Good or bad what has Bush done for America

dicktice · 2007-03-06 18:29:13

Is there ANYTHING federally supported that has produced positive results, since the Bush Administration came into power? I can't think of ONE. And now, we learn of the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed hospital (and others?) that wounded and tramatized veterans of the "war on terror" and their families are encountering. Incompetence personified at the top: two more years to endure, without hope of any lessons learned....

Palomar · 2007-03-07 08:08:07

Is there ANYTHING federally supported that has produced positive results, since the Bush Administration came into power? I can't think of ONE. And now, we learn of the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed hospital (and others?) that wounded and tramatized veterans of the "war on terror" and their families are encountering. Incompetence personified at the top: two more years to endure, without hope of any lessons learned....

I totally agree, dicktice.

C M Edwards · 2007-03-07 09:22:25

Is there ANYTHING federally supported that has produced positive results, since the Bush Administration came into power?

Yes. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development successfully implemented US $15 billion in new programs, including the ongoing relocation from the New Orleans area and what has of necessity become a relatively effective nationwide effort to assist homeless families. And Venezualan President Hugo Chavez implemented a very popular US $1 million heating fuel charity here in the States via Citgo, Inc.

President Bush and his administration have been able to generate amazing levels of popular support for all of these new programs.

dicktice · 2007-03-07 09:47:40

I blush to admit, I didn't know that. What else, I wonder?

C M Edwards · 2007-03-08 17:43:58

I blush to admit, I didn't know that. What else, I wonder?

It's OK, Dick, I was being facetious. The new HUD programs are very real, but at least one third of the extra budget can be traced back to hurricane related relocations. And a quick Google search should explain the whole George Bush/Hugo Chavez dynamic. (The new homeless families program really does work well, though.)

No, apart from HUD, the Bush Administration really hasn't initiated anything noteworthy. Most of the newer success stories in federal programs have been driven by congress and other forces.

SpaceNut · 2007-03-09 08:47:40

The topic was getting a bit off for katrina so I split out the Bush bashing into this new topic.

There are more bad than good examples I fear as it relates to Bushes service in office.
Now he wants to make a deal,
Bush to sign biofuels pact with Brazilian leader; Demonstrators protest visit, first stop in president’s Latin American tour

Here is the north where it is cold Ethanol is used to remove water from the gas but it causes the fuel to burn less effienctly.

In January, Bush called on Congress to require the annual use of 35 billion gallons of ethanol and other alternative fuels such as bio-diesel by 2017, a fivefold increase over current requirements. To help meet the goal, the president also is pushing research into making ethanol from material such as wood chips and switchgrass.

Palomar · 2007-03-09 10:44:41

I blush to admit, I didn't know that. What else, I wonder?

Well we used to have a HUGE surplus (which could have kept 3 generations of Americans comfortably retired/Social Security healthy)...now we're zillions of dollars in debt.

But what do Bush and his cronies care? They're gazillionaires with utmost financial security. Guess the rest of us can eat cake or whatever.

Grypd · 2007-03-09 13:04:32

Unless of course there has to be a whole raft of new taxes to pay this debt off and this will hurt them.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-03-09 13:29:06

I've done my fair share of Bush bashing as he has made a big mess of things, made a huge dent in the US economy, did a bad job on Katrina, sold off security to the Dubai Arabs, created record defictis, gave us some lame multi billion dollar fence at the Mexican border, is burning billions in Iraq while America's bravest die, almost destroyed the Republican party...the list could go on and on.

However this is a thread on the positive results of George Bush Jnr and I will say he did an ok job of destroying the terror cells in Afghanistan after 911 (before they screwed the pooch looking for WMDs in Iraq) and he gave us a NASA vision for Mars. Those are the few positive results I can focus on and I will say that GW sounds a lot better when some foreign guy like Tony Blair is covering his rear and speaking for him.

SpaceNut · 2007-03-09 21:39:20

Ya a little good with the bad it would seem but as for the good earlier that I meantioned with Brizilian Ethanol here is the bad. Demand for ethanol driving up meat prices

Strong demand for corn to use in ethanol plants is driving up the cost of livestock and will raise prices for beef, pork and chicken, the Agriculture Department said Friday.
Meat and poultry production will fall as producers face higher feed costs, the department said in its monthly crop report.

Just what we all want to see rising food costs,,Not...

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 05:05:30

Is there ANYTHING federally supported that has produced positive results, since the Bush Administration came into power? I can't think of ONE. And now, we learn of the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed hospital (and others?) that wounded and tramatized veterans of the "war on terror" and their families are encountering. Incompetence personified at the top: two more years to endure, without hope of any lessons learned....

That's a Lawyer's question: Never ask a question whose answer you don't already know in your own mind. As they say, "Shit happens!" What Draconian "Darth Vader" management practicise do you suggest to ensure that this doesn't happen again? Line them up and shoot them and then promote some new soldiers into their positions perhaps? In any large organization, you will find people that do not do their job properly, this arises out of laziness. the question is what management practises you you institute to eliminate this 100%? Do you want the entire hospital staff to fear for their lives that one rat might be found by one inspector? Do you want them to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to hunt down every single rat in the hospital or disinfecting every square inch of the place, rather than saving patients lives! One simple management practise is to always fire who is responsible, if done too frequently this results in putting inexperienced people in responsible positions and having the job done even more poorly. You talk as if someone else can do this better. Prove it!

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 05:10:55

Ya a little good with the bad it would seem but as for the good earlier that I meantioned with Brizilian Ethanol here is the bad. Demand for ethanol driving up meat prices
Strong demand for corn to use in ethanol plants is driving up the cost of livestock and will raise prices for beef, pork and chicken, the Agriculture Department said Friday.
Meat and poultry production will fall as producers face higher feed costs, the department said in its monthly crop report.
Just what we all want to see rising food costs,,Not...

whine whine whine whine!
All you do is complain, what would you do that is different? Buy more oil from the Arabs? If you convert coal into gasoline, then your all going to whine about the increasing greenhouse gas emmisions. As a matter of fact every solution is going to elicit a complaint from you, because the world is full of trade-offs. Higher prices of food will raise farming families out of poverty, and with that money they'll be able to feed their families, pay the morgage, and not have to leave their farms, it will revitalize the country side, and not as many people will have to migrate to the cities and look for work, but you don't want that do you, as rural folk tend to vote more conservative.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 05:13:14

Here's a hint folks. the Bushes revitalized the manned moon and space programs. What has Clinton done to put us on a path back towards the Moon and Mars. Being that your from the Mars Society, I'm suprised you've overlooked that!

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 05:21:10

Unless of course there has to be a whole raft of new taxes to pay this debt off and this will hurt them.

Taxes for everything, is that your motto? The Europeans have overtaxed themselves, this slows growth and makes less revenue available for the future. You raise revenue by growing the economy, not by taking more money away from the people! You manage the economy to increase growth. If you tax the rich people at 90%, they won't invest their profits productively, they'll send it to tax shelters instead, or they'll invest overseas where the taxes are lower, but all liberals can think of is raising taxes or cutting defense or space exploration.

Grypd · 2007-03-10 05:49:25

Unless of course there has to be a whole raft of new taxes to pay this debt off and this will hurt them.
Taxes for everything, is that your motto? The Europeans have overtaxed themselves, this slows growth and makes less revenue available for the future. You raise revenue by growing the economy, not by taking more money away from the people! You manage the economy to increase growth. If you tax the rich people at 90%, they won't invest their profits productively, they'll send it to tax shelters instead, or they'll invest overseas where the taxes are lower, but all liberals can think of is raising taxes or cutting defense or space exploration.

When youre in debt you have to pay that debt off. The fact that the USA owes over a trillion $ hurts the US economy. The US goverment has to pay out just to service that debt and that reduces its ability to spend elsewhere. Normally it is not a problem when your economy grows but there is a global slowdown in trade and so the goverment gets less money in. This deficit also increases inflation and of course there is the problem that it increases the economies that you owe the debt too. In this case the single biggest holder of US goverment bonds is China.

An economy is a balance of taxes, spending and growth. The US economy is skewed and weak at the moment.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 10:11:28

Unless of course there has to be a whole raft of new taxes to pay this debt off and this will hurt them.
Taxes for everything, is that your motto? The Europeans have overtaxed themselves, this slows growth and makes less revenue available for the future. You raise revenue by growing the economy, not by taking more money away from the people! You manage the economy to increase growth. If you tax the rich people at 90%, they won't invest their profits productively, they'll send it to tax shelters instead, or they'll invest overseas where the taxes are lower, but all liberals can think of is raising taxes or cutting defense or space exploration.
When youre in debt you have to pay that debt off. The fact that the USA owes over a trillion $ hurts the US economy. The US goverment has to pay out just to service that debt and that reduces its ability to spend elsewhere. Normally it is not a problem when your economy grows but there is a global slowdown in trade and so the goverment gets less money in. This deficit also increases inflation and of course there is the problem that it increases the economies that you owe the debt too. In this case the single biggest holder of US goverment bonds is China.
An economy is a balance of taxes, spending and growth. The US economy is skewed and weak at the moment.

How many people take out mortgages to buy homes? They are in Debt, they must pay it off right away!

The US Government is probably paying less interest on its debt than you are paying on your home. United States savings bonds are probably the safest investments around. US Debt is one of the levers the Fed uses to control the money supply, without US Debt, there'd be no Treasury bills for the Federal Reserve to buy, it would have to resort to picking companies and buying their debt

Our unemployment rate is 4.5%, how is it in Scotland? Raising taxes sure isn't going to accelerate growth, all that does is leave less money in private hands to invest. The economy is growing, if the government controls spending then that growth will eventually balance the budget all by itself. Part of the government's spending is servicing the debt, that means that with a balanced budget the debt will eventually be paid off.

A good analogy is the CEO of a company, if the companies profitability isn't so good, a democrat with a similar philosophy would take out his calculator and say, "heres our problem, we sell 'x' amount of goods and multiply it by 'y's price and the total amount of sales minus cost is our revenue and its not high enough to generate enough revenue, so the solution is simple, we just raise our prices through the roof and we'll have plenty of profits. Say for example the product was 20 oz bottles of Coca Cola and they were being sold at 20 million bottles times $1.25 per bottle, all we have to do then is raise our price to $12.50 per bottle and multiply that by 20 million bottles sold and we'd tremendously increase the companie's revenue!" And of course the entire board being of like minded persuation all stand up and give the CEO a cheer for saving the company.

Then some smart Alec guy with glasses raises his hand, "Ah sir, how do we know the public is still going to buy 20 million bottles at that new price that you propose?"

The board, being of liberal pursuasion, simply tries to shout down the guy with glasses for spoiling their day, they'd rather live in their fantasy world where they can set their company's product price to whatever they want.

Likewise the Democrats can just assume that the US economy will star the same no matter to what level they raise their marginal taxes. If before it was 35% and they raise it to 70%, they just assume that they'll double their revenue because 70% is twice 35% it is simple math as far as they are concerned. Of course corporate investments go way down if their profits are taxed at 70% instead of 35%. New plants aren't build, and new technology isn't invested in, while countries like Japan and China soar way ahead of us. If we are going to use European Economic policy as our inspiration, then our economy will end up slow and moribound just like theirs. Meanwhile Japan's economy and China's has low tax rates and they aren't raising them. I took a degree in economics so I know what I'm talking about. The US government isn't a monopoly, and corporations do have a choice as to whether to pay its US taxes, in the long run they would simply move their operations overseas. Few people are going to want to invest in the US and pay its taxes if it just arbitrarily raises them to balance the budget as you propose.

All you are looking for is an argument against Bush and your goal is simply to replace him in 2008, it doesn't matter whether your economic solutions actually works in the real world economy. A corporation can either raise its prices or cut its expenses, cutting expenses usually workes better in boosting profitability than raising prices due to competition. The United States has compeditors too you know, and the tax rate is the price of goverment, so don't be so naive in assuming that all the rich people have no choice in paying whatever tax rate the Congress decides, because they do, they can vote with their feet and move to another country that doesn't tax them as much.

dicktice · 2007-03-10 12:44:34

By squandering our budget surplus, scarce resources, and irredeemable lost time on the war in Iraq, I wonder if Bush hasn't inadvertantly caused a foreign manned space coalition to spring up in our own backyard? This just out:

"The first Soyuz launch from the Guiana Space Center is slated for November 2008. Arianespace has already signed several launch contracts for Soyuz, which will round out the company’s family of launchers, alongside Ariane 5 and Vega."

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 14:11:12

By squandering our budget surplus, scarce resources, and irredeemable lost time on the war in Iraq, I wonder if Bush hasn't inadvertantly caused a foreign manned space coalition to spring up in our own backyard? This just out:
"The first Soyuz launch from the Guiana Space Center is slated for November 2008. Arianespace has already signed several launch contracts for Soyuz, which will round out the company’s family of launchers, alongside Ariane 5 and Vega."

Tell me Dicktice, what was the Mars Society doing during the Clinton Administration?

It was trying to get people interested in Mars Exploration. In fact one of Clintons Early acts was to cancel George Bush's Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) in favor of the Space Station. Bill Clinto also wasted money on the VentureStar, didn't do a heck of alot in advancing the goal of a return to the moon or Manned exploration of Mars. If you ask me, I'd say George W. Bush did alot more in advancing the Mars Society's agenda than any other President did, it is unfortunate that so many people here want to attack their benefactor in pursuing their interests in Mars. I'm sorry that no mainstream liberal president has been as big a Mars fan as George W. Bush, but that's just the way things are. Take it or leave it.

Remember the Aries Launcher that was first discussed in Bob Zubrin's The Case for Mars? Well, thanks to George Bush, its becoming a reality. I don't think any other President since Nixon has changed the direction of the Space Program as significantly, other presidents simply relied on inertia, continued flying the Space Shuttle and did little else.

As for other accomplishments, the Bush Administration killed more terrorists than the terrorists killed Americans, they infact killed more terrorists than any other administration. In fact the Bush Administration is the first Presidency to actually bring the fight to the terrorists, which is more than can be said for the tokein bombing runs in response to airplane hikjackings during the Reagan, 1st Bush and Clinton Administrations.

George W. Bush actually started deploying parts of the missile shield, which is more than any other administration can say. There are of course the elections in Iraq, the fall of Saddam Hussein, things that are not insignificant, and would not have been accomplished under any other president.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 14:15:20

I blush to admit, I didn't know that. What else, I wonder?
Well we used to have a HUGE surplus (which could have kept 3 generations of Americans comfortably retired/Social Security healthy)...now we're zillions of dollars in debt.
But what do Bush and his cronies care? They're gazillionaires with utmost financial security. Guess the rest of us can eat cake or whatever.

FDR ran up higher Debts during his administration, it was this massive deficit spending during World War II which brought us out of the Great Depression.

Do you know what Herbert Hoover did during the Stock Market Crash and the beginnings of the Great Depression? He tried to balance the budget, that's what.

Grypd · 2007-03-10 15:03:41

The US Government is probably paying less interest on its debt than you are paying on your home. United States savings bonds are probably the safest investments around. US Debt is one of the levers the Fed uses to control the money supply, without US Debt, there'd be no Treasury bills for the Federal Reserve to buy, it would have to resort to picking companies and buying their debt

Intrest rates do not matter for much if the debt increases at about 2 billion each day and you are unable under the present fiscal structure to pay it off or worse stop the debt increasing. And in a mortgage the bank holds your house deeds does this mean that China as a major holder of US bonds can sell that country.

Our unemployment rate is 4.5%, how is it in Scotland? Raising taxes sure isn't going to accelerate growth, all that does is leave less money in private hands to invest. The economy is growing, if the government controls spending then that growth will eventually balance the budget all by itself. Part of the government's spending is servicing the debt, that means that with a balanced budget the debt will eventually be paid off.

Our unemployment rate is about the same but is reducing. Our economy is growing as well at a greater rate than the USA's. But it really is not possible to compare economies the USA is drastically a lot larger and we could be equated to a state rather than the whole USA. The problem is that part of the goverments finances are to service the debt but there is not enough money there to stop the debt increasing so though it slows its increase the increase still happens so more debt is accrued.

A good analogy is the CEO of a company, if the companies profitability isn't so good, a democrat with a similar philosophy would take out his calculator and say, "heres our problem, we sell 'x' amount of goods and multiply it by 'y's price and the total amount of sales minus cost is our revenue and its not high enough to generate enough revenue, so the solution is simple, we just raise our prices through the roof and we'll have plenty of profits. Say for example the product was 20 oz bottles of Coca Cola and they were being sold at 20 million bottles times $1.25 per bottle, all we have to do then is raise our price to $12.50 per bottle and multiply that by 20 million bottles sold and we'd tremendously increase the companie's revenue!" And of course the entire board being of like minded persuation all stand up and give the CEO a cheer for saving the company.
Then some smart Alec guy with glasses raises his hand, "Ah sir, how do we know the public is still going to buy 20 million bottles at that new price that you propose?"
The board, being of liberal pursuasion, simply tries to shout down the guy with glasses for spoiling their day, they'd rather live in their fantasy world where they can set their company's product price to whatever they want.

In buisness this is correct but goverments have different products all together. They are in short the equivalent of not for profit organisations. They have to provide core services but the non core and unfortunatly space flight is amongst that can and will be reduced to make the budget meet. My fear is that whoever takes over from Bush will introduce major spending cuts as the USA still has major wars to fight and men fighting for there lives are rightly going to have a higher priority than that of a new space launch system.

Likewise the Democrats can just assume that the US economy will star the same no matter to what level they raise their marginal taxes. If before it was 35% and they raise it to 70%, they just assume that they'll double their revenue because 70% is twice 35% it is simple math as far as they are concerned. Of course corporate investments go way down if their profits are taxed at 70% instead of 35%. New plants aren't build, and new technology isn't invested in, while countries like Japan and China soar way ahead of us. If we are going to use European Economic policy as our inspiration, then our economy will end up slow and moribound just like theirs. Meanwhile Japan's economy and China's has low tax rates and they aren't raising them. I took a degree in economics so I know what I'm talking about. The US government isn't a monopoly, and corporations do have a choice as to whether to pay its US taxes, in the long run they would simply move their operations overseas. Few people are going to want to invest in the US and pay its taxes if it just arbitrarily raises them to balance the budget as you propose.
All you are looking for is an argument against Bush and your goal is simply to replace him in 2008, it doesn't matter whether your economic solutions actually works in the real world economy. A corporation can either raise its prices or cut its expenses, cutting expenses usually workes better in boosting profitability than raising prices due to competition. The United States has compeditors too you know, and the tax rate is the price of goverment, so don't be so naive in assuming that all the rich people have no choice in paying whatever tax rate the Congress decides, because they do, they can vote with their feet and move to another country that doesn't tax them as much.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can control the worlds economy and the situation is that the dollar is weaker so though it is great for exports the problem is that purchasing fuel and materials needed to make those exports is a lot more expensive. And one of the major costs is wages and with fuel costs rising so do wage bills. This hurts peoples jobs as buisness has to cut to keep itself afloat and so more demands are placed on goverment. The dollar is weak because the US appears financially weak.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 16:47:22

The Words weak and Strong are loaded words. During the Great Depression the US had a strong dollar for instance. All a person had to do to increase his wealth was to stuff his matress full of currency notes, for he didn't trust banks, if he just kept his dollars in his mattress and nobody stole them, the value of his money would increase over time. The dollar was very very strong in those days, but that was small consolation to those people who couldn't find a job. The important thing is the growth in the economy, the dollar could be weak compared to other countries, but if those other countries have 12% unemployment and the US has 4.5% unemployment, no one here would want that stronger currency. The size of the debt relative to the overall economy is what matters. It is perfectly fine to let the demt grow if the economy is growing faster. The objective should be to keep the growth of the economy ahead of the growth in debt most of the time. During slow times the debt can be allowed to grow faster for a time, just so long as during the prosperous times the economy later catches up. The strategy should be to promote growth and do everything possible to maximize growth. If you slow growth by raising taxes to reduce the deficit, that is self-defeating. the economy grew slowly from 1976 to 1980 for example, when the US had high marginal tax rates.

When the government gets its hands on most of your profits, you don't get to reinvest those profits into expanding your business, the government spends it instead on burocracies and pork-barrel projects, most of that spending does not generate a return that expands the economy.

Grypd · 2007-03-10 18:26:21

The problem is that the US economy is suffering due to the weakness of the dollar and the high fiscal debt. That is why the economies growth has gone from 4.3% to 3.1% and now its a 2.2%. All that is happening with such a fiscal debt is that the US economy is slowing and at a high rate.

Weak and Strong are very loaded words but they have to have evidence and at the moment unfortunatly for me as a space advocate the US economy is weak. The US economy has to support other things than space flight and priorities have to be met. Iraq and Afghanistan are rightly priorities and so the money has to come from elsewhere. Vietnam did the same for the apollo programme so the Orion programme will get burned.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-11 08:27:45

The problem is that the US economy is suffering due to the weakness of the dollar and the high fiscal debt. That is why the economies growth has gone from 4.3% to 3.1% and now its a 2.2%. All that is happening with such a fiscal debt is that the US economy is slowing and at a high rate.
Weak and Strong are very loaded words but they have to have evidence and at the moment unfortunatly for me as a space advocate the US economy is weak. The US economy has to support other things than space flight and priorities have to be met. Iraq and Afghanistan are rightly priorities and so the money has to come from elsewhere. Vietnam did the same for the apollo programme so the Orion programme will get burned.

Seems obvious doesn't it?

The money will come from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact if we win the war in Iraq, Iraq will be better able to pay since it has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the Middle East, but Iraq will only be able to pay if we win the war there and don't cut and run.

If we cut and run, we'll be left holding the bill, since the insurgents we left there will be messing thing up for Iraq and preventing the flow of oil. If we want to be paid back for the Iraq War effort, we have to put Iraq back up on its feet so it can pay us. Isn't that obvious, or is there some flaw with that logic?

Obviously we need some change in tactic, and George Bush is trying, but the only tactic the Democrats will consider is cut and run, and that will leave us holding the bill and Iraq incapable of paying it.

As I recall the height of the Apollo program coincided with the height of the Veitnam War in 1968. We didn't cancel Apollo to pay for the costs of the Veitnam War, we we're pulling out of Vietnam anyway, so there was no war to pay for. What really cost America were thos high tax neoliberal policies that the Democrats imposed on this country after Nixon and through to the end of the Carter Administration. Ford was a lame duck since he became President, so he doesn't count, we had the Imperial Congress that was running the Vietnam War defeat, as Congresses are incapable of leading an Army to victory. Everytime Congress tries to make itself Commander-in-chief, we lose, and it is trying to again. If you like to live in a crumbling Empire, then accept Congresses leadership in place of our President's.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-03-11 12:51:39

FDR ran up higher Debts during his administration, it was this massive deficit spending during World War II which brought us out of the Great Depression.

How disgusting of you to try and compare George Junior with FDR. The American President FDR was a great leader who showed great leadership as you USA was faced with the treat of annihilation and extinction from Hitler and his fascists and the Japanese brutality, German U-boats were destroying hundred of US ships along the Atlantic Coast and in the US Caribbean, Singapore was battered, Pearl Harbor was a bloodbath, American forces in the Philippines were destroyed...and even in the face of such horror FDR showed great bravery and helped the US win. Yet you Tom have the nerve to compare a son of a Bush like Jnr who can't even dig up one WMD in Iraq, to a great leader like Roosevelt who had to fight an entire world war. You are such a Bush licker Tom, that it's disgusting.

dicktice · 2007-03-11 18:10:39

Yeah, Tom, and that goes for Harry Truman too. He saved me and a million others on both sides from mutual anilhilation by having the A-bombs dropped in August, 1945, because although we didn't know it we were training to invade Japan in October. As it was, we just walked ashore nice as you please October 31st, a month after the surrender, as guests of the Emperor. Comparing GWB to either of those two presidents shows a lamentable ignorance and lack of imagination on your part. Besides, I was a Depression kid, and you don't know what you're talking about regarding that either.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-03-06 18:29:13

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#2 2007-03-07 08:08:07

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#3 2007-03-07 09:22:25

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#4 2007-03-07 09:47:40

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#5 2007-03-08 17:43:58

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#6 2007-03-09 08:47:40

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#7 2007-03-09 10:44:41

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#8 2007-03-09 13:04:32

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#9 2007-03-09 13:29:06

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#10 2007-03-09 21:39:20

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#11 2007-03-10 05:05:30

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#12 2007-03-10 05:10:55

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#13 2007-03-10 05:13:14

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#14 2007-03-10 05:21:10

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#15 2007-03-10 05:49:25

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#16 2007-03-10 10:11:28

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#17 2007-03-10 12:44:34

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#18 2007-03-10 14:11:12

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#19 2007-03-10 14:15:20

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#20 2007-03-10 15:03:41

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#21 2007-03-10 16:47:22

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#22 2007-03-10 18:26:21

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#23 2007-03-11 08:27:45

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#24 2007-03-11 12:51:39

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

#25 2007-03-11 18:10:39

Re: Good or bad what has Bush done for America

Board footer