<p>Compared to ALLL the awful things Bush has done, get a little nooky ranks pretty low on the scale, in the grand scheme of things</p>
<p>It was stupid and reckless sure, but what Bush has done is so much worse, it pales in comparison</p>
<p>Whats wrong with being in debt? Are u hurt by US being in debt? Do u know anyone has has been hurt or ripped off because of it? No. There always will be debt and it always will continue to grow as the general price levels continue to grow.</p>
<p>The UE rate for the Bush era has been 4-5.5%, much lower than the Clinton era. (right now UE rate stands at 4.7%, a very good number).</p>
<p>If you really think that adultary is worse than the death of tens of thousands, the deficit our kids will be left with, people deciding between gas or food or medicine, people getting laid off, lying to us about the what he is doing, not following the constitution, and so much more, guess I am a bit more worldly then some</p>
<p>Guess it would have been better if he divorced like so many nice conservative republicans have</p>
<p>“worse than the death of tens of thousands”</p>
<p>Are u talking about the Iraq war? Cause then u forgot about the millions of people that Saddam killed, and the millions that were freed from his rule.</p>
<p>“the deficit our kids will be left with”</p>
<p>You were left with a deficit right? Now how has that affected u? It hasnt.</p>
<p>“people deciding between gas or food or medicine”</p>
<p>You think its Bush who says “today Im gonna increase gas prices.” Give me a break.</p>
<p>“people getting laid off,”</p>
<p>Read my above post. 4.7% UE rate. LOW.</p>
<p>“Guess it would have been better if he divorced like so many nice conservative republicans have” </p>
<p>And yes, divorce is better than deceiving ur spouse to go have sex with someone else.</p>
<p>It amazes me that a little sex scares people so</p>
<p>Why are u so caught up on this sex thing? Do u not know how to read the other stuff or are u just too hard headed?</p>
<p>Cause it was the first thing YOU posted, and it seemed so imporant to you, and after reading some of your other posts, it isn’t worth my time</p>
<p>Well at least he’s trying to do something about our border with Mexico.</p>
<p>Actually trip Clinton inherited an UE rate of 7.4% from Bush’s Dad and it decreased steadily over the next eight years to 4.0%. After W took over it increased to 5.0% right before 9-11 and increased afterwards to 6.3% in mid-2003. Since then it has decreased to 4.7%. Until recently, the lownumber of new jobs created has been generally considered disappointing.</p>
<p>Also, no one approves of adultery, but you would have to put a lot of black marks in your history book if that was a deciding factor in judging the worthiness of notable figures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He said that troops will be building fences and roads. Aren’t there construction companied that do that?</p>
<p>“After W took over it increased to 5.0% right before 9-11 and increased afterwards to 6.3% in mid-2003.”</p>
<p>Well that wasnt because Bush did or didnt do anything.</p>
<p>“Also, no one approves of adultery, but you would have to put a lot of black marks in your history book if that was a deciding factor in judging the worthiness of notable figures.”</p>
<p>Does that make it any more right? I dont think so.</p>
<p>“He said that troops will be building fences and roads. Aren’t there construction companied that do that?”</p>
<p>Are there construction companies that can build roads and fences and also arrest and detain illegals? No.</p>
<p>He specifically said that the troops will NOT be involved in law enforcement activities. Besides, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 specifically forbids the use of troops on US soil for police activities.</p>
<p>Exact quote from the Prez’s speech:
</p>
<p>Ok so what, whats wrong with having them build a few roads?</p>
<p>The point being that the range of unemployment rates during Bush admninstration was somewhat higher than you said. Not much of that was really his fault, but job creation is certainly not a high pont of his presidency. Things are certainly better than at any time during the Bush adminstration, except for his first couple of months in office. </p>
<p>But you’re the one who quoted the employment statistics and since that is the criteria you chose, I decided to set the record straight.</p>
<p>My numbers are the average range of the UE rate under the Bush administration. At some points in time, the numbers were below 4.0 and some times it was above. So ya, u didnt set anything straight.</p>
<p>"“Also, no one approves of adultery, but you would have to put a lot of black marks in your history book if that was a deciding factor in judging the worthiness of notable figures.”</p>
<p>Does that make it any more right? I dont think so."</p>
<p>Save it for Rudy. ;)</p>
<p><a href=“http://public.cq.com/public/20060515_homeland_15nationalguard.html[/url]”>http://public.cq.com/public/20060515_homeland_15nationalguard.html</a></p>
<p>…Why dont you put the National Guard on the border to back up the border patrol and stop the bleeding, and then start to increase the Border Patrol, the high-tech and all of that? OReilly asked.
Well, the National Guard is really, first of all, not trained for that mission, Chertoff told OReilly. I mean, the fact of the matter is the border is a special place. There are special challenges that are faced there.</p>
<p>Chertoff added that that it would take a huge amount of National Guard troops, that they would need new training. But couldnt the National Guard pull it off, OReilly asked?</p>
<p>I think it would be a horribly over-expensive and very difficult way to manage this problem, Chertoff said. Unless you would be prepared to leave those people in the National Guard day and night for month after month after month, you would eventually have to come to grips with the challenge in a more comprehensive way.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050303-123638-7500r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050303-123638-7500r.htm</a></p>
<p>not a fan of the WT, but this article is telling</p>
<p>and this</p>
<p>An intelligence overhaul that Congress passed in late 2004 recommended adding 2,000 more agents a year over five years, to boost the Border Patrol to about 20,000 agents.</p>
<p>Since then, however, Congress has funded only 1,500 additional agents.</p>
<p>Democrats have been asking for better border security for years</p>
<p>It has never been less than the current 4.7% except for the first few months of this first term.</p>
<p>US Nonfarm employment gain (a.k.a., job creation) under the following (in millions):</p>
<p>Reagan 91.0-107.1 +16.1 million, or about 2 million a year
Bush I 107.1 -109.2 +2.1 million, or about 525 thou a year
Clinton 109.2-132.5 + 23.3 million, or about 2.9 million a year
Bush II 132.5-135.0 +2.5 million, a little less than his dad on an annual basis (450k per).</p>
<p>PS I think I said in an earlier post it has picked up lately. In the last 2.5 years, about 5 million jobs have been created for an annual average of 2.0 million still not as good as Clinton and Reagan in percentage terms or when factoring in population growth.</p>