# Rage on the Right



## rayboyusmc (Nov 18, 2008)

What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?



> CNN anchor Campbell Brown introduced a segment on Thursdays Election Center program by contrasting the "[p]eople all over the world dancing in the streets" over the election of Barack Obama to the "really, really angry" reaction of conservatives, which she then labeled "right-wing rage." A graphic with the same label flashed on-screen, accompanied by a picture of Obama smiling.
> 
> During the segment, which aired just after the bottom-half of the 8 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program, CNN correspondent Joe Johns played an audio clip of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh as an example of such "rage." Limbaugh, who reacting to the appointment of liberal Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel as Obamas White House Chief of Staff, called Emanuel a "good old-fashioned Chicago thug, just like Obama is a good old-fashioned Chicago thug," and gave an anecdote about how Emanuel used a steak knife to demonstrate his own anger towards Bill Clintons enemies after the 1992 election. Johns reply after the clip: "So if you were thinking the country is now unified, think again. There are still deep divisions."



This from a man who makes his money selling hate of other Americans.

CNNâs Campbell Brown: âRight-Wing Rageâ at Obama Victory | NewsBusters.org


----------



## GigiBowman (Nov 18, 2008)

Try Rage against the Machine 

Guerilla Radio 

Transmission third world was third round
A decade of the weapon of sound above ground
Ain't no shelter if you're looking for shade
I lick shots at the brutal charade
As tha polls close like a casket
On truth devoured
A silent play on the shadow for power
A spectacle monopolized
The camera's eye on choice disguised
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
A spectacle Monopolized
They hold the reins and stole your eyes
The fistagons bullets and bombs
Who stuff the banks
Who staff the party ranks
More for Gore or the son of a drug lord
None on the above fuck it cut the cord

Lights out guerilla radio
Turn that shit up
[REPEAT]

Contact I highjacked the frequencies
Blockin' the beltway
Move on DC
Way past the days on bombin' mc's
Sound off Mumia guan be free
Who gottem yo check the federal file
All you pendejos know the trial was vile
An army of pigs try to silence my style
Off em all out that box it's my radio dial

Lights out guerrilla radio
Turn that shit up
[REPEAT]

It has to start somewhere
It has to start sometime
What better place than here
What better time than now
All hell cant's stop us now


----------



## editec (Nov 18, 2008)

Rush get's paid to be pathologically enraged.

Nice work if you can get it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Boo Hoo Hoo, You poor liberals just can not convince the MILLIONS of Conservatives to forget the last 8 years of direct personal attacks on the Current President and Administration. All the cute attempts to portray it as anything but pay back are idiotic. They further prove the left runs the news rooms.

Remind us how for the last 8 years the dems have been all for Unity? How for the last 2 years the dems tried to work with Republicans in Congress? Boo Hoo Hoo.


----------



## eots (Nov 19, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so in a post - Obama world ..if you don't dance gayly in the streets in celebration of the leader.. you are now pathological..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

Yup we already knew what was gonna happen if McCain won. More of the same personal insults and attempts at revenge sprinkled with claims of theft and cheating. BUT hey no one, to my knowledge, has ever said the dems actually DO what they tell the rest of us to do. Do as I say not as I do is alive and well in Democratic play books.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 19, 2008)

Why don't we ALL learn that every single politician out there is a no good, lying, power hungry snake oil salesman that will say anything to get elected?

We continue to trust these people only to get screwed time after time.

It's not right or left it's ALL of them.

Politicians are simply not worthy of idol worship all they have earned is suspicion and that's all they deserve.


----------



## eots (Nov 19, 2008)

truly ...they will burn you out on the left in 4 to 8 yrs and when you realize its all a fraud.. they will offer you brand b .._new and improved_..as your hope....and you will fall for it...again..


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 19, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thus coming from one of the biggest BDS posters on this board

priceless


----------



## Silence (Nov 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Boo Hoo Hoo, You poor liberals just can not convince the MILLIONS of Conservatives to forget the last 8 years of direct personal attacks on the Current President and Administration. All the cute attempts to portray it as anything but pay back are idiotic. They further prove the left runs the news rooms.
> 
> Remind us how for the last 8 years the dems have been all for Unity? How for the last 2 years the dems tried to work with Republicans in Congress? Boo Hoo Hoo.



I find it hysterical that the right is so able to forget 1992-2000.  Talk about direct and personal attacks on a POTUS.  

Remind me again, is there an independent counsel spending 80 million dollars investigating Bush and his backroom deals?  No?  didn't think so.  

Reagan and Bush Sr got away with Iran Contra and other nefarious acts during their 12 years in office and the Dems pretty much looked the other way.  No impeachment, no charges filed, nothing.  Hearings were held and then it pretty much went away.  Hell, did Ollie North even do time?  

Clinton gets into office and everything under the sun about him is investigated.  The right spent 80 million tax payer dollars trying to bring down a very popular President.  They were basically attempting to undo the elections of 1992 and 1996.  

I could go on and name all the crap Bush did that makes him unpopular but I really only need to name one...KATRINA.  

Bush has done a shitty job as President and just because the left said so doesn't make it a personal attack.


----------



## Murf76 (Nov 19, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The problem with people like Campbell Brown... is that they think we're just having some kind of temper tantrum, that we're too stupid to understand what the _Progressives_ have in store for us.  

But here's the problem, the opposition that liberals are running into right now is NOT about 'bad manners' or "sour grapes".  It's about the fact that we recognize that there is little, if any, perceptible difference between the word "Progressive" and the word "Socialist".

They think we ought to just lay back, smile our approval, and play ball... while   they put away the USA and give us the USSA in it's place.

Fat chance.  And frankly, I'm not feeling all that bad about it.  Liberals can play the "moral equivalence" game all they like.  They're good at it.  But they miss the salient point when they do.  Because the Progressive (Socialist) agenda will NEVER receive our cooperation or support.


----------



## editec (Nov 19, 2008)

*



What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?

Click to expand...

* 
Fear.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> I find it hysterical that the right is so able to forget 1992-2000.  Talk about direct and personal attacks on a POTUS.
> 
> Remind me again, is there an independent counsel spending 80 million dollars investigating Bush and his backroom deals?  No?  didn't think so.
> 
> ...



So I can call Obama a small hairy animal with long arms and big ears? I can claim even though he has a good grade point average at a good school that he is stupid ignorant and brain dead? I can point out that his "change" sure looks like more of the same? I can remind you that he openly stated he plans to bankrupt 60 percent of our national electrical power source? With no replacement?

I can go on and on about how Biden is really Darth Vader and secretly in control of President Obama? I can point out how he say "uh" a hell of a lot and that sure makes him look stupid? And means he can not speak English? I can claim that even though he has his finances in blind trusts with absolutely no control of them and no knowledge if they are even the same as when he put them there, that he secretly supports Corn ethanol cause he invested so much in it personally?

I will also remind you that Reagan WAS investigated and they never found a shred of evidence against him. Even AFTER the Democratic Senate announced they were going to have an impartial hearing that would PROVE Reagan was guilty?

North had most if not all his convictions over turned. Seems when you give someone immunity, it really means you can not use that information against them later in Court.

As for Clinton, ya Hillary made 100k on a 1k investment in a short period of time with almost no work on her part but that was just shrewd investment and work ethic.

Clinton WAS and IS a crook. Once again, if you get to keep claiming that Libby proves Cheney was involved then I get to claim that Mrs McDougal proves the clinton's were guilty as sin.

I suggest you do a goggle on Clinton's security detail as Governor. You will find they all died in a rather short time frame after he left the Governor's mansion and under some rather interesting conditions.

An Independent Prosecutor was assigned to the Clinton Matter BY Janet Reno as I recall. Last I checked she was no Republican turn coat.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm betting nothing the left does or says will ever top being called traitors by the right, including some of the politicians on the right. Quit being a bunch of crybabies, Obama haters.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I'm betting nothing the left does or says will ever top being called traitors by the right, including some of the politicians on the right. Quit being a bunch of crybabies, Obama haters.



The only ones crying are you leftoids.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> I find it hysterical that the right is so able to forget 1992-2000.  Talk about direct and personal attacks on a POTUS.
> 
> Remind me again, is there an independent counsel spending 80 million dollars investigating Bush and his backroom deals?  No?  didn't think so.
> 
> ...






okay so *they* did it to Clinton, *you *did it to Bush, so now it's *our* turn to do it to Obama.  They do, you do, we all do.. So what's the problem?


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 19, 2008)

editec said:


> Fear.






Speaking for myself only,, Wrong!


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 19, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> okay so *they* did it to Clinton, *you *did it to Bush, so now it's *our* turn to do it to Obama.  They do, you do, we all do.. So what's the problem?




Still defending Bush?  

I thought you Cons spent the last six months distancing your self from Bush, claiming you didn't like him, and claiming you were never his supporters?

Why the "sudden" urge to jump to the defense of Bush?  Are you still emotionally attached to the man who destroyed your party?


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 19, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> Still defending Bush?
> 
> I thought you Cons spent the last six months distancing your self from Bush, claiming you didn't like him, and claiming you were never his supporters?
> 
> Why the "sudden" urge to jump to the defense of Bush?  Are you still emotionally attached to the man who destroyed your party?


----------



## del (Nov 19, 2008)

> Originally Posted by WillowTree
> okay so they did it to Clinton, you did it to Bush, so now it's our turn to do it to Obama. They do, you do, we all do.. So what's the problem?





Red Dawn said:


> Still defending Bush?
> 
> I thought you Cons spent the last six months distancing your self from Bush, claiming you didn't like him, and claiming you were never his supporters?
> 
> Why the "sudden" urge to jump to the defense of Bush?  Are you still emotionally attached to the man who destroyed your party?



not seeing any defense of bush there, am i missing something?


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 19, 2008)

del said:


> not seeing any defense of bush there, am i missing something?



So, you have to be mean to Obama, because Democrats were right about Bush?   He was a horrible president, a mental midget, and an incompetent boob?  

Why would you feel compelled to seek "revenge" for the man that destroyed your party?  I thought nearly everyone except the 22% dead enders hated bush?  Your party could barely mention his name during the campaign, and all your political candiates refused to be seen in public with him.

Based on that behaviour, nearly everyone agrees Bush was a disaster.  Liberals were right about him.  

So, why the sudden urge to seek revenge on behalf of Bush?   He destroyed your party, I sure as hell would be pissed at him as a repubican.   That's what Willow is saying.


----------



## editec (Nov 19, 2008)

Hating liberals for being right is an American value, too, ya know?

Sadly, the fact is that at the top of the heap, those terms are completely meaningless, which is something that I thought most of us would understand given the bail out.

Apparently, old habits like thinking the political game is really all about libs V cons is a hard one to break.

The problem is that down here in the trenches where most of us live those social issues really do matter.


----------



## del (Nov 19, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> So, you have to be mean to Obama, because Democrats were right about Bush?   He was a horrible president, a mental midget, and an incompetent boob?
> 
> Why would you feel compelled to seek "revenge" for the man that destroyed your party?  I thought nearly everyone except the 22% dead enders hated bush?  Your party could barely mention his name during the campaign, and all your political candiates refused to be seen in public with him.
> 
> ...



let's start with it's not my party and work from there, shall we?

do you really think whoever was elected this year was going to get a free pass/honeymoon from the losing party?  both sides are too far gone for that.

i think i'll let willow speak for herself, but like i said, i don't see any defense of bush there, just business as has unfortunately become usual


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 19, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> So, you have to be mean to Obama, because Democrats were right about Bush?   He was a horrible president, a mental midget, and an incompetent boob?
> 
> Why would you feel compelled to seek "revenge" for the man that destroyed your party?  I thought nearly everyone except the 22% dead enders hated bush?  Your party could barely mention his name during the campaign, and all your political candiates refused to be seen in public with him.
> 
> ...






No, actually I wasn't saying.. I was responding to Silence when she said you did what you did to Bush because of what was done to Clinton,,, so then logically it follows "It's our turn now innit"?


----------



## Murf76 (Nov 19, 2008)

editec said:


> Hating liberals for being right is an American value, too, ya know?
> 
> Sadly, the fact is that at the top of the heap, those terms are completely meaningless, which is something that I thought most of us would understand given the bail out.
> 
> ...




It's all about _Collectivism_ vs. _Individualism (Liberty)_.  "Issues" don't mean shit, if one must give up Freedom in the exchange.

This country has been trending socialist for quite awhile now... and you're right about one thing, Republicans have not stood their ground on that.  But if there's a lesson to be learned from all this... it's that no compromise is possible with collectivists.  "Bipartisanship" is a mistake unless it directly supports the cause of Liberty.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 19, 2008)

editec said:


> Hating liberals for being right is an American value, too, ya know?
> 
> Sadly, the fact is that at the top of the heap, those terms are completely meaningless, which is something that I thought most of us would understand given the bail out.
> 
> ...



Except liberals aren't right.  Yet another false link made by the left that because the other side got it wrong it makes them inherently right.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Nov 19, 2008)

The right wing attack machine kept on Clinton for all eight years.  They started with Whitewater and when that went dry just went fishing until he got BJed.  If we had spend that kind of money on Bush, he would be in jail today or living with his Saudi Benefactors.

I, and many other lefties, didn't start attacking Bush until after 9-11 when he started using this to get his way.  His unneede war in Iraq and unfinished one in Afghanistan.  His spying on all of US.  His breaking the FISA law, and a few other things.

Obama hasn't even gotten into office and you are criticizing shit he hasn't been able to do yet.

I think one poster was the closest:  *FEAR* of change.  Fear of a liberal agenda being implemented.  Fear of losing control.  Fear of small spiders.  Fear of ruity tuity ice cream among other things.


----------



## Silence (Nov 19, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> okay so *they* did it to Clinton, *you *did it to Bush, so now it's *our* turn to do it to Obama.  They do, you do, we all do.. So what's the problem?



who exactly are YOU?  are you the right?  are you a fringe group that didn't go after Clinton in the 90s?  please tell us Willow who the fuck you are.  

and last time I checked no one went after Bush personally.... I seemed to have missed the digging into his personal finances, personal relationships, and other issues that happened prior to him taking office.


----------



## del (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> who exactly are YOU?  are you the right?  are you a fringe group that didn't go after Clinton in the 90s?  please tell us Willow who the fuck you are.
> 
> and last time I checked no one went after Bush personally.... *I seemed to have missed the digging into his personal finances, personal relationships, and other issues that happened prior to him taking office.*


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> who exactly are YOU?  are you the right?  are you a fringe group that didn't go after Clinton in the 90s?  please tell us Willow who the fuck you are.
> 
> and last time I checked no one went after Bush personally.... I seemed to have missed the digging into his personal finances, personal relationships, and other issues that happened prior to him taking office.






I already told you this once,, but I'll say it again,, listen vewy carefuwlly,, I was a Clinton supporter,, voted for the guy twice,, was right there by his side defending him right up until the day he looked us straight in the eye and said "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky>" He lost me there,, anybody too dumb to know whether he had sex or not don't need me defending him..   now,, you've been told twice who the fuck I am.. 

now I remember Bush, the chimp, bush the liar, bush the warmongerer, bush the criminal, bush and on and on and on and on... sooo,,,,, now it's *our* turn. damnitt


----------



## Murf76 (Nov 19, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> I think one poster was the closest:  *FEAR* of change.  Fear of a liberal agenda being implemented.  Fear of losing control.  Fear of small spiders.  Fear of ruity tuity ice cream among other things.



How 'bout *'Fear of waking up in FRANCE'*?


----------



## rayboyusmc (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't think France will take US anymore.


----------



## del (Nov 19, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> I don't think France will take US anymore.



they will in august; they're all out of town anyway.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> who exactly are YOU?  are you the right?  are you a fringe group that didn't go after Clinton in the 90s?  please tell us Willow who the fuck you are.
> 
> and last time I checked no one went after Bush personally.... I seemed to have missed the digging into his personal finances, personal relationships, and other issues that happened prior to him taking office.



Are you a mental midget? They attacked him on his business deals, they attacked him on his service in the National Guard, they claimed he wa an oil man so was ALLOWING oil to make money. Hell all kind of personal attacks. They attacked him on his religion.

Take the blinders off.


----------



## Silence (Nov 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you a mental midget? They attacked him on his business deals, they attacked him on his service in the National Guard, they claimed he wa an oil man so was ALLOWING oil to make money. Hell all kind of personal attacks. They attacked him on his religion.
> 
> Take the blinders off.




sorry you'll need to provide me with links to these stories as I must've missed them.  and I want all of them to be AFTER he took office, not during his campaign for POTUS in 2000 where everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at the candidates.  

If you can provide those links then I'll concede the point otherwise I'll call bullshit once again on the whiny bitch ass cons on this board who refuse to accept that Bush is the worst freakin President we've had in this century if not the entire history of this country.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> sorry you'll need to provide me with links to these stories as I must've missed them.  and I want all of them to be AFTER he took office, not during his campaign for POTUS in 2000 where everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at the candidates.
> 
> If you can provide those links then I'll concede the point otherwise I'll call bullshit once again on the whiny bitch ass cons on this board who refuse to accept that Bush is the worst freakin President we've had in this century if not the entire history of this country.



So you live in a bubble? Do you remember Dan Rather and Marla Mapes and the 2004 hatchet job they tried to foist on the Voting Public about his National Guard service?

You do not remember in 2004 when they attacked his supposed failures as a businessman and his supposed illegal money scheme to buy a stadium? How they claimed he talked to God and made decisions in that manner?

And of course no one has called him a chimp, a retard, a mental midget, a coke head, a drunk, a murderer or any of those things, right? I guess I am confusing 2001 through 2008 with just that couple month period in 2000. Sure thing.

And you wonder why we think you and people like you are as stupid as stupid can be? You are either to STUPID to know what was going on or you are just lying about it. Tell me, which of those two is it?


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you live in a bubble? Do you remember Dan Rather and Marla Mapes and the 2004 hatchet job they tried to foist on the Voting Public about his National Guard service?
> 
> You do not remember in 2004 when they attacked his supposed failures as a businessman and his supposed illegal money scheme to buy a stadium? How they claimed he talked to God and made decisions in that manner?
> 
> ...





don't you think you might be fighting a losing battle?? When a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there.............can anybody hear it???


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> don't you think you might be fighting a losing battle?? When a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there.............can anybody hear it???



Well she is either ignorant as hell, stupid or lying. And She has to know it. Personally rather then think she is as dumb as a rock, I just assume she is lying. But how she does it and thinks anyone around the last 7 years doesn't know the truth is beyond me.


----------



## Vel (Nov 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well she is either ignorant as hell, stupid or lying. And She has to know it. Personally rather then think she is as dumb as a rock, I just assume she is lying. But how she does it and thinks anyone around the last 7 years doesn't know the truth is beyond me.





Your next statement from the left won't be that they didn't know that they spent 7 years calling George Bush everything but a human, they will simply justify it by saying that the right was mean to Clinton. The politics of moral equivalence.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Nov 19, 2008)

Mental midgetness isn't a lefty only disease, willow and retired.

As to the Rather thing, let's remember the documents were forgeries, the facts weren't.  And today it looks like Rather may end up winning this case because CBS kissed up so much to the right.

But as mentioned here, it's is a fear and anger that is being expressed by the right just over his nomination.

If he were to be as great a loser and screw up coportate ass kisser as Bush is, I will join you in your attacks on his policies.

But I seriously doubt he will.  So as retired posted, live with it for the next four years and see how you can get him out then.  Please select Sarah again.


----------



## Silence (Nov 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you live in a bubble? Do you remember Dan Rather and Marla Mapes and the 2004 hatchet job they tried to foist on the Voting Public about his National Guard service?
> 
> You do not remember in 2004 when they attacked his supposed failures as a businessman and his supposed illegal money scheme to buy a stadium? How they claimed he talked to God and made decisions in that manner?



was that during a campaign RGS? 

I do recall them discussing his National Guard service... I believe it was in response to his and his parties attacks on John Kerry's service in vietnam...you know...the guy who ACTUALLY went to war.  

His failures as a business man are just as relevant as the business dealings the Clintons had prior to his running for POTUS, aren't they?  I mean how many businesses did he try and fail at?  

As for the God comments, well when the POTUS says that God speaks to him, it's kind of an issue IMO. 



> And of course no one has called him a chimp, a retard, a mental midget, a coke head, a drunk, a murderer or any of those things, right? I guess I am confusing 2001 through 2008 with just that couple month period in 2000. Sure thing.



again are you referring to MSM or bloggers?  cuz I don't recall ever seeing on the nightly news anyone calling him a chimp, retard or any of the other things you're referring to.  I think he's a bright enough man but he's happy being ignorant to MANY MANY Things and that is why people view him as stupid, that and his inability to string together an entire sentence that doesn't contain some butchering of the English language.    



> And you wonder why we think you and people like you are as stupid as stupid can be? You are either to STUPID to know what was going on or you are just lying about it. Tell me, which of those two is it?



 so because I don't agree with you, I'm stupid?  that's laughable.  Ask the average American if Bush was unfairly attacked during his presidency and I'll bet you anything they'd say no. 

Bush got away with shit no other President has ever dared to even attempt.  

I'll admit that I didn't follow every story the media ran about Bush.  Mainly I followed his lies about the war, his authorization of torture, his lack of response on Katrina, his lack of adherence to the Constitution, you know things like that.  And I don't think the media did nearly a good enough job covering those stories.    

You, on the other hand, seem to have hung on every word.  Let it burrow into your skin and fester there and now you'll bitch and moan about how unfair the world as been to your hero.  It's ridiculous.  

After the damage Bush has done to this country I'd say he's gotten off lightly if he's still walking around a free man.  Personally I think he should've been impeached and sent to prison years ago.


----------



## Vel (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> I'll admit that I didn't follow every story the media ran about Bush.  Mainly I followed his lies about the war, his authorization of torture, his lack of response on Katrina, his lack of adherence to the Constitution, you know things like that.  And I don't think the media did nearly a good enough job covering those stories.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Silence (Nov 19, 2008)

Vel6377 said:


> You've laid out the talking points now see if you can provide details. Please be specific. Exactly what lies about the war... what his exact words were on torture... where his response was poor on Katrina... and where he broke from the constitution. Maybe you can take over where he media left off.



ask and ye shall receive:

Lies about war:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz-6A59qzAU]YouTube - Bush Administration Caught Contradicting Itself 6 Times[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbR3QPcmxFU&feature=related]YouTube - PROOF! BUSH & CHENEY LIED! *Someone MUST PAY![/ame]

on Torture:

in 2006 Bush signed a law banning torture and then turned around and issued a signing statement indicating he could bypass that law if he saw fit.

Bush could bypass new torture ban - The Boston Globe

Katrina:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0632J1EuE8]YouTube - Bush and Katrina[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8az4CfEDpw&feature=related]YouTube - George Bush Apology for Katrina[/ame]

First report on Katrina assails Bush&#x27;s response - International Herald Tribune

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOXNeHZUDI&feature=related]YouTube - bush was warned about katrina[/ame]

his trampling of the constitution:

American Civil Liberties Union : Bush Administration Rebukes Congress and Courts, Stymieing Investigations of Destroyed CIA Videotapes


Prime example of why people think Bush is an idiot

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ChWyZZAaA&feature=related]YouTube - George W. Bush tries to answer a very simple question...[/ame]


----------



## Vel (Nov 19, 2008)

thanks for all the videos and propaganda material. As soon as I have a little time I'll look through it all. In the mean time, what I was asking was for you just to tell me what the lies were and such. Just a brief reply in your own words would do.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't know why ya'll are getting so upset. Every president since the beginning of time has been questioned and scrutinized and insulted. That will never change. Bush was an idiot. Clinton was a skank. I just hope that Obama is neither and manages to do a good job.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't know why ya'll are getting so upset. Every president since the beginning of time has been questioned and scrutinized and insulted. That will never change. Bush was an idiot. Clinton was a skank. I just hope that Obama is neither and manages to do a good job.



Tell the left, Your buddies are the ones whining and crying and making idiotic claims. They seem to think it is just horrible that anyone would question the sainthood of Obama.

Same as the process leading to the election, someone points out a disagreement on an issue and we are mentally unbalanced for daring to attack the Savior.

Someone call Bush a Chimp and it is true, someone calls Obama a socialist and it is how DARE you.


----------



## Silence (Nov 19, 2008)

Vel6377 said:


> thanks for all the videos and propaganda material. As soon as I have a little time I'll look through it all. In the mean time, what I was asking was for you just to tell me what the lies were and such. Just a brief reply in your own words would do.



Lies:

Iraq has Weapons of Mass destruction
Iraq harbored, aided and/or helped the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
Our country was in immediate danger from Saddam 
Iraq had attempted to get materials to make a nuclear weapon

Those are just four off the top of my head.  

Do you want other lies too that were told by or on behalf of GWB?  

and  I love how when you disagree with it it's propaganda.  Everything in those videos is backed up by evidence.... propaganda insinuates a lie.  The Iraq war was based on propaganda...

and RGS... I don't think the left would give a crap about questioning Obama IF the right would WAIT until he actually takes office... strange concept I know...but how about letting the guy actually become the President before you blame him for your hemmroids and athlete's foot.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> Lies:
> 
> Iraq has Weapons of Mass destruction
> Iraq harbored, aided and/or helped the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
> ...



EVERYONE believed Iraq had weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, Shall I have someone quote you all the Democrats telling us they were there?

NO one claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, that is a bald faced LIE.

No one ever said Iraq was an immediate threat. Another bald faced lie.

Iraq HAD attempted to get materials for making Nuclear weapons and had tons of the stuff stored in Country. After the fact we learned Saddam Hussein kept his scientific teams and hide equipment to return to that pursuit as soon as sanctions were lifted.

Wanna try again?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> Lies:
> 
> Iraq has Weapons of Mass destruction
> Iraq harbored, aided and/or helped the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
> ...



You mean like the left did not call Bush names after he obviously won in 2000? How they did not start chanting he stole the election? There is that selective memory again.


----------



## Silence (Nov 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> EVERYONE believed Iraq had weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, Shall I have someone quote you all the Democrats telling us they were there?



Not EVERYONE believed it...saying everyone believed it is BULLSHIT.  Did most of Congress believe the VP when he came to them and presented the LIES?  yes they did.  Do I blame them for not requiring further investigation?  yes I do.  



> NO one claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, that is a bald faced LIE.



uh huh...sure... talk about stupid

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k]YouTube - Cheney: I never linked Iraq with 9/11. Oh really?[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SUBGtRIiXo&feature=related]YouTube - Bush denies linking Saddam and 9/11[/ame]



> No one ever said Iraq was an immediate threat. Another bald faced lie.



it's so cute how easily you buy into the bullshit and/or choose to ignore the TRUTH

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iAJ9zpmDBI&feature=related"][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnLERW7snUQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnLERW7snUQ[/ame][/URL]



> Iraq HAD attempted to get materials for making Nuclear weapons and had tons of the stuff stored in Country. After the fact we learned Saddam Hussein kept his scientific teams and hide equipment to return to that pursuit as soon as sanctions were lifted.
> 
> Wanna try again?



really?  I wonder why in Feb 2001 Colin Powell and in July 2001 Condi Rice said Saddam didn't have any such thing?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU]YouTube - Powell and Rice assure everyone Iraq is NO THREAT pre-9/11[/ame]


and IF these weapons exist WHY haven't they been found RGS?  care to explain that?  We've occupied that country for over 5 years.... where the hell are these hidden weapons and equipment?  

you've bought into the bullshit fed to you with a spoon and that's fine...whatever.  The EVIDENCE says there were NO WMD and that the Bush administration used intelligence they KNEW was faulty to dupe the country into believing Iraq was a threat.


----------



## Silence (Nov 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You mean like the left did not call Bush names after he obviously won in 2000? How they did not start chanting he stole the election? There is that selective memory again.



when your presidency hinges on a vote difference of 537 votes, in the state where you brother is govenor and where the head of your campaign in FL is Sec of State and where in several counties there was voter irregularities and negative votes for the opponent and when your party willfully attempts to disrupt a re-count to verify the results then YES people WILL say the election was stolen.  

Volusia error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

watch the documentary hacking democracy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlZTWH7u8w]YouTube - Hacking Democracy 1 of 9[/ame]

there are 9 parts so get a drink and a comfy chair if you dare to actually see the truth



IF the 2000 election had taken place in ANY other country cries would've rang out about the illegitimacy of that election.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> Not EVERYONE believed it...saying everyone believed it is BULLSHIT.  Did most of Congress believe the VP when he came to them and presented the LIES?  yes they did.  Do I blame them for not requiring further investigation?  yes I do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's another lie

I will cut taxes for 95% of Americans.


----------



## Silence (Nov 19, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> Here's another lie
> 
> I will cut taxes for 95% of Americans.



you don't know that's a lie YET.  Get back to us in 2012 or 2016 if he hasn't done that.  mmmmmKay?


----------



## rayboyusmc (Nov 19, 2008)

Some of the people who had the most knowledge -THE FRIGGING WEAPONS INSPECTORS - said that there were no more weapons of any significance left.

Cheney has consistently put forth the connection between Iraq and 9-11.  To deny that is to deny reality.

We were warned of Mushroom Clouds by Condi.  They weren't talking peyote.

Saddam was pushed as an immediate threat to the US.  That's they way demogogues get wars approved.  And no matter what you say, Congress does not get the same intelligence the president does.

But the point still is, are the righties attacking Obama afraid of what he might accomplish?  If we try and destroy his ability to get anything accomplished, are we good conservatives?


----------



## rayboyusmc (Nov 19, 2008)

> They seem to think it is just horrible that anyone would question the sainthood of Obama.



I missed this crap.  That is a bunch of crap that you keep making up and blaming on the left.  I haven't heard anyone but a dipshit rightie call him: Saint, Messiah or savior.  So typical.  Frame the argument in negative words and then say it loud enough and long enough to catapult the propaganda and blame in on the left, Rove.

He is pissing you off because he totally smashed McCain in the campaign with his ability to organize at the grass roots level.  

Now if you want to talk about the Holy Mother Sarah, then that's a bird of a different color.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> you don't know that's a lie YET.  Get back to us in 2012 or 2016 if he hasn't done that.  mmmmmKay?





the really smart people, the one's that can do the math?? they already know it..that's why they didn't vote for him...


----------



## Murf76 (Nov 19, 2008)

Interesting how the left doesn't consider chemical weapons to be WMD.  I guess  all those Kurds just held their breath until they expired, huh?
How come Human Rights Watch can define these murders as "genocide" then?  I mean, when it's so obvious that they just up and croaked it all on their own.


----------



## jeffrockit (Nov 19, 2008)

Murf76 said:


> Interesting how the left doesn't consider chemical weapons to be WMD.  I guess  all those Kurds just held their breath until they expired, huh?
> How come Human Rights Watch can define these murders as "genocide" then?  I mean, when it's so obvious that they just up and croaked it all on their own.



The left just can't bring themselves to admit Sadam had WMD as he used them on his own people. Blinded by their hatred for Bush. If those were not WMD's, then please explain what you call them.


----------



## jillian (Nov 19, 2008)

jeffrockit said:


> The left just can't bring themselves to admit Sadam had WMD as he used them on his own people. Blinded by their hatred for Bush. If those were not WMD's, then please explain what you call them.



The WMD's to which you are referring was well in advance of Gulf I and had nothing to do with justification for the 2003 invasion.

We were fully aware of Saddam's actions with chemical weapons when he was our ally and fighing our proxy war against Iran for us.

This is pretty old stuff... and not really worth bothering about now.

But you do need to go check your facts as the statements you made aren't accurate.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> you don't know that's a lie YET.  Get back to us in 2012 or 2016 if he hasn't done that.  mmmmmKay?



remember

"Read my lips....."

EVERYTHING A POLITICIAN SAYS DURING A CAMPAIGN IS A LIE


----------



## Vel (Nov 19, 2008)

Silence said:


> Lies:
> 
> Iraq has Weapons of Mass destruction
> Iraq harbored, aided and/or helped the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
> ...




I believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ( check convoys to Syria )

I believe that Saddam was all about helping terrorists ( not necessarily the 19 hijackers). The 25 grand he was paying to the families of suicide bombers made that clear.

I believe that Saddam was a danger to the United States. The sanctions were about to be lifted and you can bet he would have continued to pursue nuclear weapons.


As to Obama.. He has done nothing yet to earn my faith in him so I'll continue to keep a close and skeptical eye on him. ( You can't cut taxes for 95% of Americans if 40% don't pay taxes already )


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 13, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Boo Hoo Hoo, You poor liberals just can not convince the MILLIONS of Conservatives to forget the last 8 years of direct personal attacks on the Current President and Administration. All the cute attempts to portray it as anything but pay back are idiotic. They further prove the left runs the news rooms.
> 
> Remind us how for the last 8 years the dems have been all for Unity? How for the last 2 years the dems tried to work with Republicans in Congress? Boo Hoo Hoo.



No, we cannot forget the criminality of the last eight years. I hope to see the entire top echelon of this administration standing in court for a full accounting of their felonious conduct.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 13, 2008)

Vel6377 said:


> I believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ( check convoys to Syria )
> 
> I believe that Saddam was all about helping terrorists ( not necessarily the 19 hijackers). The 25 grand he was paying to the families of suicide bombers made that clear.
> 
> ...



Bet you believe in the tooth fairy, also.


----------



## irie (Dec 18, 2008)

:





RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you a mental midget? They attacked him on his business deals, they attacked him on his service in the National Guard, they claimed he wa an oil man so was ALLOWING oil to make money. Hell all kind of personal attacks. They attacked him on his religion.
> 
> Take the blinders off.


----------



## irie (Dec 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> *Not EVERYONE believed it...saying everyone believed it is BULLSHIT.  Did most of Congress believe the VP when he came to them and presented the LIES?  yes they did.  Do I blame them for not requiring further investigation?  yes I do.  *



Let's not forget the fact that congress looked at the same intel the prez and vp had!!!

Funny how the libs on here are whining about anyone daring to question the annointed one when they've been frothing at the mouth about GW for years.


----------



## irie (Dec 18, 2008)

Vel6377 said:


> As to Obama.. He has done nothing yet to earn my faith in him so I'll continue to keep a close and skeptical eye on him. ( You can't cut taxes for 95% of Americans if 40% don't pay taxes already )





Don't go and confuse things with _*facts*_.


----------



## garyd (Dec 19, 2008)

Anyone else notice that change you can believe in is rapidly becoming same old dyed in the wool leftist retreads the Dems always give us?

I find myself utterly amazed that the left thinks they are dangerous enough to be hated rather that stupid enough to be pitied.


----------



## editec (Dec 20, 2008)

Murf76 said:


> Interesting how the left doesn't consider chemical weapons to be WMD.


 
They're not weapons of mass destruction.

They're tactical weapons.



> I guess all those Kurds just held their breath until they expired, huh?
> How come Human Rights Watch can define these murders as "genocide" then? I mean, when it's so obvious that they just up and croaked it all on their own.


 
What does the fact that these weapons kill people have to do with their status.

A freaking pen-knife can kill someone (hundreds of someones if you want to take the time) but that still doesn't make it a weapons of MASS destruction.

This myth that every weapon that is not convention is a weapon of mass destruction was created for political purposes.

It bears no relation to the reality of what those weapons can actually do.

Poison gas is not a weapon of mass destruction because it cannot create _mass_ destruction.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 20, 2008)

editec said:


> They're not weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> They're tactical weapons.
> 
> ...



These dingbats still cannot face the fact that they were lied into a war. Hell, ask most of them, and they will tell you that Saddam kicked the UN Inspectors out. Most of them are in denial that Bush told them to get out of Iraq, that he was invading, in spite of the fact that the Inspectors were finding nothing. And, after the invasion, our own inspectors found nothing. We killed thousands of people for a lie. That is a war crime, simple as that.


----------



## editec (Dec 20, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> These dingbats still cannot face the fact that they were lied into a war. Hell, ask most of them, and they will tell you that Saddam kicked the UN Inspectors out. Most of them are in denial that Bush told them to get out of Iraq, that he was invading, in spite of the fact that the Inspectors were finding nothing. And, after the invasion, our own inspectors found nothing. We killed thousands of people for a lie. That is a war crime, simple as that.


 
Yeah, exactly.

So they show a few empty cans that may or may not have contrain Saran gas and tell us " _See? A weapon of mass destruction"._

The only mass destruction I see there is the mass destruction of the meaning of the words "Weapons of MASS destruction"

Same old game the totalitarians always play, folks.

Destroy the language and you destroy the possibility of having rational discussions about the world.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 20, 2008)

editec said:


> Yeah, exactly.
> 
> So they show a few empty cans that may or may not have contrain Saran gas and tell us " _See? A weapon of mass destruction"._
> 
> ...



Just like the words Liberal and Conservative, the words "Equal Rights" have been slaughtered. The words "of the people" and "for the people" lay in ruin. Modern American English is nothing like English.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

Silence said:


> who exactly are YOU?  are you the right?  are you a fringe group that didn't go after Clinton in the 90s?  please tell us Willow who the fuck you are.
> 
> and last time I checked no one went after Bush personally.... I seemed to have missed the digging into his personal finances, personal relationships, and other issues that happened prior to him taking office.


you have GOT to be kidding

DUI, AWOL, every business deal he had
shoot he didnt have any sexual issues so they couldnt find any, but you can bet they LOOKED for them


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You mean like the left did not call Bush names after he obviously won in 2000? How they did not start chanting he stole the election? There is that selective memory again.


hell, a lot of them started when he first ran for Governor of TX
so to claim it was only in response to the attacks on Kerry is a LIE


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

editec said:


> They're not weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> They're tactical weapons.
> 
> ...


do you know what WMD was called way back?
NBC
guess what that stands for


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

editec said:


> Yeah, exactly.
> 
> So they show a few empty cans that may or may not have contrain Saran gas and tell us " _See? A weapon of mass destruction"._
> 
> ...


you REALLY need to read the reports and stop believing the lying headlines


----------



## Modbert (Dec 20, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> you have GOT to be kidding
> 
> DUI, AWOL, every business deal he had
> shoot he didnt have any sexual issues so they couldnt find any, but you can bet they LOOKED for them



Personal finances and relationships have no relation to a DUI, an AWOL, and every failed oil business (which ended up being EVERY business of his) of Dubya's.

The American people have a right to know whether a candidate is a chickenhawk clusterfuck of a businessman.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Personal finances and relationships have no relation to a DUI, an AWOL, and every failed oil business (which ended up being EVERY business of his) of Dubya's.
> 
> The American people have a right to know whether a candidate is a chickenhawk clusterfuck of a businessman.


welcome back, and wrong as usual


----------



## Modbert (Dec 20, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> welcoem back, and wrong as usual



Show me where I'm wrong.

I'm pretty sure a DUI is not a personal relationship or a personal finance.

Same goes for an AWOL.

Personal Finance could be technically related to every business deal but it really makes no difference.

Herbert Hoover was the only president to have any real business experience. He was president during the first great depression.

Dubya was the first president to hold a MBA while in office. He has been president during what can be considered the second great depression.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Show me where I'm wrong.
> 
> I'm pretty sure a DUI is not a personal relationship or a personal finance.
> 
> ...


yeah, he had a DUI, 30 years ago
BFD
he never was AWOL you dumbass
and we are NOT in a depression now
its up to your boy now as to whether we do get one or not


----------



## Modbert (Dec 20, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, he had a DUI, 30 years ago
> BFD
> he never was AWOL you dumbass
> and we are NOT in a depression now
> its up to your boy now as to whether we do get one or not



He had a DUI, don't you know whatever happens to you in your teenage years follows you the rest of your life?

His being AWOL is up to debate.

We are quite in a depression right now. Though it all depends on how you define depression.

Financial Industry in ruins? Check

American Auto Industry on it's last legs? Check

Unemployment skyrocketing, over 10% in some places including in my home state of RI? Check

Economics define a depression as a sustained (12+ months) long downtown in one or more economies. Do we have that? You betcha

Abnormal increases in Unemployment as listed above? Yes

Restriction of Credit? Yes, which is why all these companies are failing now including the auto industry. They have the money, it's the liquidation of credit to money is the problem.

Shrinking output and investment? Oh yeah

Numerous Bankruptcies? Lehman Brothers, DHL (cancelled all domestic US services), Bennigan's Restaurants, Metromedia Restaurant Group, Aloha Airlines, Media Outsourcing,etc. That's not counting the great number of companies declaring chapter 11.

Reduced amounts of trade and commerce? Have you seen the retail numbers lately for stores? If so, then you know the answer to this.

Highly volatile relative currency value fluctuations, mostly devaluations? Have you seen the stock market? The Dow Jones for example has never gone this up or down in a day in many many years.

What more do you need to see we are in a depression? People jumping off buildings or driving into the ocean killing themselves due to the huge amount of debt they have? Because if so, we already have that.

Once again, I say Denial ain't just a river in egypt.

I think it's best you take a economics class or two first and learn the definition of a depression before you go sprouting off whether you THINK we are in one or not. Your political leanings do not matter in business and whether this country has become a giant clusterfuck depression.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

Modbert said:


> He had a DUI, don't you know whatever happens to you in your teenage years follows you the rest of your life?
> 
> His being AWOL is up to debate.
> 
> ...


just more partisan BULLSHIT


----------



## Modbert (Dec 20, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> just more partisan BULLSHIT



Partsian bullshit? That's your response? Wow, thank you for adding to the conversation. You know what? I've seen blocks of wood add more to a conversation then you just did.

You call the economics definition of a depression partisan bullshit? I see shit has not changed in the month I've been gone, you still got those blinders glued to your face.

Though be more specific next time Divey, which part is partisan bullshit and prove me wrong. All my time on here I ask for you to prove me wrong but all you do is give me the run around crying partisan bullshit and how I'm wrong.

Well either step up or get out of the kitchen. I don't know how many people put up with your bullshit while I was gone, but I know I'm not.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Partsian bullshit? That's your response? Wow, thank you for adding to the conversation. You know what? I've seen blocks of wood add more to a conversation then you just did.
> 
> You call the economics definition of a depression partisan bullshit? I see shit has not changed in the month I've been gone, you still got those blinders glued to your face.
> 
> ...


yes, its all partisan bullshit

and its you that has the blinders on


----------



## Modbert (Dec 20, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yes, its all partisan bullshit
> 
> and its you that has the blinders on



Again, no evidence offered up by divey.

Just the same old shit, like a parrot or a broken record player.

Does Blocky want a cracker? 

Oh almost forgot, I'm going to start calling you blocky because your arguments remind me as being as good as a block of wood.

Again as I stated in the other thread. You going to offer up any credible evidence or just going the whole "I'm rubber your glue" route?

Gee, didn't think my first night back I already be embarassing your ass on two different threads. Figured you'd wait until the third night at least.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Again, no evidence offered up by divey.
> 
> Just the same old shit, like a parrot or a broken record player.
> 
> ...


no, i didnt provide evidence
its up to YOU to prove it
you claim the page WAS his
prove it punk


----------



## Modbert (Dec 20, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no, i didnt provide evidence
> its up to YOU to prove it
> you claim the page WAS his
> prove it punk



Notice how you ignore all the financial stuff and focus on the tabloid bullshit.

Bravo at your attempt of spin! 

Gee, how about the personal photos on the page?

What kind of evidence do you want? And can you even prove that it isn't his page?

Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home


> On his MySpace page, Johnston proudly declares: "I'm a f---in' redneck."
> 
> "I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing," he says on the site.
> 
> ...



Right, so the webpage that had not been accessed in more then a year was just a future conspiracy theory against Levi and the Palin Family?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Notice how you ignore all the financial stuff and focus on the tabloid bullshit.
> 
> Bravo at your attempt of spin!
> 
> ...


LEVI JOHNSTON DENIES HE'S BEING FORCED TO MARRY BRISTOL PALIN - New York Post


btw moron, they had been dating for THREE YEARS


----------



## Modbert (Dec 20, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> LEVI JOHNSTON DENIES HE'S BEING FORCED TO MARRY BRISTOL PALIN - New York Post
> 
> 
> btw moron, they had been dating for THREE YEARS



So you're going to take the word of a guy who supposedly planned his getting girlfriend pregnant at 17?

Righttttttttt. It's called lying by him, I'm sure you've heard of the concept. It's what people do when the media spotlight is on them and trying to cover their own ass.

Still waiting for any such wedding by the way.


----------



## editec (Dec 20, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> do you know what WMD was called way back?
> NBC
> guess what that stands for


 
Nuclar chemical and biological...I was in service as a corpsman when that term was used and I was trained in countering the effects of all three.

Note that they are combined not because of the destructive potential but because in all three cases special equipment and techniques for dealing with it are necessary?

Sorry Charlie, but the fact is that the only truly WMD that anyone currently have is the nuclear option. (biologicals could be mass destruction weapons but as yet aren't)

Note that when Bush was attempting to stampede the herd, he didn't evoke the poison gas cloud over New York, but he did evoke the imagine of a MUSHROOM cloud.

There's a reason for his choice of imagry, you know.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

editec said:


> Nuclar chemical and biological...I was in service as a corpsman when that term was used and I was trained in countering the effects of all three.
> 
> Note that they are combined not because of the destructive potential but because in all three cases special equipment and techniques for dealing with it are necessary?
> 
> ...


i disagree
you can kill a lot of people with chemicals


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 20, 2008)

Modbert said:


> So you're going to take the word of a guy who supposedly planned his getting girlfriend pregnant at 17?
> 
> Righttttttttt. It's called lying by him, I'm sure you've heard of the concept. It's what people do when the media spotlight is on them and trying to cover their own ass.
> 
> Still waiting for any such wedding by the way.


well, last i heard, it was planned for june
so i guess you morons will keep this shit up till then, right?

hey moron, he didnt say they planned the pregnancy, he said they had planned on getting married for a long time


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 21, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> just more partisan BULLSHIT



Damned right, Divecon! The economic fundemetals are strong. Just keep repeating that all the way down to bankruptcy court!


----------



## garyd (Dec 21, 2008)

Modbert you might wished to consider what Democratic Icon You use. JFK ran and governed well to the right of G W Bush


----------



## Modbert (Dec 21, 2008)

garyd said:


> Modbert you might wished to consider what Democratic Icon You use. JFK ran and governed well to the right of G W Bush



Care to explain more throughly? JFK is nowhere near G W Bush.


----------



## garyd (Dec 22, 2008)

As i said he was further right than GW Bush not that being further right than GW Buah is actually much of an accomplishment by the way.

JFK cut tax rates from Eisenhowers seventy percent top rate down to 48% in an across the board tax cut fo the same sort that you and yours called tax cuts for the rich when Bush did it. He largely defeated Nixon on the sole issue of a percieved missle gap in the favor of the Russians. He more than quintupled the number of troops we had in Viet Nam.

Ain't real history better than ideological B.S.? JFK couldn't be elected dog catcher in the Democratic party while espousing the principals by which he governed in the modern Democratic party.


----------



## Dante (Dec 22, 2008)

John Kenneth Gailbraith

Economist, educator, author, diplomat. Professor of Economics, Harvard University (1949-1975); Ambassador to India (1961-1963); author, The Affluent Society (1958), The Liberal Hour (1960), and other books on economics and government.









garyd said:


> As i said he was further right than GW Bush not that being further right than GW Bush is actually much of an accomplishment by the way.
> 
> JFK cut tax rates from Eisenhowers seventy percent top rate down to 48% in an across the board tax cut fo the same sort that you and yours called tax cuts for the rich when Bush did it. He largely defeated Nixon on the sole issue of a percieved missle gap in the favor of the Russians. He more than quintupled the number of troops we had in Viet Nam.
> 
> Ain't real history better than ideological B.S.? JFK couldn't be elected dog catcher in the Democratic party while espousing the principals by which he governed in the modern Democratic party.


such idiocy!  I guess you think Reagan is a Democrat?

JFK, was a liberal. He was a Democrat and he would still be a Democrat if he were alive. Liberals are not against tax cuts in good times. 

JFK's economist was who? Who? 

stop repeating silly myths. why? because you appear to be not too bright when you do:



> So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> 
> *This distinction, taught in Economics 101, *seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
> 
> link to this...


----------



## Dante (Dec 22, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Care to explain more throughly? JFK is nowhere near G W Bush.



gary is blowing smoke out of his arse:



> When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again&#8212;meaning the deficit would be short-lived.
> 
> At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."
> 
> The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent,* hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.*


----------



## garyd (Dec 22, 2008)

Argue with laffer dim witt. And the a history books Hell I was there. I lived it. The economy was in the Doldrums when Kennedy took office in fact it had pretty much been that way throughout most of the 50's. And were it not for the GI bill and the fact that women had left the workforce in droves following the end of WWII, things would have looked a lot worse. And let's not forget your Union Bro's wouldn't let a black man anywhere near your local union hall which meant that most of us white boys didn't have to compete with black folks for the best jobs.


----------



## Dante (Dec 22, 2008)

garyd said:


> Argue with laffer dim witt. And the a history books Hell I was there. I lived it. The economy was in the Doldrums when Kennedy took office in fact it had pretty much been that way throughout most of the 50's. And were it not for the GI bill and the fact that women had left the workforce in droves following the end of WWII, things would have looked a lot worse. And let's not forget your Union Bro's wouldn't let a black man anywhere near your local union hall which meant that most of us white boys didn't have to compete with black folks for the best jobs.




I am embarrassed of this public display of your ignorance...embarrassed enough for both of us. Please read the links I posted and get back to us with your head out of the sand? 

JFK, was not the equivalent of a supply sider. 

please, stop scratching at the open sores in your mind?


----------



## elvis (Dec 22, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> I don't think France will take US anymore.



They'd prefer Germany.


----------



## elvis (Dec 22, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Some of the people who had the most knowledge -THE FRIGGING WEAPONS INSPECTORS - said that there were no more weapons of any significance left.
> 
> Cheney has consistently put forth the connection between Iraq and 9-11.  To deny that is to deny reality.
> 
> ...



Bush said there was no connection between Saddam and Osama.  Cheney went on meet the press and basically said they were connected.  He did everything but say it, if I remember correctly.  Afterwords, 70 percent of the country believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11.  And yes, I have posted several links in the past on this.


----------



## editec (Dec 22, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> i disagree
> you can kill a lot of people with chemicals


 
How big a bomb of Chemical weapons do you suppose you'd have to use to kill twenty million people?

You'd need one fairly modest nuclear weapon landing on New York to do that.

You'd need to land tens of thousands of posion gas cannisters to achieve the same thing.

You can disagree with a definition, because after all a definition is either something agree to or not. But you cannot disagee with the reality of the above.

Poison gas is a tactical weapon, not a weapons capable of creating MASS DESTRucTION.

Saddam had NO WMDs, just as the weapons inspectors TOLD us.

You can quibble, you can play word games, you can lie, you can insult people, you can try to play every fucking stupid dishonest game that you boy BUSH II and his army of liars played, but the reality is that we were lied to repeatedly by this Republican administration.

Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

Be a man, for change, DC, and just acknowledge that your boy lied to you.

Being duped by professional liars is no crime.


----------



## Annie (Dec 22, 2008)

DevNell said:


> I am embarrassed of this public display of your ignorance...embarrassed enough for both of us. Please read the links I posted and get back to us with your head out of the sand?
> 
> JFK, was not the equivalent of a supply sider.
> 
> please, stop scratching at the open sores in your mind?



Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut - New York Times



> September 18, 1984
> Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut
> 
> Tax-cutting policies with a supply-side flavor were put forward two decades ago by the Democratic Administration of John F. Kennedy.
> ...


----------



## del (Dec 22, 2008)

editec said:


> How big a bomb of Chemical weapons do you suppose you'd have to use to kill twenty million people?
> 
> You'd need one fairly modest nuclear weapon landing on New York to do that.
> 
> ...



the US has always considered chem/bio weapons to be WMD. when did 20MM people become the threshold for mass destruction? i must have missed it. far fewer than 20MM died at hiroshima and nagasaki, are you going to argue that fat boy and little man were not WMD?

as you said, you can quibble and play word games, you can even play fucking stupid dishonest games about what a WMD is, but to what avail?

if you ever feel the urge to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty, i suggest you reread what you've posted here before doing so.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2008)

editec said:


> How big a bomb of Chemical weapons do you suppose you'd have to use to kill twenty million people?
> 
> You'd need one fairly modest nuclear weapon landing on New York to do that.
> 
> ...


you are the one being duped

read the fucking reports(and i dont mean some fucked up editorial on the reports, i mean the REAL reports)




btw, since when did it matter if something killed thousands vs millions
man you guys are being really fucking stupid on this
you just have to stay on the "bush lied" bullshit
when it is YOU assholes doing the lying


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 22, 2008)

del said:


> the US has always considered chem/bio weapons to be WMD. when did 20MM people become the threshold for mass destruction? i must have missed it. far fewer than 20MM died at hiroshima and nagasaki, are you going to argue that *fat boy and little man were not WMD?*
> 
> as you said, you can quibble and play word games, you can even play fucking stupid dishonest games about what a WMD is, but to what avail?
> 
> if you ever feel the urge to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty, i suggest you reread what you've posted here before doing so.


sheeesh, i actually had someone on this very forum tell me they were not nuke weapons


----------



## Dante (Dec 22, 2008)

editec said:


> How big a bomb of Chemical weapons do you suppose you'd have to use to kill twenty million people?
> 
> You'd need one fairly modest nuclear weapon landing on New York to do that.


modest? we think not. and twenty million in what NYC?



> You'd need to land tens of thousands of posion gas cannisters to achieve the same thing.
> 
> You can disagree with a definition, because after all a definition is either something agree to or not. But you cannot disagee with the reality of the above.
> 
> Poison gas is a tactical weapon, not a weapons capable of creating MASS DESTRucTION.


 
At the outset of this year, the Clinton Administration
threatened military action if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did not
allow United Nations inspectors free and unfettered access to sites
thought to be harboring the remnants of Iraqs weapons of mass
destruction programs. Members of Congress have also called for
strong actions against an Iraq that inspectors assert still possesses
stocks of chemical and biological weapons. Why, then, have the
Clinton Administration and Congress crippled the ability of
international inspectors to detect violations of a new international ban
on poison gas?

The 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) authorizes
routine and challenge inspections to monitor compliance with the
treatys prohibitions on the development, production, stockpiling,
and use of chemical weapons...



> Saddam had NO WMDs, just as the weapons inspectors TOLD us.
> 
> You can quibble, you can play word games, you can lie, you can insult people, you can try to play every fucking stupid dishonest game that you boy BUSH II and his army of liars played, but the reality is that we were lied to repeatedly by this Republican administration.
> 
> ...



it has always been my opinion that WMD was a bad argument for revisiting gulf war I on Saddam. There were a few other reasons that would've justified going in after Saddam, but they may not have been an easy sell to the American public. Legally we could have gone back in under the terms of signed treaties/documents that called for the cessation of hostilities of GWI.

but the question is not whether Saddam ever had WMD...it is what did he have and when did he have it? 

we mix up 911 and Iraq and the invasion of Iraq with the occupation


----------



## Dante (Dec 22, 2008)

everything involving Iraq is not black and white. nuance


----------



## Dante (Dec 22, 2008)

Annie said:


> Rationale for Kennedy's Tax Cut - New York Times




Annie, you have linked to a page on the NYT web site that is unattributable and it is unclear if it is a lte or some other inane piece of rubbish.

maybe you glossed over (I am sure you did not purposefully ignore) the main point of the post that was in quotes:



> So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. *"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy,"* said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> 
> *This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity.* Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.



now how you can argue with an economic advisor to JFK at the time, coming equipped with an unattributable piece of rubbish is beyond me. what happened? did you not read anything or did you have a comprehension problem?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 22, 2008)

garyd said:


> As i said he was further right than GW Bush not that being further right than GW Buah is actually much of an accomplishment by the way.
> 
> JFK cut tax rates from Eisenhowers seventy percent top rate down to 48% in an across the board tax cut fo the same sort that you and yours called tax cuts for the rich when Bush did it. He largely defeated Nixon on the sole issue of a percieved missle gap in the favor of the Russians. He more than quintupled the number of troops we had in Viet Nam.
> 
> Ain't real history better than ideological B.S.? JFK couldn't be elected dog catcher in the Democratic party while espousing the principals by which he governed in the modern Democratic party.



Good. Then let's go back to JFK's tax number for the top 2%. That would aid a great deal with the deficit.

Well, yes, he had 30,000 there when he was assinated. And was considering pulling them all out.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 22, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Good. Then let's go back to JFK's tax number for the top 2%. That would aid a great deal with the deficit.
> 
> Well, yes, he had 30,000 there when he was assinated. And was considering pulling them all out.



I already posted a link that JFK had plans to leave Vietnam by 1965 in another thread.

There is a taped black and white conversation that Kennedy had in which he stated that this is their war, not ours.

JFK cut the top tax rate from the high rate during Ike's term to 48% which would be considered "socialist" by today's standards by plenty of people on this board. Least if they believe Obama's 39% tax rate is socialist, then JFK must be a card carrying commie.


----------



## Annie (Dec 23, 2008)

DevNell said:


> Annie, you have linked to a page on the NYT web site that is unattributable and it is unclear if it is a lte or some other inane piece of rubbish.
> 
> maybe you glossed over (I am sure you did not purposefully ignore) the main point of the post that was in quotes:
> 
> ...



Listen here:

Speeches of John F. Kennedy - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 23, 2008)

hmmm a chemical weapon...would a pathogen be considered that?  and a pathogen released in a population center or an airport could kill a lot more....look at what polio did?

suggestions:

Q&A: Bob Graham On New WMD Terror Attack Threat | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch | Newsweek.com



Biological

Bioterrorism, another deadly threat, is the deliberate dispersal of pathogens through food, air, water, or living organisms to cause disease and, potentially more devastating, trigger alarm in a population. If properly produced and released, biological agents can kill on a massive scale and, if terrorists use a pathogen that can be transmitted from person to person, the disease can quickly spread across oceans and continents through air travel before authorities realize their nations have been attacked.

Developing a bioterrorism capability presents some scientific and operational challenges. However, the required scientific capabilities are not beyond the expertise of motivated biologists with basic university-level training. And, unlike other types of WMD, the materials required to produce a weapon are widely available  some are even found in nature. Even a badly-designed weapon resulting in limited health impact can cause significant uncertainty. Even though a small-scale bioterrorism attack, such as the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, can produce a relatively small number of cases of the disease, the costs of decontamination, medical treatment for the worried well, decreased commercial activity, social distress, and lost productivity can be considerable. The terrorists can often meet their objective of creating disruption and fear without large numbers of casualties.

Among present-day terrorist organizations, AQ is believed to have made the greatest effort to acquire and develop a bioterrorism program. U.S. forces discovered a partially built biological weapons laboratory near Kandahar after expelling the Taliban from Afghanistan. Although it was not conclusive that AQ succeeded in obtaining a biological weapon, the discovery demonstrated a concerted effort to acquire a biological weapons capability

full article:  Chapter 4 -- The Global Challenge of WMD Terrorism


always amazes me how simple something like this would be....to bring perhaps dengue fever to the us...you would not bring the fever but the carriers of it...

just how many viruses are kept alive for study?


smallpox, anthrax etc  stockpile viruses in labs


----------



## editec (Dec 23, 2008)

del said:


> the US has always considered chem/bio weapons to be WMD.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## del (Dec 23, 2008)

editec said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > the US has always considered chem/bio weapons to be WMD.
> ...


----------



## PeterS (Dec 23, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?
> 
> 
> 
> This from a man who makes his money selling hate of other Americans.



Didn't you just answer your own question? People who are feed hate-hate. I don't see anything surprising in that...


----------



## Annie (Dec 23, 2008)

What I fail to see is all the 'rage' those from the left keep raging about. I see nothing on the right that comes close to the nonsense we've all been privy to for the past 8 years. If not liking, trusting Obama is 'rage', get over it. They didn't vote for him for reasons that had nothing to do with race.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 23, 2008)

Annie said:


> What I fail to see is all the 'rage' those from the left keep raging about. I see nothing on the right that comes close to the nonsense we've all been privy to for the past 8 years. If not liking, trusting Obama is 'rage', get over it. They didn't vote for him for reasons that had nothing to do with race.



I've seen people on this board blaming Obama over and over for things happening in this country and he isn't even President yet.

I've seen him be called a card carrying commie for wanting to raise the tax % for the rich from 35 to 39%.

If that was the case, then I suppose every president in the last hundred or so years but Reagan and Dubya were card carrying commies.

There is a difference between not trusting and simply hating. There is a difference between loyal opposition and plain opposition. I've seen several Republicans on this board go as far as calling anyone not Republican not american and helping the terrorists. Then I see others hoping Obama is failed so they can be proven right while not realizing if he fails that this country fails.

That is why I never wanted Bush to fail, I wanted to see him out of office but not fail. He has failed as a president and look what has happened to this country. If ANYONE believes that this country as a whole is better off then it was eight years ago then I simply say stop drinking that kool-aid and wake the hell up.

Though I do find it ironic that people say "How dare you defend Obama" when they were the same ones defending Bush not so long ago. (Until it became clear that the best thing to do for the election was to turn their back after eight years and try to paint Bush as a democrat for the next cycle).

This is why I refuse to side with any one party come the time to register to vote. Every one of us should be an independent, free of outside influences and using our ability to make our own choices and conclusions. But many don't, rather using the media (whichever side they follow) to make their conclusions for them.

George Washington once wrote of political parties, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796

Feel free to be ignorant of the hatred stemming from your party, I choose not to. It does not matter what political affiliation a person has. If the person is a lying scumbag then at the end of the day the person is a lying scumbag. The only difference is a good portion of one fraction will defend that person and their actions because of political parties.

This is not a game in which one wins or one loses but rather a game where we all lose if a person with power fails.


----------



## Dante (Dec 23, 2008)

Annie said:


> Listen here:
> 
> Speeches of John F. Kennedy - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum



yeah, is there a particular speech you wanted to link to and had problems doing so? if that is the case maybe I can help.


----------



## Annie (Dec 23, 2008)

DevNell said:


> yeah, is there a particular speech you wanted to link to and had problems doing so? if that is the case maybe I can help.



Yah know, f off. Troll. You wondered about the speech, I give you a link. If you can't fuking put together dates,


----------



## Dante (Dec 23, 2008)

Annie said:


> Yah know, f off. Troll. You wondered about the speech, I give you a link. If you can't fuking put together dates,



you have a way with words and a temper? _ooh la la!_


Where I come from it is only polite to explain what the f one is linking to. Expecting others to work in order to figure out WTF you're linking to on a page with hundreds of links.

geesh, so sensitive. wassup, bad hair day?


----------



## Charles_Main (Dec 24, 2008)

I think it is pretty funny these liberals. who for 8 years. did nothing but launch the lowest, crudest attacks on Bush and his supporters. Who did nothing for 8 years but scream and rant and Rave. Now actually have the balls to talk about Rage on the right. The nerve to talk about getting along, and "working together".

You act like you did for the last 8 years, and then actually expect the right to just come into line and get along with you now that you are in power? Please what goes around comes around, and so far Nothing I have seen from the right comes close to what the left dished out for the last 8 years. So expect it to get worse.

I have to say the worst is the scum bag, low life leadership of the Dems in Congress. You know who they are. For the last 8 years all they did was obstruct, and stand in the way. All they did was call names and antagonize, and now that they have won a near super majority in both houses of Congress and control the white house. Now they are talking about Bipartisanship, and unity. The Audacity of these people is unbelievable. 

Nancy Pelosi actually said with Dems in control of Congress it will be more Bipartisan. This is typical of those on the far left, Which Nancy is. Her Idea of being bipartisan is holding so much power nobody can challenge you or even inject their thoughts at all. She fits the mold of the Idols of her Ideology to a T. Call her miss Stalin. 

However what is most amusing about all this is you people. All you people who think The Dems are going to be the answer to our problems. You simple minded fools who think Dems are good and Republicans are bad.  You fools who actually think Nancy and Harry, and Obama with their Big Government solutions, Wealth Redistribution, and Heavy spending are going to makes things better. All these Fools are going to do is dig the hole we are in so much deeper than it is already we will never be able to get out. 

It is a dire day for America people, and because Bush was so bad, so NOT CONSERVATIVE. Americans have chosen to go to the left at the moment in time when going left is the last thing we need. At the moment in  time when so many other nations who have been going left for years are actually moving back right because they have to, to survive, and here we are Going in the complete wrong direction, all because Bush was so an idiot. 

Yippie.

So you ask do I have rage? No I'm not mad. I am afraid for us all. Afraid of the staggering Debt that will be left to my kids and their kids. Debt which will make the current Debt look Trivial. 53 Trillion and counting in unfounded future Obligations. (SS, Medi Care/cade, etc etc) Which is going to grow 2 or 3 fold under our current leadership.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 24, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I think it is pretty funny these liberals. who for 8 years. did nothing but launch the lowest, crudest attacks on Bush and his supporters. Who did nothing for 8 years but scream and rant and Rave. Now actually have the balls to talk about Rage on the right. The nerve to talk about getting along, and "working together".
> 
> You act like you did for the last 8 years, and then actually expect the right to just come into line and get along with you now that you are in power? Please what goes around comes around, and so far Nothing I have seen from the right comes close to what the left dished out for the last 8 years. So expect it to get worse.
> 
> ...



OK, dumbo, you now think Bush is bad. But Obama going to be worse. Of course, for eight years you supported the incompetant fool. But now, now that we see all the wonderful things his administration has brought to this nation, Bush is bad. 

You guys are hilarious.


----------



## Annie (Dec 24, 2008)

DevNell said:


> you have a way with words and a temper? _ooh la la!_
> 
> 
> Where I come from it is only polite to explain what the f one is linking to. Expecting others to work in order to figure out WTF you're linking to on a page with hundreds of links.
> ...



Sorry, not used to dealing with tards, but I'll try to have more patience with you.


----------



## Dante (Dec 24, 2008)

Annie said:


> Sorry, not used to dealing with tards, but I'll try to have more patience with you.



in the spirit of the season..._bah, okay._

have a nice holiday.





btw, a little tweak as a gift: you will have patience with me or be patient with me


----------



## del (Dec 24, 2008)

DevNell said:


> in the spirit of the season..._bah, okay._
> 
> have a nice holiday.
> 
> ...



Merry Christmas, old man. 
be safe.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 24, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You apparently don't grasp the definition of the word "rage".

To describe someone, accurately, as a "thug" isn't rage.

Rage is when Black Panthers intimidate voters, when a thwarted candidate insists that votes be counted and recounted and finally taken to the Supreme Court when they still come out for the other guy.

Rage is 4 years of listening to slavering libtards insist that an election was stolen, with absolutely no proof (and in fact proof of exactly the opposite), give support to terrorists by tearing down our government and our people at every opportunity, and calling our president a war criminal.

Obama is a thug, and his boys are thugs. Everyone knows it, nobody makes any bones about it. Except the starry eyed retards who voted him in.


----------



## Dante (Dec 24, 2008)

del said:


> Merry Christmas, old man.
> be safe.



old man? hey if I remember correctly you ain't no spring chicken. maybe a cornish hen, but no spring chicken.

looking at your signature reminds me of the old days when Peter lived at the Pru. He was dating and married to Faye Dunaway in those days. 



> ...he became a disc jockey on WBCN-FM, hosting a show called The All-Night House Party. The show touched on many musical bases, and reflected Wolf's own broad musical interests.
> 
> While still in college in Boston, Wolf joined his first musical group, comprised of fellow art students. They played blues music, and later got to meet and tour with their heroes like John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters.
> 
> ...




gawd, we were kids then. The Salvatore Dali painting in the lobby of the 
New England Merchants National Bank in the walkway of the Prudential Center tower.  When I went to Tampa/St. Pete I went to the Dali museum there. I ended up telling a few stories to the tour guide/Dali cult member that was to my knowledge used in his talks. 



ain't I cool?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 24, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You apparently don't grasp the definition of the word "rage".
> 
> To describe someone, accurately, as a "thug" isn't rage.
> 
> ...



LOL!   Hey Allie, 365 electorial votes. Seems that you have labeled an awful lot of Americans retards. Seems to me that the retards are the people that cannot accept that the liberals were totally correct about Bush and his minions. Total screwups. Didn't succeed at a single thing other than bankrupting this nation.


----------



## Charles_Main (Dec 25, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, dumbo, you now think Bush is bad. But Obama going to be worse. Of course, for eight years you supported the incompetant fool. But now, now that we see all the wonderful things his administration has brought to this nation, Bush is bad.
> 
> You guys are hilarious.



Get a clue fool. I have been critical of Bush constantly since I joined this Board. I defend him now and then from some of the more retarded attacks, but over all I am highly Critical of him. 

Your right I supported the fool. Grudgingly, kicking and screaming. Especially the second time. I didn't really vote for him as I voted against Kerry. 

You are correct I believe Obama will be worse by far. however it will not be as  easy to see as with Bush. Obama is a charismatic figure and the Press adores him. He will be praised even as his Far Left Socialist programs put the Final Nails in Americas coffin.

America will now fade away into economic averageness or worse.


----------



## Charles_Main (Dec 25, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL!   Hey Allie, 365 electorial votes. Seems that you have labeled an awful lot of Americans retards. Seems to me that the retards are the people that cannot accept that the liberals were totally correct about Bush and his minions. Total screwups. Didn't succeed at a single thing other than bankrupting this nation.



If you give Bush all the credit for Bankrupting America. You are a Fool bud. THe Dems and their Social Programs. Dating back to the New Deal, have more to do with it than Bush ever could or did.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> If you give Bush all the credit for Bankrupting America. You are a Fool bud. THe Dems and their Social Programs. Dating back to the New Deal, have more to do with it than Bush ever could or did.



So you say. However, for most of Americans, what is in the offing is the Second Great Republican Depression. 

Would you care to show me where, in the Constitution of the United States of America, it says that we cannot have a Socialistic government if the people of the United States desire to have such? In fact, there were buku warnings from the founders of our nation concerning letting corperations gain too much power.

How will Obama do? I don't know yet. But I doubt that even should he try, he could not equal the record of total failure established by Bush and the people such as you, that supported him. Of course, you are all stating now that you only supported him because the "Liberals" were worse. Rats get off the ship.


----------



## mash107 (Dec 25, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> So you say. However, for most of Americans, what is in the offing is the Second Great Republican Depression.
> 
> Would you care to show me where, in the Constitution of the United States of America, it says that we cannot have a Socialistic government if the people of the United States desire to have such? In fact, there were buku warnings from the founders of our nation concerning letting corperations gain too much power.
> 
> How will Obama do? I don't know yet. But I doubt that even should he try, he could not equal the record of total failure established by Bush and the people such as you, that supported him. Of course, you are all stating now that you only supported him because the "Liberals" were worse. Rats get off the ship.



The Bill of Rights. Amendment V:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I've yet to receive this just compensation for all this socialism, bailouts and wars. Let me know, when it's going to arrive! Corporations shouldn't have power... that's the whole point of free markets, to be free to choose! The power should be with the consumers. End all these damn bailouts! The only thing right you've said was that the Great Depression was a creation of the government. It surely was. But both political parties are Keynesians, and they both believe spending will spur the economy, but they differ on where. Republicans want to spend it on wars. Democrats want to spend it on wars and domestic projects.


----------



## garyd (Dec 25, 2008)

The chief difference now and 70 years ago is that the American people haven't nearly as much patience as they exhibited 70 years ago and most aren't nearly as gullible. They also have available a lot more news services and a lot more information hence Obama will get at the outside about 2 years and if it ain't showing signs of turning around he'll get a Republican house and senate to work with.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 25, 2008)

garyd said:


> The chief difference now and 70 years ago is that the American people haven't nearly as much patience as they exhibited 70 years ago and most aren't nearly as gullible. They also have available a lot more news services and a lot more information hence Obama will get at the outside about 2 years and if it ain't showing signs of turning around he'll get a Republican house and senate to work with.


house, maybe, the Senate is a bit harder to do
remember it took two elections to give the dems a clear majority in the senate


----------



## Charles_Main (Dec 25, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> So you say. However, for most of Americans, what is in the offing is the Second Great Republican Depression.



Wrong again bud. Republican share in the blame for sure, but as I said. It is the Mainly Democrat inspired Social welfare programs we have. SS, Medicaid, Medicare, and others. That make up the bulk of the True Debt we are facing. The over 53 Trillion in unfunded future obligations. 

Until Recently a Republican in the white house used to mean A President who would fight for Cutting spending, Limiting the size and Power of the Federal Government. Lower taxes to spur growth. ETC ETC. 

This is where America made it mistake in this Election:

Almost everyone agrees Bush has been at best a disappointment to at worst simply the worst. However I believe you Americans who Bought into Obama, at least some of you, make your mistake when you make the basic decision that Bush = Rep Bush = Bad so Republican = Bad, and therefore Liberal Democrat = Answer. End of story.

Bush was not a real conservative. His policies looked more like a Social Democrat when it came to domestic spending, and welfare. It did Nothing to control this out of control Spending Machine that is our Government.

I guess what I am trying to say is Bush Sucked bad, And yes some of the Shit  Conservatives Believe in I don't agree with, But before Bush to some extent you could count of Republicans to work to Limit government. Cut spending. 

Now not since JFK have I seen more than a handful of Dems who rise to high positions in the Government who Understand, and do more than pay lip service to, Cutting spending, and really lowering taxes. Today the Dems have no answers but those that lead to the expansion of Government size, power, and Spending. 

As I like to say we just jumped right out of the frying pan, Head first with our heads buried in the sand, into the Fire pit.


----------



## Dante (Dec 25, 2008)

mash107 said:


> The Bill of Rights. Amendment V:
> 
> "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
> 
> I've yet to receive this just compensation for all this socialism, bailouts and wars. Let me know, when it's going to arrive! Corporations shouldn't have power... that's the whole point of free markets, to be free to choose! The power should be with the consumers. End all these damn bailouts! The only thing right you've said was that the Great Depression was a creation of the government. It surely was. But both political parties are Keynesians, and they both believe spending will spur the economy, but they differ on where. Republicans want to spend it on wars. Democrats want to spend it on wars and domestic projects.



one of the weirdest posts I've come across here. 

was the author home schooled?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 25, 2008)

DevNell said:


> one of the weirdest posts I've come across here.
> 
> was the author home schooled?



What is it that you have against homeschool people?


----------



## Annie (Dec 25, 2008)

PoliticalChic said:


> What is it that you have against homeschool people?



He's not too bright, though thinks he is.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 25, 2008)

Annie said:


> He's not to bright, though thinks he is.



I think he gets his news from "The View."  Joy Behar refers to homeschooled children as "demented" and that the parents teach them to be "scared of other children."  Nice.  I can tell we have a really informed board member among our midst.  Should have known what your view would have been based on that crass photo you posted of yourself with your pants below your waist.  Any info we get from DevNell should be on a "need to know" basis.


----------



## Annie (Dec 25, 2008)

PoliticalChic said:


> I think he gets his news from "The View."  Joy Behar refers to homeschooled children as "demented" and that the parents teach them to be "scared of other children."  Nice.  I can tell we have a really informed board member among our midst.  Should have known what your view would have been based on that crass photo you posted of yourself with your pants below your waist.  Any info we get from DevNell should be on a "need to know" basis.



I do know that my 'to' should have been 'too' and I'll go fix it. The difference between those that assume they're so bright and others is the ability to recognize the mistakes.


----------



## mash107 (Dec 25, 2008)

DevNell said:


> one of the weirdest posts I've come across here.
> 
> was the author home schooled?



Could you at least try to refute my ideas? Or is there not much going on between your two ears?

Start by trying to refute the idea that both political parties believe in the same Keynesian principles.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Dec 26, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only "rage" I see is the loony left already whining that Obama is already rennigged on almost ALL his campaign promises before he has even taken office.

Appointing fiscally conservative Wall St insiders to his financial team

Appointing most hawks to his foreign policy team

Abandoning his promise of rolling back the Bush tax cuts

No massive health care reform

Doubling the size of the military force in Afghanistan

Staying with the Bush timeline of troop withdrawls from Iraq.

No support for gay marriage





The savior from the left is already proving to be no such thing

LOL!!!!


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 26, 2008)

Joy Behar huh? 



we are doomed.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

What horseshit, Obama has a huge approval rating.

The right wing nut bags will flail and cry until we get another Murrah building incident.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 26, 2008)

Wonder what she's gonna be the Czar of! dosen't all this Czar crap sound kinda toxic? I mean wasn"t the last Czar offed in 1918? or something like that? Why are we having Czar's doyathink?


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 26, 2008)

All the dead registered voters love hymm!


----------



## garyd (Dec 28, 2008)

Truth matters if it mattered to you you be a Republican


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2008)

garyd said:


> Truth matters if it mattered to you you be a Republican



Find those WMD yet?


----------



## garyd (Dec 29, 2008)

That we believed thay were there at the time doesn't mean anybody lied moron just that they believed the majority of the available intel world wide.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2008)

garyd said:


> That we believed thay were there at the time doesn't mean anybody lied moron just that they believed the majority of the available intel world wide.



Pure bullshit. You believed, Cheney and Bush manufactured. They knew from the start that there was no WMD. Read the PNAC. They planned on finding some pretext for going to war with Iraq long before Bush was President. Because you are a fool does not mean all Americans are. You Conservatives backed some real losers, you have wholly supported policies that have bankrupted this nation, and caused untold greif for our military. And failed to get the fellow that actually attacked this nation. Your legacy and that of the whole Bush administration is abysmal failure on every front.


----------



## Silence (Dec 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Pure bullshit. You believed, Cheney and Bush manufactured. They knew from the start that there was no WMD. Read the PNAC. They planned on finding some pretext for going to war with Iraq long before Bush was President. Because you are a fool does not mean all Americans are. You Conservatives backed some real losers, you have wholly supported policies that have bankrupted this nation, and caused untold greif for our military. And failed to get the fellow that actually attacked this nation. Your legacy and that of the whole Bush administration is abysmal failure on every front.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Pure bullshit. You believed, Cheney and Bush manufactured. They knew from the start that there was no WMD. Read the PNAC. They planned on finding some pretext for going to war with Iraq long before Bush was President. Because you are a fool does not mean all Americans are. You Conservatives backed some real losers, you have wholly supported policies that have bankrupted this nation, and caused untold greif for our military. And failed to get the fellow that actually attacked this nation. Your legacy and that of the whole Bush administration is abysmal failure on every front.


 


Silence said:


>


 2 fools


----------



## Charles_Main (Dec 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Pure bullshit. You believed, Cheney and Bush manufactured. They knew from the start that there was no WMD. Read the PNAC. They planned on finding some pretext for going to war with Iraq long before Bush was President. Because you are a fool does not mean all Americans are. You Conservatives backed some real losers, you have wholly supported policies that have bankrupted this nation, and caused untold greif for our military. And failed to get the fellow that actually attacked this nation. Your legacy and that of the whole Bush administration is abysmal failure on every front.



WOW you are an ignorant fucker man.


Conservative policies bankrupted this nation eh. 

thats to rich. 

This Nation was bankrupted by generations of LIBERAL SPENDING programs. Dumb Fuck.

Sorry to everyone to use name calling, but I really can not stand these Dumb fuck liberals who blame everything on Republicans and regurgitate the Democrat Lies that qualify has talking points today.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Dec 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Pure bullshit. You believed, Cheney and Bush manufactured. They knew from the start that there was no WMD. Read the PNAC. They planned on finding some pretext for going to war with Iraq long before Bush was President. Because you are a fool does not mean all Americans are. You Conservatives backed some real losers, you have wholly supported policies that have bankrupted this nation, and caused untold greif for our military. And failed to get the fellow that actually attacked this nation. Your legacy and that of the whole Bush administration is abysmal failure on every front.



He won the war in Iraq and canned the most viscous dictator of our time.

In winning the Iraq war he secured Stryker, a huge airbase in northern Iraq in Kurdish terrirory which we will occupy for the next 50-100 years, in fighter escort range of Georgia and Tehran as well as the Aral-Caspian sea resource district.

He's had enormous, and unpublicized successes in Sub-Saharan Africa in terms of his aides program.

He outed the Taliban

He installed missile defense in Poland which will protect all of western Europe from rogue nations nuclear missile attacks.



He's done a lot of dumb stuff, but there have been some marked successes, too.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 30, 2008)

The anger on the right grows out of their loss and the loss of substance in an ideology they so believed in. Consider the failures since Reagan and it is clear conservatives cannot govern, they can only point fingers and assign blame to others. Do any of them, for instance, reflect on the failure of W and the fact he is the end product of their years of power? This will continue as now they can point fingers again as their own failures fade somewhat into the Texas desert. 

*1. Conservatism has failed. *

"The overwhelming majority of the American public now sees the Bush administration as a failure. They failed in Iraq, they failed after Hurricane Katrina, they failed on health care, they failed to deliver rising wages, they failed on the deficit, they failed, they failed, they failed. Why? Liberals need to argue that it wasnt a product of incompetence, it was a failure of conservative governance. As Alan Wolfe put it in a recent Washington Monthly article, Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well." 

*2. Conservatism is the ideology of the pasta past we dont want to return to. *

*3. Conservatives are cowards, and they hope you are, too. Were afraid, they shout. *

TomPaine.com - It's The Conservatism, Stupid


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Dec 30, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> The anger on the right grows out of their loss and the loss of substance in an ideology they so believed in. Consider the failures since Reagan and it is clear conservatives cannot govern, they can only point fingers and assign blame to others. Do any of them, for instance, reflect on the failure of W and the fact he is the end product of their years of power? This will continue as now they can point fingers again as their own failures fade somewhat into the Texas desert.
> 
> *1. Conservatism has failed. *
> 
> ...



Actually, in case you haven't noticed the Iraq "War" ( it never was a war ), is over and we won....and we are now drawing down.

America is still overwhelmingly center-right, and now we've elected yet another center-right president, even if he is Democrat.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 30, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> 2 fools


----------



## Charles_Main (Dec 30, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> "The overwhelming majority of the American public now sees the Bush administration as a failure. They failed in Iraq, they failed after Hurricane Katrina, they failed on health care, they failed to deliver rising wages, they failed on the deficit, they failed, they failed, they failed. Why? Liberals need to argue that it wasnt a product of incompetence, it was a failure of conservative governance. As Alan Wolfe put it in a recent Washington Monthly article, Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well."



You are proving how wrong you are with this post. Bush did not behave like a Conservative in nearly any real way. He is really only a social conservative, and not any other.

Therefore trying to equate his failure with the failure of Conservatism as a whole is laughable.

You want to keep rubbing it in our faces that you won and we lost. I say go for it. Your hubris is stunning, and it will be your downfall if not in 2 years definitely in 4. So enjoy this rare and brief time on top. 

You want to pretend that Obama winning signals the Death of Conservatives and a move to the left for good by the Public. Always the fool you are. The only thing this election signaled was hat People did not like Bush, and voters are Ignorant and indifferent and the press is in Bed with the Liberals.


----------



## Chris (Dec 31, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> WOW you are an ignorant fucker man.
> 
> 
> Conservative policies bankrupted this nation eh.
> ...



Wrong.

Bush and Reagan are responsible for 90% of the National Debt....

ReaganBushDebt.org


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2008)

Chris said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Bush and Reagan are responsible for 90% of the National Debt....
> 
> ReaganBushDebt.org


that link is bullshit
just like YOU


----------



## Chris (Dec 31, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> that link is bullshit
> just like YOU



ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2008)

Chris said:


> ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details


its still bullshit


that whole site is nothing but partisan bullshit, just like most of your posts


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2009)

The National Debt is primarily the product of Republican administrations. Just a simple fact, no matter how much you deny the reality of it.


----------



## Annie (Jan 3, 2009)

anything before the 20th is silly to blame Obama for. Anything after, are excuses by Obama partisans.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 3, 2009)

Chris said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Bush and Reagan are responsible for 90% of the National Debt....
> 
> ReaganBushDebt.org



Republicans have held the presidency for 38 years, Democrats 18.  Stands to reason we have accumulated more debt under republicans.  Since 1980 it has been 20 to 8....  Odds, law of averages, etc....


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Republicans have held the presidency for 38 years, Democrats 18.  Stands to reason we have accumulated more debt under republicans.  Since 1980 it has been 20 to 8....  Odds, law of averages, etc....


and when you factor in that its CONGRESS that controls the budget
how does that break down


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2009)

If a person earns 100k a year, and has a debt of 50k, he is in good shape. If he earns 10k a year, and has a debt of 50k, he is essentially bankrupt. So real debt, and how manageable it is, is a ratio of income to debt. In the graph of the US debt to GDP, you can see that the primary growth of the ratio came under Reagan, and both Bushs.
U.S. National Debt Graph: $10T+


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> If a person earns 100k a year, and has a debt of 50k, he is in good shape. If he earns 10k a year, and has a debt of 50k, he is essentially bankrupt. So real debt, and how manageable it is, is a ratio of income to debt. In the graph of the US debt to GDP, you can see that the primary growth of the ratio came under Reagan, and both Bushs.
> U.S. National Debt Graph: $10T+


again, who had control of congress during Reagan and Bush 41?


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> again, who had control of congress during Reagan and Bush 41?



Well the first 6 years of Reagan, Republicans controlled the Senate, while Democrats controlled the House. 

Democrats controlled congress for Bush 41, and Republicans controlled congress for the majority of Bush 43..


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> Well the first 6 years of Reagan, Republicans controlled the Senate, while Democrats controlled the House.
> 
> Democrats controlled congress for Bush 41, and Republicans controlled congress for the majority of Bush 43..


no, not exactly

the dems had a control the first two years in the senate
and you know the last two the dems controled both


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> no, not exactly
> 
> the dems had a control the first two years in the senate
> and you know the last two the dems controled both



Well I said "majority" because the republicans had the house for 6 years and the senate for 4 years. Giving the Dems only 2 years in the house and 4 in the senate. So IMO congress had majority republican control for Bush's 8 years.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 5, 2009)

I'm busy just trying to figure out how a $700 billion budget which inclues $300 billion in tax breaks is getting paid for.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 5, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> What's the real reason for this almostpathological rage that is being expressed by some on the right to Obama's election?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



real question is why is the left projecting their rage on the right. Who  exactly is angry let alone raging about Obama's election? You guys won the election, big whoop. My life is still my life. Im not going to be angry just because the guy i really didnt want to support in the first place lost.

Granted, most of us on the right realize we are screwed. we just dont get angry about it. We deal with it and move on.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> real question is why is the left projecting their rage on the right. Who  exactly is angry let alone raging about Obama's election? You guys won the election, big whoop. My life is still my life. Im not going to be angry just because the guy i really didnt want to support in the first place lost.
> 
> Granted, most of us on the right realize we are screwed. we just dont get angry about it. We deal with it and move on.


exactly, there is no "rage" on the right
but the rage from the left for the last 8 years is very clear
so now they want to project their own rage on the right


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Bush and Reagan are responsible for 90% of the National Debt....
> 
> ReaganBushDebt.org



Yes kirk we all know your old stand by link and one liners


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 7, 2009)

> Granted, most of us on the right realize we are screwed. we just dont get angry about it. We deal with it and move on.



You might, not many do.  

Read the attacks on a person who hasn't even been innaugerated yet, while ignoring another who is responsible for the deaths of over 5000 real Patriots and maybe a million Iraqi civilians.  A man who admits he broke the FISA law.  A man who's vice president admits to being involved in outing a covert CIA agent.

As to being screwed, you already are with the Bush legacy.

At least I waited until Bush started using 9-11 as the fear card to divide US and soiled himself after Katrina.

The avid right are ready to hound Obama as long as he is president just like they did with Clinton.

Can you imagine what would have happened if there had been an independent investigator who could spend 70 million investigating Bush?


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 7, 2009)

what attacks? show us!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 7, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> what attacks? show us!


really
LOL
me thinks ray is late for his treatments for ABDS


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2009)

Attacks? is laughing an angry attack now?


----------



## glockmail (Jan 7, 2009)

Yet another bullshit thread by Ray. I've never expressed rage about the election outcome, and I'm about as far to the right as one can be. From what I've seen, its been only a small minority that have.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Yet another bullshit thread by Ray. I've never expressed rage about the election outcome, and I'm about as far to the right as one can be. From what I've seen, its been only a small minority that have.



Honestly, if anything I see the left still raging despite the fact that they won. It doesnt make much sense to me.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 7, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Honestly, if anything I see the left still raging despite the fact that they won. It doesnt make much sense to me.


 That's because they know that now they have to deliver on literally thousands of false promises. 

Which is why I've been saying to them to go as far left as possible. Only after they bankrupt this country will we be able to take it back and start rebuilding. Just like we did after Carter.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 7, 2009)

Bullshit again.  Since the day he won, Obama has been attacked on every issue possible.  There are *those* on the right who would sabotage his every effort even if it meant hurting this country.

Like I said, if we had spent 70 billion investigating Bush like Ken Starr did, he would be in jail now.

I don't believe I used your name or anyone else's.  If you don't believe there is rage, then listen to the Savages, Limpaughs, Coulters etc.  Fatboy called it the Obama recession.

It will take two terms for Obama and another two dem terms to get our country back on an even keel.

As for your remark about the Dems going to bankrupt this country, what the fuck do think Bush already did?  That remark is unbelievable even for you.  Or do you believe the economy is still fundamentally sound?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Bullshit again.  Since the day he won, Obama has been attacked on every issue possible.  There are *those* on the right who would sabotage his every effort even if it meant hurting this country.
> 
> Like I said, if we had spent 70 billion investigating Bush like Ken Starr did, he would be in jail now.
> 
> ...



Economy was quite fine until the Democrats took over the house and Senate... But hey we have hard times coming. I knew that regardless of what happened with the election. The key is not to let whose in control control your life.

Also, not sure about savage cause no one really cares about him. But Limbaugh and Coulter are laughing not raging. Listen sometime, you might be surprised what you hear.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 7, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Bullshit again.  Since the day he won, Obama has been attacked on every issue possible.  There are *those* on the right who would sabotage his every effort even if it meant hurting this country.
> 
> Like I said, if we had spent 70 billion investigating Bush like Ken Starr did, he would be in jail now.
> 
> ...


Ray, seriously, seek out professional help for your ABDS


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 7, 2009)

> Economy was quite fine until the Democrats took over the house and Senate...



The hell it was.  Just like Cheney was saying on TV.  This has only happened in the last six months.

Please, if your going to play at that level of deception, forget any rational dialogue.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 7, 2009)

You can find any number of articles that show that this problem goes way back before the 2006 election when the Dems took a non ruling majority.



> Enron was only a prelude to the current market meltdown.
> 
> In the wake of the Enron bankruptcywhich was briefly the biggest failure in U.S. historytwo key lessons were obvious:* Financial regulators needed lots more funding and personnel, and derivatives markets that were allowed to operate without proper regulatory oversight and reporting paved the way for financial engineers to privatize profits and socialize costs.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> The hell it was.  Just like Cheney was saying on TV.  This has only happened in the last six months.
> 
> Please, if your going to play at that level of deception, forget any rational dialogue.



I don't have a need to decieve anyone nor would I want to. I expect people to educate themselves. To seek after the truth.

I never said everything was the Democrats fault. I merely pointed out that we werent having economic problems until after they took control of Congress.

But thank you very much for reiterating my point that it's the left that is angry and full of rage.


----------



## Chris (Jan 7, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't have a need to decieve anyone nor would I want to. I expect people to educate themselves. To seek after the truth.
> 
> I never said everything was the Democrats fault. I merely pointed out that we werent having economic problems until after they took control of Congress.
> 
> But thank you very much for reiterating my point that it's the left that is angry and full of rage.



Who on the left is "full of rage?"

Name someone specifically outside of this board.


----------



## Chris (Jan 7, 2009)

glockmail said:


> That's because they know that now they have to deliver on literally thousands of false promises.
> 
> Which is why I've been saying to them to go as far left as possible. Only after they bankrupt this country will we be able to take it back and start rebuilding. Just like we did after Carter.



Reagan and Bush bankrupted America....not Carter.

ReaganBushDebt.org


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> really
> LOL
> me thinks ray is late for his treatments for ABDS





he won't show us, cause he cannot, he just rants and raves..


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Reagan and Bush bankrupted America....not Carter.
> 
> ReaganBushDebt.org


how many more times are you gonna keep posting that BULLSHIT site


for one, you and that site ignore WHO was responsible for the budgets 

news flash for you, the executive doesnt control the budget, the legislative does


----------



## Chris (Jan 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> how many more times are you gonna keep posting that BULLSHIT site
> 
> 
> for one, you and that site ignore WHO was responsible for the budgets
> ...



Reagan and Bush created 90% of the National Debt.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Reagan and Bush created 90% of the National Debt.


WRONG, moron

congress did


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Who on the left is "full of rage?"
> 
> Name someone specifically outside of this board.



Al Franken, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, William Ayers, Im sure if i spent more time I could come up with a much longer list.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 7, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Al Franken, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, William Ayers, Im sure if i spent more time I could come up with a much longer list.


Randi Rhoades, Rachel Maddow, Olbermann, shit, thats just off the top adding to your list


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 7, 2009)

don't forget Tweety


----------



## Lycurgus (Jan 7, 2009)

> Originally Posted by Chris
> Who on the left is "full of rage?"



Go to a mirror!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 7, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't have a need to decieve anyone nor would I want to. I expect people to educate themselves. To seek after the truth.
> 
> I never said everything was the Democrats fault. I merely pointed out that we werent having economic problems until after they took control of Congress.
> 
> But thank you very much for reiterating my point that it's the left that is angry and full of rage.



Total crock. The working middle class has seen their economic position sliding downward for over twenty years. Even when Clinton was running things, all we got was a brief respite from the slide downward. In the meantime, the wealthy were huge gains, both in income and total ownership of this nations resources.


----------



## Chris (Jan 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Randi Rhoades, Rachel Maddow, Olbermann, shit, thats just off the top adding to your list



Have you ever seen Rachel Maddow's show?

She's about the most mild mannered person I've ever seen.


----------



## Chris (Jan 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Total crock. The working middle class has seen their economic position sliding downward for over twenty years. Even when Clinton was running things, all we got was a brief respite from the slide downward. In the meantime, the wealthy were huge gains, both in income and total ownership of this nations resources.



90% of Americans control 4% of the wealth.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Have you ever seen Rachel Maddow's show?
> 
> She's about the most mild mannered person I've ever seen.


yes, i have


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> 90% of Americans control 4% of the wealth.


again, SO???


----------



## Chris (Jan 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> again, SO???



So....societies with an unequitable distribution of wealth between capital and labor tend to break down after a while.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> So....societies with an unequitable distribution of wealth between capital and labor tend to break down after a while.


those that have it, must have earned it
let em have it


----------



## Chris (Jan 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> those that have it, must have earned it
> let em have it



At one point the top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $877 million dollars a year in income.

Of course we know now, it was all a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> At one point the top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $877 million dollars a year in income.
> 
> Of course we know now, it was all a Ponzi scheme.


LOL
yeah, and i'm sure what you would do is better


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Total crock. The working middle class has seen their economic position sliding downward for over twenty years. Even when Clinton was running things, all we got was a brief respite from the slide downward. In the meantime, the wealthy were huge gains, both in income and total ownership of this nations resources.



You're right. What you said was a total crock.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> So....societies with an unequitable distribution of wealth between capital and labor tend to break down after a while.



Um that's because all societies tend to break down period. There isn't a single society that hasnt broken down. 

The reason isnt "unequitable distribution of wealth". It's pride. And Covetous (Which is a form fo pride). It's were people believe they are entitled to the property of others and will resort to any means necessary to get it. There is nothing noble about stealing from the rich because they have money. Stealing is stealing even if you enact a law to protect yourself when you do it.

Stop worrying about what others have and fix your own life. Then we dont have to worry about society breaking down.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> At one point the top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $877 million dollars a year in income.
> 
> Of course we know now, it was all a Ponzi scheme.



So you are jealous of people who never really had anything. That seems rather short sighted to me.


----------



## editec (Jan 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> again, SO???


 
They're freaking idiots.

Am I wrong?

Look at the outcome (again) when the monied classes control too much of the society's assets.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 8, 2009)

editec said:


> They're freaking idiots.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> 
> Look at the outcome (again) when the monied classes control too much of the society's assets.


so, who gets to determine what is "too much"
you?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 8, 2009)

So long as the poorer classes are not in any way prevented from attaining assets, it doesn't matter if there are wildly rich people in the society. They control their OWN assets, but don't control the assets of others, and that's the kicker.

It's when you have a government...which essentially becomes a ruling (and corrupt) class controlling the assets that you run into serious problems. Because in that case, people are PREVENTED from attaining assets.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 8, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> So long as the poorer classes are not in any way prevented from attaining assets, it doesn't matter if there are wildly rich people in the society. They control their OWN assets, but don't control the assets of others, and that's the kicker.
> 
> It's when you have a government...which essentially becomes a ruling (and corrupt) class controlling the assets that you run into serious problems. Because in that case, people are PREVENTED from attaining assets.


well, clearly if anyone has more than you do, they are keeping you from actually earning it yourself

/sarcasm


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> so, who gets to determine what is "too much"
> you?



The economy has just passed judgement. Of course, as in most things in life, the innocent get to pay the price.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2009)

Isn't it wonderful how the "Conservatives" on this board are so quick to defend the miscreants that have caused this debacle. I am sure that it makes a "conservative" shudder.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Isn't it wonderful how the "Conservatives" on this board are so quick to defend the miscreants that have caused this debacle. I am sure that it makes a "conservative" shudder.


no, we dont
we know what caused it
you assholes
or at least those you supported


----------



## Chris (Jan 8, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> So long as the poorer classes are not in any way prevented from attaining assets, it doesn't matter if there are wildly rich people in the society. They control their OWN assets, but don't control the assets of others, and that's the kicker.
> 
> It's when you have a government...which essentially becomes a ruling (and corrupt) class controlling the assets that you run into serious problems. Because in that case, people are PREVENTED from attaining assets.



You just described the Bush administration.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Isn't it wonderful how the "Conservatives" on this board are so quick to defend the miscreants that have caused this debacle. I am sure that it makes a "conservative" shudder.





I don't defend any of those "miscreants" at ACORN!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The economy has just passed judgement. Of course, as in most things in life, the innocent get to pay the price.



Who exactly is innocent? You think a poor economy is suffering? Seriously? You dont understand what true suffering is.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> You just described the Bush administration.



Then you agree we need smaller government. We need to take back the power these politicians are taking from us.

Or are you just going to blindly follow Obama as he makes the problem 100 times worse?


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 9, 2009)

I am wondering at what point conservatives and republicans assume some responsibility? Take a moral stand? Consider Nixon's actions, or Reagan/North, or Abramoff, Delay, firing lawyers who did their job, condoning torture, an unnecessary war, a collapsing economy, an increase in poverty, Katrina and on and on. Is it any wonder they lost big this last election. But they stick to the tired mantra, it is the other guy's fault, the martyrdom syndrome needs to be thrown out and they need to look in the mirror for a change. 

David Fiderer: The Simple Arithmetic of Republican Failure


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Who exactly is innocent? You think a poor economy is suffering? Seriously? You dont understand what true suffering is.



Fool! I know what it is like to be hungry. And, if this plays out as I think it will, the Second Great Republican Depression will create a lot more Americans that also know that feeling. You may think that you are well insulated from the realities that this debacle will bring, and you better pray that you are correct.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Fool! I know what it is like to be hungry. And, if this plays out as I think it will, the Second Great Republican Depression will create a lot more Americans that also know that feeling. You may think that you are well insulated from the realities that this debacle will bring, and you better pray that you are correct.


you are the fool, you really think you know what caused the last one, and you want to blame the republicans for it?
LOL


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Fool! I know what it is like to be hungry. And, if this plays out as I think it will, the Second Great Republican Depression will create a lot more Americans that also know that feeling. You may think that you are well insulated from the realities that this debacle will bring, and you better pray that you are correct.



You think missing a few meals is suffering?

The only reason we had a depression before is FDR screwed up the economy with his little social experiments that it too a war for us to get out of it. Unfortunately, now we have a President who wants to do the same exact thing.

What gets me is you are so mad at President Bush for doing exactly what liberals have been wanting to do for years.

No Im very much aware of what's about to happen. But Im not going to sit around and expect someone else to get me out of it. Ill trust God and go to work.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jan 9, 2009)

Blaming FDR?  More right wing spin.




> If you're like me, you sometimes find yourself speechless when confronted with abject insanity.
> 
> 
> If you're like me, you were dumbfounded when "Forrest Gump" beat out "Pulp Fiction" for best picture; when HBO's "Sopranos" received more accolades than "The Wire"; and when George W. Bush insisted Iraqi airplanes were about to drop WMDs on American cities.
> ...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 9, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> Blaming FDR?  More right wing spin.



Wrong most economist now agree. FDR's new Deal did not help end the depression and actually worked to extend it by 5 to 7 years. 

To deny this widely accepted fact is sheer left wing lunacy.


----------



## garyd (Jan 9, 2009)

Rayboy with all due respect, if you thoink borrowing more money from China is going to solve our Problems you are seriously delusional.

Buy the way among the other inaccuracies presented in that piece is the out and out lie that Bush ever said that Iraqi war planes would be dropping WMD on American cities. What you and the rest of the leftist Bushophobes is that at the time the speech was made therewere over 50K Americans well within SCUD range of Iran not including construction workers Embassy staff and others. You don't have to drop bombs on the US proper to threaten Americans.


----------



## Chris (Jan 9, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Wrong most economist now agree. FDR's new Deal did not help end the depression and actually worked to extend it by 5 to 7 years.
> 
> To deny this widely accepted fact is sheer left wing lunacy.



"Most economists?"

Link?


----------



## del (Jan 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> "Most economists?"
> 
> Link?



like you'd understand it


----------



## Shadow (Jan 9, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> don't forget Tweety



And Joy Behar,Bill Mahr,Rosie O'donnell....


----------



## Shadow (Jan 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Isn't it wonderful how the "Conservatives" on this board are so quick to defend the miscreants that have caused this debacle. I am sure that it makes a "conservative" shudder.



You mean like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd...nope,that would be you lefties that keep defending and re-electing the miscreants that caused this debacle.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Wrong most economist now agree. FDR's new Deal did not help end the depression and actually worked to extend it by 5 to 7 years.
> 
> To deny this widely accepted fact is sheer left wing lunacy.



Sure, and you guys routinely state that WW2 was what brought us out of the Depression. Yet in WW2 the government spent massive amounts of money, and raised the top tax to nearly 100%. You pile two contridictory arguements into one paragraph. Both my grandparents lost everything in the First Great Republican Depression, and my parent grew up in it. All thought that Roosevelt was the man that led the country out of it. You revisionists are simply viewing history through ideological glasses, and ignoring reality.

FDR was and always will be a hero to the majority of Americans. And your ideological rants will be consigned to the compost heap, where they belong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2009)

garyd said:


> Rayboy with all due respect, if you thoink borrowing more money from China is going to solve our Problems you are seriously delusional.
> 
> Buy the way among the other inaccuracies presented in that piece is the out and out lie that Bush ever said that Iraqi war planes would be dropping WMD on American cities. What you and the rest of the leftist Bushophobes is that at the time the speech was made therewere over 50K Americans well within SCUD range of Iran not including construction workers Embassy staff and others. You don't have to drop bombs on the US proper to threaten Americans.



And you are still rewriting history. Remember the lies concerning Iraq developing unpiloted planes capable of reaching mainland USA from ship launches? And the truth was that there experiments in that direction were not even at the level of a meet of model plane amatuers on a weekend at the county level here in the US.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2009)

del said:


> like you'd understand it



Like back your assertations, or just be considered a lying ass.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2009)

Shadow said:


> You mean like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd...nope,that would be you lefties that keep defending and re-electing the miscreants that caused this debacle.



Phil 'Enron' Gramm.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Sure, and you guys routinely state that WW2 was what brought us out of the Depression. Yet in WW2 the government spent massive amounts of money, and raised the top tax to nearly 100%.



Yes they spent millions of dollars on actual products and goods.(tanks,planes. Trucks, Jeeps,ammo,uniforms. etc) Which served as a direct massive stimulus to the economy. 

Not millions of dollars on cooperate bail outs, and tax credits to people who do not even pay fed income tax, and other pork ladened social spending programs. 

FDR's new deal policies came well before the war, and were a hamper on recovering from the Depression. Only time, and yes a world war actually got us out of the depression.


----------



## garyd (Jan 11, 2009)

No I don't. I remeber leftist bloggers claiming he said that but Bush himself never did.

It is another of those urban legends like the one where in it is claimed Bush said that Saddam had a part in 9/11 when in fact in a NY-Times piece he clearly said exactly the opposite.

Did he state that intelligence had suggested that The Iraqis might have access to some small RPV's that could be used to deliver chemical munitions? Did he claim that they would be used to deliver such munitions to the US proper? NO.


----------



## editec (Jan 11, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Yes they spent millions of dollars on actual products and goods.(tanks,planes. Trucks, Jeeps,ammo,uniforms. etc) Which served as a direct massive stimulus to the economy.
> 
> Not millions of dollars on cooperate bail outs, and tax credits to people who do not even pay fed income tax, and other pork ladened social spending programs.


 
You really believe that, don't you?

Simply _amazing._


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 11, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Yes they spent millions of dollars on actual products and goods.(tanks,planes. Trucks, Jeeps,ammo,uniforms. etc) Which served as a direct massive stimulus to the economy.
> 
> Not millions of dollars on cooperate bail outs, and tax credits to people who do not even pay fed income tax, and other pork ladened social spending programs.
> 
> FDR's new deal policies came well before the war, and were a hamper on recovering from the Depression. Only time, and yes a world war actually got us out of the depression.



There are many facilities that the WPA and CCC built here in Oregon that are still used on a daily basis. Very real products and goods. And why would not a program building a distributed grid, and the alternative energy sources, not be the same as building tanks and planes?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> There are many facilities that the WPA and CCC built here in Oregon that are still used on a daily basis. Very real products and goods. And why would not a program building a distributed grid, and the alternative energy sources, not be the same as building tanks and planes?



I would be, that is one small part of Obama's plan that has some merit.

Most of what he says he wants to do is not.

Besides with WWII what really helped the economy was jobs. All of the sudden you had 14 million men employed by the Military, and then many of their wives back home found work in factories making the goods of war. 

Nothing Obama is talking about is going to have such a direct effect on the economy as that did.

Besides I am afraid, regardless of Obama's intentions politics will make what ever plan they eventually come up with, Laden with pork, and ineffective at what they want it to do. Stimulate our economy.

The main difference being back then the money was spent through private enterprise, where as much of What obama wants to do is government welfare basically. 

However we should stop comparing this time to the depression in the first place. Things may be bad now, but they are nothing like then. 

I am sorry then you had massive lines for food, today we have massive lines for the newest Blackberry. 

We have a long way to fall before this will be anything like then.

The Media is making this out to be worse then it is. Maybe not intentionally but that is how it comes out. 

Take today for example. 

All sorts of news organizations are reporting we lost 675000 jobs last month, and saying it is the worst job loss since 1945. People hear that and it scares the hell out of them, they spend less and things get worse.

Not one News Outlet I heard reported this news with context. If one was being honest when they said it was the worst single month job loss since 1945 they would have to point out that in 1945 we had FAR LESS total jobs, and there for losing over 650000 back then was far more dramatic and hurtful to our economy than losing 675000 today. What is the % of jobs lost that is the question.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 12, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> I would be, that is one small part of Obama's plan that has some merit.
> 
> Most of what he says he wants to do is not.
> 
> ...



The monthly job loss rate to equal the deep recession of 82-83 would have to get to about 1.3 million per month.  To equal 1932, percentage-wise would have to get to almost 4,000,000.  We are 545,000 right now.  We are a LOOOOOONNNNGGGG way from even being close to our worst post-depression recession, much less a real DEPRESSION.  But to read some idiots here you;d think we entered a full depression months ago.

Recessions are VERY GOOD for the economic health of the country, BTW.  They are just very unpopular for politicians


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 14, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> The monthly job loss rate to equal the deep recession of 82-83 would have to get to about 1.3 million per month.  To equal 1932, percentage-wise would have to get to almost 4,000,000.  We are 545,000 right now.  We are a LOOOOOONNNNGGGG way from even being close to our worst post-depression recession, much less a real DEPRESSION.  But to read some idiots here you;d think we entered a full depression months ago.



exactly and by making it out to be far worse than it is, they make it worse. After all so much of our economy is about perception and confidence. Keep saying it is that bad, and it will be.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 15, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Isn't it wonderful how the "Conservatives" on this board are so quick to defend the miscreants that have caused this debacle. I am sure that it makes a "conservative" shudder.


You won't see me defending Jimy Carter, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.


----------

