We can't be LESS safe than we were ! We were the LEAST safe under Bush ! When America was attacked.
Under Bush, 3000 Americans were killed, and 2 of our finest buildings were destroyed.
methuserlaw, 9/11 occurred hardly 8 months after bush took office. are you really going to blame him for not changing conditions that existed for the 8 years prior to his taking office?
i won't even go into the matter of what's changed (better or worse) over the last 5.
"The truth, however, is that Soviet bloc imploded because of economic strain. ""
ok, i'll go with that, but how much of that "economic strain" was the result of the russians trying to match reagan's defence & military moves?
" According to the Times, economists say that the law has also benefitted from a weak economy over the last half-decade, during which time health spending has slowed dramatically."
now there's a softball if i ever saw one!!!
Today Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Pope Francis at the Vatican. According to the DPA news agency, Netanyahu brought with him a slightly unusual gift: A book about the Spanish inquisition.
The leader of the world's only Jewish state giving the leader of the Catholic Church a book that largely revolves about Spanish Catholics questioning, torturing, and punishing Jewish converts to Catholicism is certainly noteworthy. The Spanish inquisition is widely held up as one of the worst excesses of the Roman Catholic Church, and thousands of people were expelled from Spain or burned at the stake. Worse still, the inquisition of Catholic converts (and the use of torture to discover heretics) was first legally sanctioned by Pope Innocent IV.
So, Netanyahu's gift may seem passive aggressive (or maybe just aggressive), and perhaps it is. But it is important to think of the context of the book, which is written by Netanyahu's father Ben-Zion Netanyahu, a well-regarded historian who worked at both Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Cornell University.
The elder Netanyahu's impact on his politician son is well-known within Israeli circles. In 1998, David Remnick of the New Yorker wrote that while Ben-Zion Netanyahu's opinions frequently differed from his son, the pessimism of his right wing worldview influenced his son's hawkish policies. “His dilemma is always to what degree he can, or should, remain true to the ideals, the stubbornness, of his father," Remnick observed.
The book given to the pope, titled "The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth-Century Spain," is considered Netanyahu's most important work, and it reflects that deep pessimism. The book argues that, contrary to the widely held view that the Jewish converts persecuted by the Catholic church were secretly practicing Judaism, they were in fact devout Catholics who had forsaken their religious heritage. As such, the book argues, the persecution of the Jews was not truly based on religious grounds, but on a racial prejudice and financial envy that would be echoed years later in the Holocaust.
As Ben-Zion Netanyahu died just last year at the age of 102, it seems likely that Netanyahu meant the gift to be a personal touch. Given the reported inscription ("To His Holiness Pope Francis, great guardian of our common heritage") and the other reported gift — a carved panel of Saint Paul, an apostle who holds a special place in the relationship between the two religions — it seems also to highlight the inescapable link between Judaism and Catholicism, for better or worse.
compares yahoo's rise in stock price compared to obama's drop in public confidence.
i'll be obama would love to trade places with yahoo.
(and, to be fair, so would congress)
your msg requires nothing more in response but a repeat of what i said in the msg you responded to:
"you're in dire need of either a visit to your eye doctor, a witch doctor or a reading comprehension counselor . one of them might cure you of your habit of seeing things that aren't there."
my next msg to you will be in response to something you have to say about etfc. (if that should ever happen)
you are the stupid one. You apologize for doctor created scarcity
i apologize for what??
you, "sir", are not only stupid, you're in dire need of either a visit to your eye doctor, a witch doctor or a reading comprehension counselor . one of them might cure you of your habit of seeing things that aren't there.
"my doc is my employee and if doesn't like what I pay him, I will find another."
when's the last time you did that?
if you haven't done it by this time, then you sound like a satisfied customer!!!!
this is my last one on reagan and budgets. (i never said a word about whether he had submitted budget "proposals")
the link i provided showing the last 70 budget history of the usa showed these numbers for ronald regean's 8 years.
1981 $79 Billion Deficit $203.08 Billion Deficit R R D
1982 $128 Billion Deficit $309.93 Billion Deficit R R D
1983 $207.8 Billion Deficit $487.79 Billion Deficit R R D
1984 $185.4 Billion Deficit $417.57 Billion Deficit R R D
1985 $212.3 Billion Deficit $461.52 Billion Deficit R R D
1986 $221.2 Billion Deficit $471.64 Billion Deficit R R D
1987 $149.7 Billion Deficit $308.02 Billion Deficit R D D
1988 $155.2 Billion Deficit $306.72 Billion Deficit R D D
1989 $152.5 Billion Deficit $287.74 Billion Deficit R D D
in order, the last 3 columns show party of (1) the prez, (2) the senate and (3) the house.
notice that during his term of 8 years, reagan NEVER had the house controlled by the republicans and in the last 3 years both the house & the senate were controlled by dems.
The Budget of the United States Government often begins as the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. However, Congress is the body required by law to pass a budget annually and to submit the budget passed by both houses to the President for signature.
so rather than accuse reagan of creating deficits, perhaps some people should consider the thought that reagan compromised with both sides in order to get budgets passed during difficult times (something called the cold war.
i may have posted this earlier:
do a search on "dave manuel History of Surpluses and Deficits"
here's a short summary of that link (make of it what you will)
it covers the past 70+ years. of those 70, the rep had control of both houses only 12 years.
during those 12 years, the country had deficits 7 times, surpluses 5 times
the dems had control of both houses 42 times and the country had 39 deficits, surpluses 3 times
the 18 times the houses were split, there was only 1 surplus and that was in 2001.
i'll let someone else analyze it by presidents, etc.
the FACT that you're referring to is this:
"The FACT remains that Fox is fast losing it's demographic. Old, angry white bigots like yourself.
And Fox's prime time viewership is just 348,000 people."
in the article (that you chose NOT to post in its entirety) the exact words were:
Fox News dominated the ratings chart once again this month, coming out on top for both primetime and total day for the 143rd consecutive month. The network saw 2,011,000 total viewers and 348,000 key demo viewers during primetime. Those numbers however are down 21 percent and 41 percent respectively from November 2012.
Not surprisingly, all three networks saw significantly lower numbers as compared to this time last year, when the 2012 presidential election dominated the news cycle.
do you see that?? fox news DOMINATED in nov with 2,011,000 TOTAL viewers!! do you know the difference between TOTAL viewers and "key demo viewers"?
did you notice that the numbers were being compared to november of 2012 (2000 and TWELVE), an election year?
last, but not least these words: "coming out on top for both primetime and total day for the 143rd consecutive month."
143 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS!!!!! do you know how many years that is?
are your math capabilities as lacking as your reading capabilities? let me give you a clue:
when december ends it will be 12 consecutive YEARS!!!!!!!!
last and final point: as for your description of me. i'll leave the name-calling to you. you're the one needs that tactic, not me.
"So what does the full article prove ?"
prez, what has been proven is that you're in dire need of reading comprension lessons!!!!
"And remember, this is a six-month preliminary agreement, with all eyes focused on what comes at the end of six months. If it doesn't work, or if Iran cheats, stronger sanctions will be implemented and the deal will be off. Isn't a preliminary deal worth a try? "
suppose (all i'm saying is "suppose"), that in that six-month period agree to in the preliminary agreement, that iran was able to finalize their enrichment or even their bomb objectives. do you think they would then really care about what they agreed to in this current agreement or about future sanctions?
isn't there a possibilty that what they could accomplish in the next 6 months might be so beneficial to them that they could then "negotitate" for even more sanction releases?