legacycentral bbs

Looks like Bush is trying to cut a federal grant for local police agencies from $600 million to 60 mil. Two guesses where they're going to be looking for their money. And of course the environment and programs for the poor ...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html

Steve

I really dislike our current president.

Ughh, typical republican bs. Cut taxes, cut programs, increase defense spending, start a war and go broke trying to fund it...ridiculous. Is it coincidence that everytime we have a republican president we seem to wind up in some damn war.

I think not. I want a third party - the pragmatists party. Or maybe the Evolution Movement, but that would require a complete change of the constitution.

I'm really surprised the NEA didn't get slaughtered though - that's usually a Republican personal hatred though they only spend about the same as a few missiles on it. Maybe last years budget was so bleak they didn't have to cut it anymore

Steve

revolution is coming.

Is that some kind of Matrix joke?

The One

no. it's a prediction

creel wrote: Is it coincidence that everytime we have a republican president we seem to wind up in some damn war.

Hahaha, funny but actually almost every single military conflict we took part in in the 20th Century was initiated by a Democratic President.

WW I, President Wilson- D

WW II, President Roosevelt- D

Korean War, President Truman- D

Vietnam War, President Kennedy- D

Gulf War, President Bush- R

Kosavo/Bosnia, President Clinton- D

Oh and the only leader to ever drop a nuclear weapon on human beings was Truman, a Democrat.

See what I mean?

Didn't we ENTER most of those wars, not start them?

I think everyone should just vote for me, next time around.

wheather or not we started them wasn't really the issue. At least that's not what was quoted. The above presidents initiated our involvement. Wheather we were attacked or came to the aid of others it was still a course of action that was decided apon by said presidents.

kennedy didnt go to vietnam it was the guy after him. kennedy spent all his time avoiding war.

Well, reguardless, vote for me.

azn2nr wrote:kennedy didnt go to vietnam it was the guy after him. kennedy spent all his time avoiding war.

Umm, actually Kennedy initiated our involvement in the Vietnam conflict in '61. Johnson (another Dem.) mearly escalated the war in '64 to directly involve US troops in combat rolls instead of just as military advisors.

Either way, it was still a Democrat.

Well actually, Vietnam was a "conflict," not a war, so it really doesn't matter.

But if we want to put the blame on SOMEBODY for that, I would say it was LBJ who really got us involved.

-James

Well literally it was called a "police action" but that's a bunch of bullshit and we all know it. History remembers it as the "Vietnam War".

I agree that Johnson was responsible for the escalation but he felt trapped by the policies set forth by the Kennedy brothers. IIRC LBJ was actually against sending the advisors in the first place back in '61 but the Kennedy's pushed it and he was left holding the bag after JFK was assasinated.

Like I said and what is really my point though, either way it was a Democrat that took the US to war in Vietnam.

legacy92ej22t wrote: IIRC LBJ was actually against sending the advisors in the first place back in '61 but the Kennedy's pushed it and he was left holding the bag after JFK was assasinated.

Fair enough, I guess I'll agree with you there.


There's no denying that this current war was initiated by a Republican though.

I honestly don't feel like arguing though, so I'll just say that I don't like Bush, and that's just my 2 cents, so go ahead and disagree.

-James

Oh, I'm not saying I'm pro Bush or anti Bush. That's not what my comments are about. I'm just stating facts about previous conflicts in response to my buddy Scotts (creel) statement.

And yes the Republicans definitely initiated our involvement in the current conflicts.

Haha, alright. I'm with ya then

-James

i'm missing something. Bush said that the reallocation of funds were to improve security. So why cut law enforcement at the local level? That just means the local governments will have to look bad when they raise taxes at the local level to meet the deficits, but isn't law enforcement at every level supposed to be a part of the 'homeland security'" scheme?

Bush knows that most of these cuts won't go through...he proposes them, so that later he can say he "tried" to hold the line, and Congress wouldn't let him.

I think that every spending proposal should state clearly, what it will cost YOU personally. If the evening news said the war in Iraq is going to cost the family of four an average of $2,000 right out of their pockets, more than a few people would be choking on their dinners. Eyes gloss over when billions are talked about.

Worst. President. Ever.

You know, Professor, that's an interesting idea. I think more people would react better to that than just calling it 'billions in cuts/deficits/etc..' If people were to know ahead of time what that cost would be to them (hard to figure out, though, due to tax issues, etc.) they'd be more likely to think for themselves and not vote R.