just general good things that Bush has contributed to. Bush's administration is a spendy one but our economy hasn't been this good for years. Inflation is in check, unemployment is down, jobs are up (obviously), there are a far greater number of things but you fail to be specific. How can you be open minded to a case that hasn't been presented to me?? How can you be so CLOSE MINDED about one that hasn't been presented you. Ooooh got you there don't I. You have no incentive to learn of Bush's positive contributions....obviously, so why am I even trying. Because some of your statements here and elsewhere are very inaccurate. Just trying to help you not sound so extreme. Although on occasion I agree with some points you make, most of the time, you are too...well extreme and over-sensitive.jonsimon wrote:
How can I be open minded to a case that has never been presented to me? Honestly, I have no incentive to learn of Bush's positive contributions to American policy, and the media makes it far easier to learn of his faults.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Well you see, there are the democrats, the liberals, the liberal liberals, and than theres jonsimon. Some people just have SOO much hatred and soo much bias, they only see bad things. Maybe you should try to be a little more open minded and not so hateful.jonsimon wrote:
Honestly I'd rather a president did nothing than changed many things. And I don't know what good things you're talking about, I haven't really heard of any.
For one that likes facts as much as I know you do, you sure seem unwont to present them.
Wow, where to start. I never asked you, but I never said they didn't exist. You were the one fast to assume it was my close-mindedness. How can I be close minded about something I've never known? I have no incentive, meaning I am not likely to invest my time in finding them, however, if the costs were somehow reduced, like say, someone enumerating the positive aspects, the benefits may outweigh the costs.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Wow unwont....You haven't even asked me, you just stated you didn't know, for someone that is as interesting as you, you sure seem so fast to assume things, oh wait, you've always done that. Nevermind. What, specifically, would you like to know? Just general good things that Bush has contributed to. Bush's administration is a spendy one but our economy hasn't been this good for years. Inflation is in check, unemployment is down, jobs are up (obviously), there are a far greater number of things but you fail to be specific. How can you be open minded to a case that hasn't been presented to me?? How can you be so CLOSE MINDED about one that hasn't been presented you. Ooooh got you there don't I. You have no incentive to learn of Bush's positive contributions....obviously, so why am I even trying. Because some of your statements here and elsewhere are very inaccurate. Just trying to help you not sound so extreme. Although on occasion I agree with some points you make, most of the time, you are too...well extreme and over-sensitive.jonsimon wrote:
How can I be open minded to a case that has never been presented to me? Honestly, I have no incentive to learn of Bush's positive contributions to American policy, and the media makes it far easier to learn of his faults.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Well you see, there are the democrats, the liberals, the liberal liberals, and than theres jonsimon. Some people just have SOO much hatred and soo much bias, they only see bad things. Maybe you should try to be a little more open minded and not so hateful.
For one that likes facts as much as I know you do, you sure seem unwont to present them.
As for the economy, that's silly. The economy moves and changes on its own, wholly independent of our government. Government regulation can alter that motion, but what policy changes has Bush made economically? He hasn't created any price floors, price ceilings, new subsidiaries or any other regulatory legislation to my knowledge. Hardly can he be credited for any positive state the economy may be in.
More and more I see little actual argument with you.
I am extreme, extremely right.
I'd just like to say yes bush is an idiot, but that's 90% of Americans fault for being nothing more than co ksucking trend followers that just vote for democrates, or republicans thinking they know everything.
Agreed. Mr Wesker, you can't congratulate the Bush administration for the state of inflation, nor unemployment, nor the currently available number of jobs. Economic indicators reflect the result of a myriad of forces tugging on them from every direction. To single out one of these forces and to blame or credit them with the end result is disingenuous. For example, it is quite possible for a president to take a 4-year nap only to wake up and find that American economic indicators are at a 20-year high thanks to the ebb of market forces and the stewardship of the Federal Reserve Board.jonsimon wrote:
As for the economy, that's silly. The economy moves and changes on its own, wholly independent of our government. Government regulation can alter that motion, but what policy changes has Bush made economically? He hasn't created any price floors, price ceilings, new subsidiaries or any other regulatory legislation to my knowledge. Hardly can he be credited for any positive state the economy may be in.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Bush's administration is a spendy one but our economy hasn't been this good for years. Inflation is in check, unemployment is down, jobs are up (obviously), there are a far greater number of things but you fail to be specific. How can you be open minded to a case that hasn't been presented to me?? How can you be so CLOSE MINDED about one that hasn't been presented you. Ooooh got you there don't I. You have no incentive to learn of Bush's positive contributions....obviously, so why am I even trying. Because some of your statements here and elsewhere are very inaccurate. Just trying to help you not sound so extreme. Although on occasion I agree with some points you make, most of the time, you are too...well extreme and over-sensitive.jonsimon wrote:
For one that likes facts as much as I know you do, you sure seem unwont to present them.
Perhaps you can let us know specific things Bush's administration has done to positively affect the economy?
No , sorry, I did not mean to imply that he is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE, I certainly never said that, but yes I agree with you, unlike most people around here you actually seem to have taken an economics class or are very familiar with the way economy works, omfg finally someone other than me..........Thank you for the clarification I agree with everything you said, however Bush has utilized tax cuts fairly well to make a small contribution to put more spending capital into the economy.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Agreed. Mr Wesker, you can't congratulate the Bush administration for the state of inflation, nor unemployment, nor the currently available number of jobs. Economic indicators reflect the result of a myriad of forces tugging on them from every direction. To single out one of these forces and to blame or credit them with the end result is disingenuous. For example, it is quite possible for a president to take a 4-year nap only to wake up and find that American economic indicators are at a 20-year high thanks to the ebb of market forces and the stewardship of the Federal Reserve Board.
Perhaps you can let us know specific things Bush's administration has done to positively affect the economy?
OK...yes you are partially right here but you need to take an economics class man, wholly independent of our government, have you ever heard of the Federal Reserve Board??? The futures market??jonsimon wrote:
1) As for the economy, that's silly. The economy moves and changes on its own, wholly independent of our government. Government regulation can alter that motion, but what policy changes has Bush made economically? Hardly can he be credited for any positive state the economy may be in.
2) More and more I see little actual argument with you.
3) I am extreme, extremely right.
2) I feel the same way about you.
3) Ok, if it makes you feel better to say that, go right on ahead.
But bantering aside, seriously dude, I didn't mean to assume much, other than what you IMPLIED by saying that Bush hasn't done anything. You implied this so what else am I suppose to get from that, you tell me? If you want to know more go to school or back to school depending on your situation. If you haven't noticed, I've never made slighted remarks towards you unless cued by one you've already made towards me. So if anything, there is less arguement with you, for being so, immature, or are you being over sensitive again or something?
Um, I have taken economics classes. I took my high school econ class, Micro economics through college over the summer, and am in the process of taking macroeconomics this college semester. Additionally I am well versed in economics through my father, a long time economics professor with his masters degree and all the necessary classes for a doctorates degree. Any microeconomics class makes it incredibly obvious that the market works on its own, independent of the government. It is also apparant that the government can regulate economics actions through tools like price floors and ceilings, but government regulation is far from being a critical factor in how 'prosperous' the economy is.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
OK...yes you are partially right here but you need to take an economics class man, wholly independent of our government, have you ever heard of the Federal Reserve Board??? The futures market??jonsimon wrote:
1) As for the economy, that's silly. The economy moves and changes on its own, wholly independent of our government. Government regulation can alter that motion, but what policy changes has Bush made economically? Hardly can he be credited for any positive state the economy may be in.
2) More and more I see little actual argument with you.
3) I am extreme, extremely right.
1) Once again, the FRB, part of the goverment, heavily regulates strong parts of the market.jonsimon wrote:
1) Any microeconomics class makes it incredibly obvious that the market works on its own, independent of the government.
2) It is also apparant that the government can regulate economics actions through tools like price floors and ceilings, but government regulation is far from being a critical factor in how 'prosperous' the economy is.
2) You finally made a coherent point, you are on a roll jonsi, you have really surprised me.
Cheers to your dad and good job on the classes, but if you think that the economies of different countries ESPECIALLY the US is devoid of ANY government regulation or forces, than you are sadly mistaken.
I understand what your point is with how the market works on its own, that is obvious, but the government still plays a role. Any GENERAL economics class would make that extremely obvious, did you miss that one?
"Hevily regulates strong parts of the market." Burden of proof blah blah blah.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
1) Once again, the FRB, part of the goverment, heavily regulates strong parts of the market.jonsimon wrote:
1) Any microeconomics class makes it incredibly obvious that the market works on its own, independent of the government.
2) It is also apparant that the government can regulate economics actions through tools like price floors and ceilings, but government regulation is far from being a critical factor in how 'prosperous' the economy is.
2) You finally made a coherent point, you are on a roll jonsi, you have really surprised me.
Cheers to your dad and good job on the classes, but if you think that the economies of different countries ESPECIALLY the US is devoid of ANY government regulation or forces, than you are sadly mistaken.
I understand what your point is with how the market works on its own, that is obvious, but the government still plays a role. Any GENERAL economics class would make that extremely obvious, did you miss that one?
Any general economics class is more than likely inadequate or lacking in depth, or alternatively is likely to span more than one school semester.
Government regulation plays a roll, but only when the government changes regulation. The longer regulation remains constant, the more likely the market has approached long-term equillibrium.
jonsimon wrote:
Any microeconomics class makes it incredibly obvious that the market works on its own, independent of the government.
Need I say more...thank you for agreeing with me.jonsimon wrote:
Government regulation plays a role
I agree with you whole-heartedly, you are versed in this subject, enough even to command respect, just be careful where you place certain discriminatory words such as independent and nothing. You are gaining more respect from me by the minute. Thank you for being mature and VERY articulate. You should do this more!!! Good talkin with ya man.jonsimon wrote:
But only when the government changes regulation. The longer regulation remains constant, the more likely the market has approached long-term equillibrium.