At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

[Dubya]

Gotta be honest with you, Dubya...I have a hard time seeing Barack Obama as an "improvement" over George W. Bush. It's four years after he was elected the first time and we're STILL mired in the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression...and Barry is still pushing the same failed fiscal policies. Millions of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed and Obama pushes through tax increases that are going to slow down and already anemic recovery. You've got fiasco's like Fast & Furious and Benghazi that make this Administration's leadership appear to be completely clueless about what's going on around them. You've got complete gridlock in Congress with partisan infighting as strident as I've EVER seen it. We passed ObamaCare but the real cost of that program keeps growing almost as fast as the deficit. Al Queda is not "decimated" as Obama declared...they are actually growing in strength. We have a "non-policy" towards Iran and have done serious harm to the relationship with our only true ally in the Middle East, Israel.

I'm normally a "glass half full" kind of person but I just don't see much to make me optimistic about the next four years. I didn't think Barack Obama had the experience necessary to be President BEFORE he was given the job and nothing has happened in the intervening four years to change my opinion on that.

You have Republican laws creating the policies of this country and Republicans keeping those laws in effect. There is no good economic reason why this country has free trade policies. We should not be importing things we can make ourselves. Your ecomomic policy is flawed thinking. Investment requires opportunity and is not based on the income of the rich. The rich have already accumulated wealth and it's wealth that finances investment. You do not have to kiss the ass of business to get them interested in a business opportunity. China is a perfect example of how business will put up with a lot of shit to find a business opportunity and Russia is another example. Business is very good at adapting to the policies it is required to follow. There is no good reason why this country continues to lease natural resources on public lands and economic zones and not just hire corporations to develop those resources and sell them at market prices. It's crony capitalism to give away so much public property to the rich. It's stupid for America to be paying the highest drug prices in the world. The last time I checked eight and a half of the top 10 drugs according to the amount of sales aren't made by American drug companies and other nations negotiate the price. It's stupid to have a minimum wage for necessary jobs that require the public to subsidize the living of the person getting those wages. Why not let the people who need somebody doing a job pay for it entirely by their purchase? If you want to buy a hamburger, they you should pay enough to give the workers a living wage and no social programs to subsidize the workers making your hamburger. There are plenty more such things, but you can get the idea.

You can claim whatever you want to describe your beliefs, but they are Republican talking points meant to impress people who don't study the issues. Bush screwed up a better Iran policy with his false war with Iraq. It's nonsense to believe either party is against Israel and we still have time to deal with Iran. Do you really believe Republicans get more Jewish votes than Democrats? This anti-Israel talk is only designed to get Jewish votes and it's a lie, which is normal for Republicans. It isn't in America's interest to allow Iran to become nuclear, but it isn't in our interests right now to attack them to prevent it.

To be honest with you, I think your stuff is propaganda. There is all kinds of things happening in Africa against terrorists, so your analysis of al Qaeda is way off. The attack in Bengazi was minor compared to prior attacks and Fast and Furious was used to track weapons that would have gotten through anyway. It was a decision to not go after the minnows and go after the big fish, which is a common practice in law enforcement. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those weapons had tracking devices implanted in them or even the ammo. I think there is a very good chance that the Republicans won't play that obstruction game now that they can't defeat Obama. Obama can stop them from making bad legislation and consequences will force them to make changes. The people are not going to put up with a political party holding the American economy hostage any longer.

My stuff is propaganda? Are we "not" in the midst of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression? Does Barack Obama not bear "some" of the responsibility for that poor recovery when he decided what was REALLY important with millions of people out of work, was an expansive new health care program that will further raise the cost of doing business here in the US?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Queda attack and kill our Ambassador in Benghazi?This wasn't a "minor" attack as you've characterized it...it was a serious black eye for the Obama Administration and a substantial victory for our adversaries.

Fast & Furious didn't "track" anything. The lesson that arms couldn't be tracked was learned by the Bush Administration when they tried to "walk" guns earlier and found they couldn't trace the movements of the weapons even with the full cooperation of the Mexican authorities...which is why the program was stopped. This was never about "tracking" weapons. This was about flooding Mexico with weapons produced in the US so that proponents of tighter gun control laws here in the US could then point to the problem and say it was a gun control issue that needed more gun control laws. Border Agent Brian Terry's death shone a spotlight on what they were trying to do and only THEN did Holder's Justice Department back off on Fast & Furious.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

My stuff is propaganda? Are we "not" in the midst of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression? Does Barack Obama not bear "some" of the responsibility for that poor recovery when he decided what was REALLY important with millions of people out of work, was an expansive new health care program that will further raise the cost of doing business here in the US?

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

The 73rd United States Congress served from March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935. The Senate had 59 Democrats, 36 Republicans and 1 Farm-Labor that caucused with the Democrats when it started. That is a clear supermajority. By the time the Congress ended and Repubicans changed to Democrats, the Democrats had 70 Senators and the Republicans had 23. There was 1 of each of a Farm-Labor, Progressive and Vacant. Obviously, the Democrats had a clear majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in the House with Democrats having nearly a 3 to 1 advantage at the start and their Democratic caucus had 332 to the 103 Republicans at the end of that Congress.

The point is the Republicans were politically removed from the government and had no power. That hasn't been the case in the Great Recession, which had a larger financial crisis than the Great Depression. The big difference is we had the tools and the knowledge to prevent a complete economic collapse. Hoover didn't have what we have today and Roosevelt had to figure out what to do, because they were in uncharted waters. Hoover's mistake was having Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury and Mellon tried to run the economy like a business to pay down war debt and make the books look good. They even increased tariffs, which was the exact opposite of what to do in an economy with obvious problems since '29.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Queda attack and kill our Ambassador in Benghazi?This wasn't a "minor" attack as you've characterized it...it was a serious black eye for the Obama Administration and a substantial victory for our adversaries.

Our Ambassador wasn't in an Embassy and was at a "safe house." I suspect al Qaeda involvement, but do you have any proof of it? al Qaeda bombed two Embassies in Africa with very many losing their lives and no one tried to blame a President. This isn't the first Ambassador we've lost according to what I've heard. I think it's just more partisan politics and doesn't compare to things like the Marine Barracks being bombed in Lebanon and the President pulling the troops out of the country.

You made the point about al Qaeda being stronger now and it has France kicking it's ass in Africa. There are pockets of al Qaeda left and they are constantly losing people. The governments are even fighting against them. al Qaeda likes to join in with rebels, but they are like the kiss of death to rebels who allow them to join. They generate opposition that would be absent without them and it's becoming counter productive to have them around.

Fast & Furious didn't "track" anything. The lesson that arms couldn't be tracked was learned by the Bush Administration when they tried to "walk" guns earlier and found they couldn't trace the movements of the weapons even with the full cooperation of the Mexican authorities...which is why the program was stopped. This was never about "tracking" weapons. This was about flooding Mexico with weapons produced in the US so that proponents of tighter gun control laws here in the US could then point to the problem and say it was a gun control issue that needed more gun control laws. Border Agent Brian Terry's death shone a spotlight on what they were trying to do and only THEN did Holder's Justice Department back off on Fast & Furious.

Explain how you could know that? Are you telling me I couldn't do one better on Bush and use electronic tracking inside weapons and ammo instead of human tracking? How do you know what's involved when they are tracking weapons to their destination and what kind of investigations can become involved with the intelligence gathered. This again is just a partisan witch hunting and can't have the real facts involved in the hack job, because the details have never been made public. There can be very good reasons to keep information gather by intelligence a secret for a long time until it's acted on with success. Even then, there can be reasons not to devulge what was done.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

You Republicans are masters at being liars, but you can't make a career out of lying to the same people. People will figure it out and the Republicans can't get their way of the economy. If they mess it up, they will pay for doing it and no one is going to buy their ideological reasons for doing it. I expect the Senate to compromise and not keep playing the obstruction game like they did in Obama's first term. If the House doesn't compromise, then I expect the Republicans to lose the majority at the next election. The only things the Republicans can do is what they have been doing and that's to slow down the economic recovery. Their economic ideology isn't going to make any improvement and their pure version can't make it into law. I expect them to try to get as much as they can and compromise. The days of the Tea Party having power over policy are over. They can only increase the rate of their decline.

 

[asterism]

Your thread was started before I requested making a thread about that subject and not hijacking this thread. Now, you are pretending to have started the thread after my request. The information you requested from me was in the OP of the thread you started, but you never read that long report to find that information.

The logic works out that it isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars to stick it to a few hundred thousand UAW workers. That's using politics to destroy a union at around a million dollar per head. That's just being dumb.

Not true. Your post was made at 9:30 PM 02-01-2013.

I found the study you referenced and started the thread at 12:10 AM on 02-02-2013.

The logic works out that it isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars to stick it to a few hundred thousand UAW workers. That's using politics to destroy a union at around a million dollar per head. That's just being dumb.

What are you talking about?

Maybe I was thinking of another thread, but another thread would be a better place to collect the information on the auto bailout, instead of it being buried in this thread.

What I'm talking about are people who say let GM fail and don't consider the consequences of a bankrupcy that isn't structured. The tip of an iceberg is 10% of the ice. GM is not 10% of the manufacturing that goes into making an automobile. It's business is auto assembly. Selling the vehicle requires a larger commission than the labor to assemble it.

The ripple effect of jobs lost would have been many times the jobs lost at GM. The revenues lost from the total automobile industry because of not giving GM a bailout, would be around a million dollars times the amount of GM UAW workers in the US. If we lost those auto parts jobs, they wouldn't be coming back without government intervention in trade. GM was large enough to put us in a depression when it failed.

Then why do you keep posting here when I started a thread in Economics as you demanded?

 

[asterism]

You have Republican laws creating the policies of this country and Republicans keeping those laws in effect. There is no good economic reason why this country has free trade policies. We should not be importing things we can make ourselves. Your ecomomic policy is flawed thinking. Investment requires opportunity and is not based on the income of the rich. The rich have already accumulated wealth and it's wealth that finances investment. You do not have to kiss the ass of business to get them interested in a business opportunity. China is a perfect example of how business will put up with a lot of shit to find a business opportunity and Russia is another example. Business is very good at adapting to the policies it is required to follow. There is no good reason why this country continues to lease natural resources on public lands and economic zones and not just hire corporations to develop those resources and sell them at market prices. It's crony capitalism to give away so much public property to the rich. It's stupid for America to be paying the highest drug prices in the world. The last time I checked eight and a half of the top 10 drugs according to the amount of sales aren't made by American drug companies and other nations negotiate the price. It's stupid to have a minimum wage for necessary jobs that require the public to subsidize the living of the person getting those wages. Why not let the people who need somebody doing a job pay for it entirely by their purchase? If you want to buy a hamburger, they you should pay enough to give the workers a living wage and no social programs to subsidize the workers making your hamburger. There are plenty more such things, but you can get the idea.

You can claim whatever you want to describe your beliefs, but they are Republican talking points meant to impress people who don't study the issues. Bush screwed up a better Iran policy with his false war with Iraq. It's nonsense to believe either party is against Israel and we still have time to deal with Iran. Do you really believe Republicans get more Jewish votes than Democrats? This anti-Israel talk is only designed to get Jewish votes and it's a lie, which is normal for Republicans. It isn't in America's interest to allow Iran to become nuclear, but it isn't in our interests right now to attack them to prevent it.

To be honest with you, I think your stuff is propaganda. There is all kinds of things happening in Africa against terrorists, so your analysis of al Qaeda is way off. The attack in Bengazi was minor compared to prior attacks and Fast and Furious was used to track weapons that would have gotten through anyway. It was a decision to not go after the minnows and go after the big fish, which is a common practice in law enforcement. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those weapons had tracking devices implanted in them or even the ammo. I think there is a very good chance that the Republicans won't play that obstruction game now that they can't defeat Obama. Obama can stop them from making bad legislation and consequences will force them to make changes. The people are not going to put up with a political party holding the American economy hostage any longer.

My stuff is propaganda? Are we "not" in the midst of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression? Does Barack Obama not bear "some" of the responsibility for that poor recovery when he decided what was REALLY important with millions of people out of work, was an expansive new health care program that will further raise the cost of doing business here in the US?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Queda attack and kill our Ambassador in Benghazi?This wasn't a "minor" attack as you've characterized it...it was a serious black eye for the Obama Administration and a substantial victory for our adversaries.

Fast & Furious didn't "track" anything. The lesson that arms couldn't be tracked was learned by the Bush Administration when they tried to "walk" guns earlier and found they couldn't trace the movements of the weapons even with the full cooperation of the Mexican authorities...which is why the program was stopped. This was never about "tracking" weapons. This was about flooding Mexico with weapons produced in the US so that proponents of tighter gun control laws here in the US could then point to the problem and say it was a gun control issue that needed more gun control laws. Border Agent Brian Terry's death shone a spotlight on what they were trying to do and only THEN did Holder's Justice Department back off on Fast & Furious.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

The 73rd United States Congress served from March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935. The Senate had 59 Democrats, 36 Republicans and 1 Farm-Labor that caucused with the Democrats when it started. That is a clear supermajority. By the time the Congress ended and Repubicans changed to Democrats, the Democrats had 70 Senators and the Republicans had 23. There was 1 of each of a Farm-Labor, Progressive and Vacant. Obviously, the Democrats had a clear majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in the House with Democrats having nearly a 3 to 1 advantage at the start and their Democratic caucus had 332 to the 103 Republicans at the end of that Congress.

The point is the Republicans were politically removed from the government and had no power. That hasn't been the case in the Great Recession, which had a larger financial crisis than the Great Depression. The big difference is we had the tools and the knowledge to prevent a complete economic collapse. Hoover didn't have what we have today and Roosevelt had to figure out what to do, because they were in uncharted waters. Hoover's mistake was having Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury and Mellon tried to run the economy like a business to pay down war debt and make the books look good. They even increased tariffs, which was the exact opposite of what to do in an economy with obvious problems since '29.



Our Ambassador wasn't in an Embassy and was at a "safe house." I suspect al Qaeda involvement, but do you have any proof of it? al Qaeda bombed two Embassies in Africa with very many losing their lives and no one tried to blame a President. This isn't the first Ambassador we've lost according to what I've heard. I think it's just more partisan politics and doesn't compare to things like the Marine Barracks being bombed in Lebanon and the President pulling the troops out of the country.

You made the point about al Qaeda being stronger now and it has France kicking it's ass in Africa. There are pockets of al Qaeda left and they are constantly losing people. The governments are even fighting against them. al Qaeda likes to join in with rebels, but they are like the kiss of death to rebels who allow them to join. They generate opposition that would be absent without them and it's becoming counter productive to have them around.

Fast & Furious didn't "track" anything. The lesson that arms couldn't be tracked was learned by the Bush Administration when they tried to "walk" guns earlier and found they couldn't trace the movements of the weapons even with the full cooperation of the Mexican authorities...which is why the program was stopped. This was never about "tracking" weapons. This was about flooding Mexico with weapons produced in the US so that proponents of tighter gun control laws here in the US could then point to the problem and say it was a gun control issue that needed more gun control laws. Border Agent Brian Terry's death shone a spotlight on what they were trying to do and only THEN did Holder's Justice Department back off on Fast & Furious.

Explain how you could know that? Are you telling me I couldn't do one better on Bush and use electronic tracking inside weapons and ammo instead of human tracking? How do you know what's involved when they are tracking weapons to their destination and what kind of investigations can become involved with the intelligence gathered. This again is just a partisan witch hunting and can't have the real facts involved in the hack job, because the details have never been made public. There can be very good reasons to keep information gather by intelligence a secret for a long time until it's acted on with success. Even then, there can be reasons not to devulge what was done.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

You Republicans are masters at being liars, but you can't make a career out of lying to the same people. People will figure it out and the Republicans can't get their way of the economy. If they mess it up, they will pay for doing it and no one is going to buy their ideological reasons for doing it. I expect the Senate to compromise and not keep playing the obstruction game like they did in Obama's first term. If the House doesn't compromise, then I expect the Republicans to lose the majority at the next election. The only things the Republicans can do is what they have been doing and that's to slow down the economic recovery. Their economic ideology isn't going to make any improvement and their pure version can't make it into law. I expect them to try to get as much as they can and compromise. The days of the Tea Party having power over policy are over. They can only increase the rate of their decline.

The Republicans took over the House in January 2011. According to Obama's team the economy was going to be in full recovery mode by then.

Blaming Republicans for the stimulus failure is just foolish.

 

[Rinata]

At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

Day One ,he is a loser ...........

Look at that, Marc found the only person on the board more ignorant than he is.

Mac is very intelligent. You just said that because he made you look like the chump that you are.

 

[Oldstyle]

You have Republican laws creating the policies of this country and Republicans keeping those laws in effect. There is no good economic reason why this country has free trade policies. We should not be importing things we can make ourselves. Your ecomomic policy is flawed thinking. Investment requires opportunity and is not based on the income of the rich. The rich have already accumulated wealth and it's wealth that finances investment. You do not have to kiss the ass of business to get them interested in a business opportunity. China is a perfect example of how business will put up with a lot of shit to find a business opportunity and Russia is another example. Business is very good at adapting to the policies it is required to follow. There is no good reason why this country continues to lease natural resources on public lands and economic zones and not just hire corporations to develop those resources and sell them at market prices. It's crony capitalism to give away so much public property to the rich. It's stupid for America to be paying the highest drug prices in the world. The last time I checked eight and a half of the top 10 drugs according to the amount of sales aren't made by American drug companies and other nations negotiate the price. It's stupid to have a minimum wage for necessary jobs that require the public to subsidize the living of the person getting those wages. Why not let the people who need somebody doing a job pay for it entirely by their purchase? If you want to buy a hamburger, they you should pay enough to give the workers a living wage and no social programs to subsidize the workers making your hamburger. There are plenty more such things, but you can get the idea.

You can claim whatever you want to describe your beliefs, but they are Republican talking points meant to impress people who don't study the issues. Bush screwed up a better Iran policy with his false war with Iraq. It's nonsense to believe either party is against Israel and we still have time to deal with Iran. Do you really believe Republicans get more Jewish votes than Democrats? This anti-Israel talk is only designed to get Jewish votes and it's a lie, which is normal for Republicans. It isn't in America's interest to allow Iran to become nuclear, but it isn't in our interests right now to attack them to prevent it.

To be honest with you, I think your stuff is propaganda. There is all kinds of things happening in Africa against terrorists, so your analysis of al Qaeda is way off. The attack in Bengazi was minor compared to prior attacks and Fast and Furious was used to track weapons that would have gotten through anyway. It was a decision to not go after the minnows and go after the big fish, which is a common practice in law enforcement. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those weapons had tracking devices implanted in them or even the ammo. I think there is a very good chance that the Republicans won't play that obstruction game now that they can't defeat Obama. Obama can stop them from making bad legislation and consequences will force them to make changes. The people are not going to put up with a political party holding the American economy hostage any longer.

My stuff is propaganda? Are we "not" in the midst of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression? Does Barack Obama not bear "some" of the responsibility for that poor recovery when he decided what was REALLY important with millions of people out of work, was an expansive new health care program that will further raise the cost of doing business here in the US?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Queda attack and kill our Ambassador in Benghazi?This wasn't a "minor" attack as you've characterized it...it was a serious black eye for the Obama Administration and a substantial victory for our adversaries.

Fast & Furious didn't "track" anything. The lesson that arms couldn't be tracked was learned by the Bush Administration when they tried to "walk" guns earlier and found they couldn't trace the movements of the weapons even with the full cooperation of the Mexican authorities...which is why the program was stopped. This was never about "tracking" weapons. This was about flooding Mexico with weapons produced in the US so that proponents of tighter gun control laws here in the US could then point to the problem and say it was a gun control issue that needed more gun control laws. Border Agent Brian Terry's death shone a spotlight on what they were trying to do and only THEN did Holder's Justice Department back off on Fast & Furious.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

The 73rd United States Congress served from March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935. The Senate had 59 Democrats, 36 Republicans and 1 Farm-Labor that caucused with the Democrats when it started. That is a clear supermajority. By the time the Congress ended and Repubicans changed to Democrats, the Democrats had 70 Senators and the Republicans had 23. There was 1 of each of a Farm-Labor, Progressive and Vacant. Obviously, the Democrats had a clear majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in the House with Democrats having nearly a 3 to 1 advantage at the start and their Democratic caucus had 332 to the 103 Republicans at the end of that Congress.

The point is the Republicans were politically removed from the government and had no power. That hasn't been the case in the Great Recession, which had a larger financial crisis than the Great Depression. The big difference is we had the tools and the knowledge to prevent a complete economic collapse. Hoover didn't have what we have today and Roosevelt had to figure out what to do, because they were in uncharted waters. Hoover's mistake was having Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury and Mellon tried to run the economy like a business to pay down war debt and make the books look good. They even increased tariffs, which was the exact opposite of what to do in an economy with obvious problems since '29.



Our Ambassador wasn't in an Embassy and was at a "safe house." I suspect al Qaeda involvement, but do you have any proof of it? al Qaeda bombed two Embassies in Africa with very many losing their lives and no one tried to blame a President. This isn't the first Ambassador we've lost according to what I've heard. I think it's just more partisan politics and doesn't compare to things like the Marine Barracks being bombed in Lebanon and the President pulling the troops out of the country.

You made the point about al Qaeda being stronger now and it has France kicking it's ass in Africa. There are pockets of al Qaeda left and they are constantly losing people. The governments are even fighting against them. al Qaeda likes to join in with rebels, but they are like the kiss of death to rebels who allow them to join. They generate opposition that would be absent without them and it's becoming counter productive to have them around.

Fast & Furious didn't "track" anything. The lesson that arms couldn't be tracked was learned by the Bush Administration when they tried to "walk" guns earlier and found they couldn't trace the movements of the weapons even with the full cooperation of the Mexican authorities...which is why the program was stopped. This was never about "tracking" weapons. This was about flooding Mexico with weapons produced in the US so that proponents of tighter gun control laws here in the US could then point to the problem and say it was a gun control issue that needed more gun control laws. Border Agent Brian Terry's death shone a spotlight on what they were trying to do and only THEN did Holder's Justice Department back off on Fast & Furious.

Explain how you could know that? Are you telling me I couldn't do one better on Bush and use electronic tracking inside weapons and ammo instead of human tracking? How do you know what's involved when they are tracking weapons to their destination and what kind of investigations can become involved with the intelligence gathered. This again is just a partisan witch hunting and can't have the real facts involved in the hack job, because the details have never been made public. There can be very good reasons to keep information gather by intelligence a secret for a long time until it's acted on with success. Even then, there can be reasons not to devulge what was done.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

You Republicans are masters at being liars, but you can't make a career out of lying to the same people. People will figure it out and the Republicans can't get their way of the economy. If they mess it up, they will pay for doing it and no one is going to buy their ideological reasons for doing it. I expect the Senate to compromise and not keep playing the obstruction game like they did in Obama's first term. If the House doesn't compromise, then I expect the Republicans to lose the majority at the next election. The only things the Republicans can do is what they have been doing and that's to slow down the economic recovery. Their economic ideology isn't going to make any improvement and their pure version can't make it into law. I expect them to try to get as much as they can and compromise. The days of the Tea Party having power over policy are over. They can only increase the rate of their decline.

Wow...there are progressive Kool Aid drinkers and then there is you! You've got blinders on, my liberal friend.

Historically, the larger a recession the larger the rebound from that recession is once it corrects. We're not seeing a rebound even close to what one would expect despite pouring trillions into so called stimulus. Instead of a rebound we're grinding along at about a 1.5% growth rate...anemic by any measurement but considering the trillions we're going into debt for to stimulate our economy it's gawd awful!!! But none of that is due to Barry's complete incompetence when it comes to economics? You've got millions looking for work and instead of concentrating on fiscal policy that would get the economy growing again, Barack Obama chose instead to chase the progressive "holy grail" of government funded health care for the first year he was in office. Even now, four years into his Administration he STILL doesn't have a clue about what makes the economy work. In a weak economy he sought tax increases? Duh? Whatever small growth we HAD is pretty much doomed. Instead of growth we're probably going to slip back into a double dip recession.

The fact that our Ambassador wasn't in a "safe house" is the crux of the problem, Dubya! He and three other Americans are dead because our State Department bungled the security for them so badly and then the Obama Administration decided that getting their "story" straight before the election was more important than sending aid to people fighting for their lives. The bullshit story that we were fed about the attack being the result of a You Tube video instead of the well planned terrorist attack they KNEW it was is shameful. The only thing MORE shameful is the way the main stream media went along for the ride. Al Queda is not "decimated"...it's not "on the ropes"...it's not "on the run"! It's regaining strength daily. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your "narrative" of what this President supposedly achieved but it's the truth.

What are you babbling about? There were no "tracking devices" in Fast & Furious. They let those weapons walk even though they KNEW they couldn't trace them. The Holder Justice Department didn't give two shits about the people they were putting in harms way inside Mexico and along our border. This was ALWAYS about showing that gun trafficking was a problem that needed to be addressed with stricter gun control laws and if some "eggs got broke" making that omelet than the people in charge of Fast & Furious were OK with that. This isn't a "witch hunt". It's the exposure of people who put a political agenda before the safety of the people they were supposed to be protecting. Defending what they did is partisan politics at it's worst. It's shameful and immoral.

The Republicans are "slowing down the economic recovery"? Really? How exactly? By not letting Obama, Reid and Pelosi spend as much as they wanted to on progressive pork like Solyndra? By asking for cuts in spending to a government that is so bloated and inefficient that if it was a human being they'd be cutting a hole in the side of the house and bringing in a crane to rescue the 800 pound bed ridden blob? You want to know what the problem is in Washington? They won't stop spending money they don't have...like they can print it in the basement! Oh, wait...that's right...they CAN print it in the basement!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Look at that, Marc found the only person on the board more ignorant than he is.

Mac is very intelligent. You just said that because he made you look like the chump that you are.

Intelligence is one thing, knowledge is another. If you were half as smart as you think Marc is you would know that and not speak of intelligence when the I am discussing ignorance.

By the way, can you tell me how Marc did anything when he actually admitted I was right about something, and then ignored the rest of my posts?

 

[Dubya]

My stuff is propaganda? Are we "not" in the midst of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression? Does Barack Obama not bear "some" of the responsibility for that poor recovery when he decided what was REALLY important with millions of people out of work, was an expansive new health care program that will further raise the cost of doing business here in the US?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Queda attack and kill our Ambassador in Benghazi?This wasn't a "minor" attack as you've characterized it...it was a serious black eye for the Obama Administration and a substantial victory for our adversaries.

Fast & Furious didn't "track" anything. The lesson that arms couldn't be tracked was learned by the Bush Administration when they tried to "walk" guns earlier and found they couldn't trace the movements of the weapons even with the full cooperation of the Mexican authorities...which is why the program was stopped. This was never about "tracking" weapons. This was about flooding Mexico with weapons produced in the US so that proponents of tighter gun control laws here in the US could then point to the problem and say it was a gun control issue that needed more gun control laws. Border Agent Brian Terry's death shone a spotlight on what they were trying to do and only THEN did Holder's Justice Department back off on Fast & Furious.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

The 73rd United States Congress served from March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935. The Senate had 59 Democrats, 36 Republicans and 1 Farm-Labor that caucused with the Democrats when it started. That is a clear supermajority. By the time the Congress ended and Repubicans changed to Democrats, the Democrats had 70 Senators and the Republicans had 23. There was 1 of each of a Farm-Labor, Progressive and Vacant. Obviously, the Democrats had a clear majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in the House with Democrats having nearly a 3 to 1 advantage at the start and their Democratic caucus had 332 to the 103 Republicans at the end of that Congress.

The point is the Republicans were politically removed from the government and had no power. That hasn't been the case in the Great Recession, which had a larger financial crisis than the Great Depression. The big difference is we had the tools and the knowledge to prevent a complete economic collapse. Hoover didn't have what we have today and Roosevelt had to figure out what to do, because they were in uncharted waters. Hoover's mistake was having Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury and Mellon tried to run the economy like a business to pay down war debt and make the books look good. They even increased tariffs, which was the exact opposite of what to do in an economy with obvious problems since '29.



Our Ambassador wasn't in an Embassy and was at a "safe house." I suspect al Qaeda involvement, but do you have any proof of it? al Qaeda bombed two Embassies in Africa with very many losing their lives and no one tried to blame a President. This isn't the first Ambassador we've lost according to what I've heard. I think it's just more partisan politics and doesn't compare to things like the Marine Barracks being bombed in Lebanon and the President pulling the troops out of the country.

You made the point about al Qaeda being stronger now and it has France kicking it's ass in Africa. There are pockets of al Qaeda left and they are constantly losing people. The governments are even fighting against them. al Qaeda likes to join in with rebels, but they are like the kiss of death to rebels who allow them to join. They generate opposition that would be absent without them and it's becoming counter productive to have them around.



Explain how you could know that? Are you telling me I couldn't do one better on Bush and use electronic tracking inside weapons and ammo instead of human tracking? How do you know what's involved when they are tracking weapons to their destination and what kind of investigations can become involved with the intelligence gathered. This again is just a partisan witch hunting and can't have the real facts involved in the hack job, because the details have never been made public. There can be very good reasons to keep information gather by intelligence a secret for a long time until it's acted on with success. Even then, there can be reasons not to devulge what was done.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

You Republicans are masters at being liars, but you can't make a career out of lying to the same people. People will figure it out and the Republicans can't get their way of the economy. If they mess it up, they will pay for doing it and no one is going to buy their ideological reasons for doing it. I expect the Senate to compromise and not keep playing the obstruction game like they did in Obama's first term. If the House doesn't compromise, then I expect the Republicans to lose the majority at the next election. The only things the Republicans can do is what they have been doing and that's to slow down the economic recovery. Their economic ideology isn't going to make any improvement and their pure version can't make it into law. I expect them to try to get as much as they can and compromise. The days of the Tea Party having power over policy are over. They can only increase the rate of their decline.

The Republicans took over the House in January 2011. According to Obama's team the economy was going to be in full recovery mode by then.

Blaming Republicans for the stimulus failure is just foolish.

I've been in political forums much longer than the report containing that chart. I was there when idiots like you first made that claim about what Obama said, so I posted the report. Throughout the report and on both sides of that chart were disclaimers, saying it was just an estimate. The unemployment rate exceeded the chart when the report was made public, proving that the estimates were done long before in the Bush administration. You right-wingers know the facts, but you insist on lying after it's been proven a lie over and over. What a bunch of lying ass losers you right-wingers are!

 

[asterism]

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

The 73rd United States Congress served from March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935. The Senate had 59 Democrats, 36 Republicans and 1 Farm-Labor that caucused with the Democrats when it started. That is a clear supermajority. By the time the Congress ended and Repubicans changed to Democrats, the Democrats had 70 Senators and the Republicans had 23. There was 1 of each of a Farm-Labor, Progressive and Vacant. Obviously, the Democrats had a clear majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in the House with Democrats having nearly a 3 to 1 advantage at the start and their Democratic caucus had 332 to the 103 Republicans at the end of that Congress.

The point is the Republicans were politically removed from the government and had no power. That hasn't been the case in the Great Recession, which had a larger financial crisis than the Great Depression. The big difference is we had the tools and the knowledge to prevent a complete economic collapse. Hoover didn't have what we have today and Roosevelt had to figure out what to do, because they were in uncharted waters. Hoover's mistake was having Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury and Mellon tried to run the economy like a business to pay down war debt and make the books look good. They even increased tariffs, which was the exact opposite of what to do in an economy with obvious problems since '29.



Our Ambassador wasn't in an Embassy and was at a "safe house." I suspect al Qaeda involvement, but do you have any proof of it? al Qaeda bombed two Embassies in Africa with very many losing their lives and no one tried to blame a President. This isn't the first Ambassador we've lost according to what I've heard. I think it's just more partisan politics and doesn't compare to things like the Marine Barracks being bombed in Lebanon and the President pulling the troops out of the country.

You made the point about al Qaeda being stronger now and it has France kicking it's ass in Africa. There are pockets of al Qaeda left and they are constantly losing people. The governments are even fighting against them. al Qaeda likes to join in with rebels, but they are like the kiss of death to rebels who allow them to join. They generate opposition that would be absent without them and it's becoming counter productive to have them around.



Explain how you could know that? Are you telling me I couldn't do one better on Bush and use electronic tracking inside weapons and ammo instead of human tracking? How do you know what's involved when they are tracking weapons to their destination and what kind of investigations can become involved with the intelligence gathered. This again is just a partisan witch hunting and can't have the real facts involved in the hack job, because the details have never been made public. There can be very good reasons to keep information gather by intelligence a secret for a long time until it's acted on with success. Even then, there can be reasons not to devulge what was done.



You Republicans are masters at being liars, but you can't make a career out of lying to the same people. People will figure it out and the Republicans can't get their way of the economy. If they mess it up, they will pay for doing it and no one is going to buy their ideological reasons for doing it. I expect the Senate to compromise and not keep playing the obstruction game like they did in Obama's first term. If the House doesn't compromise, then I expect the Republicans to lose the majority at the next election. The only things the Republicans can do is what they have been doing and that's to slow down the economic recovery. Their economic ideology isn't going to make any improvement and their pure version can't make it into law. I expect them to try to get as much as they can and compromise. The days of the Tea Party having power over policy are over. They can only increase the rate of their decline.

The Republicans took over the House in January 2011. According to Obama's team the economy was going to be in full recovery mode by then.

Blaming Republicans for the stimulus failure is just foolish.

I've been in political forums much longer than the report containing that chart. I was there when idiots like you first made that claim about what Obama said, so I posted the report. Throughout the report and on both sides of that chart were disclaimers, saying it was just an estimate. The unemployment rate exceeded the chart when the report was made public, proving that the estimates were done long before in the Bush administration. You right-wingers know the facts, but you insist on lying after it's been proven a lie over and over. What a bunch of lying ass losers you right-wingers are!

It is not a lie to point out a prediction and the failure to deliver. Yes, there were disclaimers and hedging but reality isn't even close to the plan as presented yet you blame the GOP for the failure of a plan executed two years before they were in power.

Looks like you're the loser here.

 

[Dubya]

My stuff is propaganda? Are we "not" in the midst of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression? Does Barack Obama not bear "some" of the responsibility for that poor recovery when he decided what was REALLY important with millions of people out of work, was an expansive new health care program that will further raise the cost of doing business here in the US?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Queda attack and kill our Ambassador in Benghazi?This wasn't a "minor" attack as you've characterized it...it was a serious black eye for the Obama Administration and a substantial victory for our adversaries.

Fast & Furious didn't "track" anything. The lesson that arms couldn't be tracked was learned by the Bush Administration when they tried to "walk" guns earlier and found they couldn't trace the movements of the weapons even with the full cooperation of the Mexican authorities...which is why the program was stopped. This was never about "tracking" weapons. This was about flooding Mexico with weapons produced in the US so that proponents of tighter gun control laws here in the US could then point to the problem and say it was a gun control issue that needed more gun control laws. Border Agent Brian Terry's death shone a spotlight on what they were trying to do and only THEN did Holder's Justice Department back off on Fast & Furious.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

The 73rd United States Congress served from March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935. The Senate had 59 Democrats, 36 Republicans and 1 Farm-Labor that caucused with the Democrats when it started. That is a clear supermajority. By the time the Congress ended and Repubicans changed to Democrats, the Democrats had 70 Senators and the Republicans had 23. There was 1 of each of a Farm-Labor, Progressive and Vacant. Obviously, the Democrats had a clear majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in the House with Democrats having nearly a 3 to 1 advantage at the start and their Democratic caucus had 332 to the 103 Republicans at the end of that Congress.

The point is the Republicans were politically removed from the government and had no power. That hasn't been the case in the Great Recession, which had a larger financial crisis than the Great Depression. The big difference is we had the tools and the knowledge to prevent a complete economic collapse. Hoover didn't have what we have today and Roosevelt had to figure out what to do, because they were in uncharted waters. Hoover's mistake was having Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury and Mellon tried to run the economy like a business to pay down war debt and make the books look good. They even increased tariffs, which was the exact opposite of what to do in an economy with obvious problems since '29.



Our Ambassador wasn't in an Embassy and was at a "safe house." I suspect al Qaeda involvement, but do you have any proof of it? al Qaeda bombed two Embassies in Africa with very many losing their lives and no one tried to blame a President. This isn't the first Ambassador we've lost according to what I've heard. I think it's just more partisan politics and doesn't compare to things like the Marine Barracks being bombed in Lebanon and the President pulling the troops out of the country.

You made the point about al Qaeda being stronger now and it has France kicking it's ass in Africa. There are pockets of al Qaeda left and they are constantly losing people. The governments are even fighting against them. al Qaeda likes to join in with rebels, but they are like the kiss of death to rebels who allow them to join. They generate opposition that would be absent without them and it's becoming counter productive to have them around.



Explain how you could know that? Are you telling me I couldn't do one better on Bush and use electronic tracking inside weapons and ammo instead of human tracking? How do you know what's involved when they are tracking weapons to their destination and what kind of investigations can become involved with the intelligence gathered. This again is just a partisan witch hunting and can't have the real facts involved in the hack job, because the details have never been made public. There can be very good reasons to keep information gather by intelligence a secret for a long time until it's acted on with success. Even then, there can be reasons not to devulge what was done.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

You Republicans are masters at being liars, but you can't make a career out of lying to the same people. People will figure it out and the Republicans can't get their way of the economy. If they mess it up, they will pay for doing it and no one is going to buy their ideological reasons for doing it. I expect the Senate to compromise and not keep playing the obstruction game like they did in Obama's first term. If the House doesn't compromise, then I expect the Republicans to lose the majority at the next election. The only things the Republicans can do is what they have been doing and that's to slow down the economic recovery. Their economic ideology isn't going to make any improvement and their pure version can't make it into law. I expect them to try to get as much as they can and compromise. The days of the Tea Party having power over policy are over. They can only increase the rate of their decline.

Wow...there are progressive Kool Aid drinkers and then there is you! You've got blinders on, my liberal friend.

Historically, the larger a recession the larger the rebound from that recession is once it corrects. We're not seeing a rebound even close to what one would expect despite pouring trillions into so called stimulus. Instead of a rebound we're grinding along at about a 1.5% growth rate...anemic by any measurement but considering the trillions we're going into debt for to stimulate our economy it's gawd awful!!! But none of that is due to Barry's complete incompetence when it comes to economics? You've got millions looking for work and instead of concentrating on fiscal policy that would get the economy growing again, Barack Obama chose instead to chase the progressive "holy grail" of government funded health care for the first year he was in office. Even now, four years into his Administration he STILL doesn't have a clue about what makes the economy work. In a weak economy he sought tax increases? Duh? Whatever small growth we HAD is pretty much doomed. Instead of growth we're probably going to slip back into a double dip recession.

The fact that our Ambassador wasn't in a "safe house" is the crux of the problem, Dubya! He and three other Americans are dead because our State Department bungled the security for them so badly and then the Obama Administration decided that getting their "story" straight before the election was more important than sending aid to people fighting for their lives. The bullshit story that we were fed about the attack being the result of a You Tube video instead of the well planned terrorist attack they KNEW it was is shameful. The only thing MORE shameful is the way the main stream media went along for the ride. Al Queda is not "decimated"...it's not "on the ropes"...it's not "on the run"! It's regaining strength daily. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your "narrative" of what this President supposedly achieved but it's the truth.

What are you babbling about? There were no "tracking devices" in Fast & Furious. They let those weapons walk even though they KNEW they couldn't trace them. The Holder Justice Department didn't give two shits about the people they were putting in harms way inside Mexico and along our border. This was ALWAYS about showing that gun trafficking was a problem that needed to be addressed with stricter gun control laws and if some "eggs got broke" making that omelet than the people in charge of Fast & Furious were OK with that. This isn't a "witch hunt". It's the exposure of people who put a political agenda before the safety of the people they were supposed to be protecting. Defending what they did is partisan politics at it's worst. It's shameful and immoral.

The Republicans are "slowing down the economic recovery"? Really? How exactly? By not letting Obama, Reid and Pelosi spend as much as they wanted to on progressive pork like Solyndra? By asking for cuts in spending to a government that is so bloated and inefficient that if it was a human being they'd be cutting a hole in the side of the house and bringing in a crane to rescue the 800 pound bed ridden blob? You want to know what the problem is in Washington? They won't stop spending money they don't have...like they can print it in the basement! Oh, wait...that's right...they CAN print it in the basement!!!

You obviously have never studied economics and inflating a depressed economy requires plugging the holes where the money leaks to get a quick recovery. We've never had times with such massive trade imbalances before, so when consumption increases, it isn't our people getting the jobs. To recover quickly, you have to get that positive feedback. You claim a crashed economy recovers quicker and that's bullshit comparing what happened to recessions. We didn't get out of the Great Depression until WWII stimulated the economy. You Republicans didn't create a downturn in the business cycle, you created a full blown financial crisis larger than the financial crisis during the Great Depression. Republicans have proven themselves very good at destroying economies, so remember to tell them that the next time someone calls the Republicans good for nothing.

The rest of what you post is babble. Bengazi involved a safe house and not an embassy, you don't know any of the details about Fast and Furious, so why wouldn't an intelligent human being put a tracking device in the ammo of a .50 cal. rifle or hide it in the weapon? Solyndra was a victim of the collapse in the price of silicon and competition from cadmium telluride PVs. They still have the patents on their thin film process and since cadmium telluride has a limited supply, the thin film silicon will eventually be the best choice in the future. As far as economics is concerned, the Republicans have never wanted an economic recovery and have worked their asses off to keep one from happening. The elite who the Republican Party serves can invest accumulated wealth in amounts that dwarf annual income, so they make more money during bad times in the short run.

As far as talking point goes, I've researched all these things with the best primary source information available. I don't know what the Democrat or liberal talking points are or if they even exist, because I don't visit sites with the potential of bias. You aren't going to find what I know on a blog or some type of online media. I don't use talking points like you obviously do. Your shit is right out of right-wing think tanks and they are pulling your strings without your mind connected. Being brainwashed to believe what they tell you to believe isn't thinking.

 

[nitroz]

It's safe to say that for most users, it was when they first saw him, or found out what he was, etc.

There are the few others who aren't total right winged nuts and actually have a reason.

And then there are the almost extinct bunch who still act like adults about their political views and obama.

 

[Oldstyle]

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

The 73rd United States Congress served from March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935. The Senate had 59 Democrats, 36 Republicans and 1 Farm-Labor that caucused with the Democrats when it started. That is a clear supermajority. By the time the Congress ended and Repubicans changed to Democrats, the Democrats had 70 Senators and the Republicans had 23. There was 1 of each of a Farm-Labor, Progressive and Vacant. Obviously, the Democrats had a clear majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in the House with Democrats having nearly a 3 to 1 advantage at the start and their Democratic caucus had 332 to the 103 Republicans at the end of that Congress.

The point is the Republicans were politically removed from the government and had no power. That hasn't been the case in the Great Recession, which had a larger financial crisis than the Great Depression. The big difference is we had the tools and the knowledge to prevent a complete economic collapse. Hoover didn't have what we have today and Roosevelt had to figure out what to do, because they were in uncharted waters. Hoover's mistake was having Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury and Mellon tried to run the economy like a business to pay down war debt and make the books look good. They even increased tariffs, which was the exact opposite of what to do in an economy with obvious problems since '29.



Our Ambassador wasn't in an Embassy and was at a "safe house." I suspect al Qaeda involvement, but do you have any proof of it? al Qaeda bombed two Embassies in Africa with very many losing their lives and no one tried to blame a President. This isn't the first Ambassador we've lost according to what I've heard. I think it's just more partisan politics and doesn't compare to things like the Marine Barracks being bombed in Lebanon and the President pulling the troops out of the country.

You made the point about al Qaeda being stronger now and it has France kicking it's ass in Africa. There are pockets of al Qaeda left and they are constantly losing people. The governments are even fighting against them. al Qaeda likes to join in with rebels, but they are like the kiss of death to rebels who allow them to join. They generate opposition that would be absent without them and it's becoming counter productive to have them around.



Explain how you could know that? Are you telling me I couldn't do one better on Bush and use electronic tracking inside weapons and ammo instead of human tracking? How do you know what's involved when they are tracking weapons to their destination and what kind of investigations can become involved with the intelligence gathered. This again is just a partisan witch hunting and can't have the real facts involved in the hack job, because the details have never been made public. There can be very good reasons to keep information gather by intelligence a secret for a long time until it's acted on with success. Even then, there can be reasons not to devulge what was done.



You Republicans are masters at being liars, but you can't make a career out of lying to the same people. People will figure it out and the Republicans can't get their way of the economy. If they mess it up, they will pay for doing it and no one is going to buy their ideological reasons for doing it. I expect the Senate to compromise and not keep playing the obstruction game like they did in Obama's first term. If the House doesn't compromise, then I expect the Republicans to lose the majority at the next election. The only things the Republicans can do is what they have been doing and that's to slow down the economic recovery. Their economic ideology isn't going to make any improvement and their pure version can't make it into law. I expect them to try to get as much as they can and compromise. The days of the Tea Party having power over policy are over. They can only increase the rate of their decline.

The Republicans took over the House in January 2011. According to Obama's team the economy was going to be in full recovery mode by then.

Blaming Republicans for the stimulus failure is just foolish.

I've been in political forums much longer than the report containing that chart. I was there when idiots like you first made that claim about what Obama said, so I posted the report. Throughout the report and on both sides of that chart were disclaimers, saying it was just an estimate. The unemployment rate exceeded the chart when the report was made public, proving that the estimates were done long before in the Bush administration. You right-wingers know the facts, but you insist on lying after it's been proven a lie over and over. What a bunch of lying ass losers you right-wingers are!

If you take the amount of money spent on stimulus and then divide it by the number of jobs created by the stimulus it's pretty obvious that the Obama plan to get the economy going again was anything BUT a rousing success. TARP had a much greater positive effect on the economy and that was Bush's baby...not Obama's.

The truth is...you don't invent statistics like "jobs saved" if what you did really worked. You do THAT if what you did tanked and you want to obscure that fact. The real "lie" being told is that the stimulus did what it was supposed to do.

 

[nitroz]

When he declared he would socialize medicine, revoke freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to defend oneself.

IOW, when the fucker turned out to be a democrat.

"Freedom of religion".

Sorry, bud. But if we were to have freedom of religion, we would first need freedom from religion. Therefore separating the church and the state.

This is not a Christian nation. If it was, Christianity would be the dominating power and there would be no such thing as freedom of religion.


Don't cry when you get put into your place.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Clearly, this is directed to The Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives of USMB.

When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like Obama and were going to be against him no matter what?

I'll answer the question in the reverse as an example. Some years ago, when Bush was first elected, I disliked him. I didn't like what he stood for, didn't like what he said, I didn't even like the way he sounded, he sounds dumb and he's proven himself to be such. Anyway, I wasn't totally or automatically against him. What turned me against him permanently, was what he did with the good will of The American People after the country was attacked.

He lied about the WMDs, he kept the country in state of constant fear, and he waged two unnecessary wars. To top it off, he didn't pay for it at the time and sent the bill to our kids and grandkids.

To be precise, from the instant he began that fear campaign war campaign, he lost me forever. I will NEVER forgive him for that.

So, when did you Republicans, Conservatives and other assorted RWers of USMB decide to be against Obama no matter what?

C'mon, be honest.

It's no personal.
I oppose socialism/liberalism/progessivism. I despise large overbearing government. I oppose central planning.
As for the rest of your monologue/set up, are you asking about Obama or Bush?

 

[thereisnospoon]

When he declared he would socialize medicine, revoke freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to defend oneself.

IOW, when the fucker turned out to be a democrat.

This, right here, tells me that there's no Democrat in the world that could ever earn your support.

Which puts you deep and comfortably in the far right wing radical fringe.

The only thing I can do for you, at this point, is to thank you for your honesty.

You have your mind made up already. So why did you bother starting this thread.
All you are doing is expressing your hatred toward all people not liberal.
You said so yourself, we're all radicals.

 

[Oldstyle]

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

The 73rd United States Congress served from March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935. The Senate had 59 Democrats, 36 Republicans and 1 Farm-Labor that caucused with the Democrats when it started. That is a clear supermajority. By the time the Congress ended and Repubicans changed to Democrats, the Democrats had 70 Senators and the Republicans had 23. There was 1 of each of a Farm-Labor, Progressive and Vacant. Obviously, the Democrats had a clear majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in the House with Democrats having nearly a 3 to 1 advantage at the start and their Democratic caucus had 332 to the 103 Republicans at the end of that Congress.

The point is the Republicans were politically removed from the government and had no power. That hasn't been the case in the Great Recession, which had a larger financial crisis than the Great Depression. The big difference is we had the tools and the knowledge to prevent a complete economic collapse. Hoover didn't have what we have today and Roosevelt had to figure out what to do, because they were in uncharted waters. Hoover's mistake was having Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury and Mellon tried to run the economy like a business to pay down war debt and make the books look good. They even increased tariffs, which was the exact opposite of what to do in an economy with obvious problems since '29.



Our Ambassador wasn't in an Embassy and was at a "safe house." I suspect al Qaeda involvement, but do you have any proof of it? al Qaeda bombed two Embassies in Africa with very many losing their lives and no one tried to blame a President. This isn't the first Ambassador we've lost according to what I've heard. I think it's just more partisan politics and doesn't compare to things like the Marine Barracks being bombed in Lebanon and the President pulling the troops out of the country.

You made the point about al Qaeda being stronger now and it has France kicking it's ass in Africa. There are pockets of al Qaeda left and they are constantly losing people. The governments are even fighting against them. al Qaeda likes to join in with rebels, but they are like the kiss of death to rebels who allow them to join. They generate opposition that would be absent without them and it's becoming counter productive to have them around.



Explain how you could know that? Are you telling me I couldn't do one better on Bush and use electronic tracking inside weapons and ammo instead of human tracking? How do you know what's involved when they are tracking weapons to their destination and what kind of investigations can become involved with the intelligence gathered. This again is just a partisan witch hunting and can't have the real facts involved in the hack job, because the details have never been made public. There can be very good reasons to keep information gather by intelligence a secret for a long time until it's acted on with success. Even then, there can be reasons not to devulge what was done.



You Republicans are masters at being liars, but you can't make a career out of lying to the same people. People will figure it out and the Republicans can't get their way of the economy. If they mess it up, they will pay for doing it and no one is going to buy their ideological reasons for doing it. I expect the Senate to compromise and not keep playing the obstruction game like they did in Obama's first term. If the House doesn't compromise, then I expect the Republicans to lose the majority at the next election. The only things the Republicans can do is what they have been doing and that's to slow down the economic recovery. Their economic ideology isn't going to make any improvement and their pure version can't make it into law. I expect them to try to get as much as they can and compromise. The days of the Tea Party having power over policy are over. They can only increase the rate of their decline.

Wow...there are progressive Kool Aid drinkers and then there is you! You've got blinders on, my liberal friend.

Historically, the larger a recession the larger the rebound from that recession is once it corrects. We're not seeing a rebound even close to what one would expect despite pouring trillions into so called stimulus. Instead of a rebound we're grinding along at about a 1.5% growth rate...anemic by any measurement but considering the trillions we're going into debt for to stimulate our economy it's gawd awful!!! But none of that is due to Barry's complete incompetence when it comes to economics? You've got millions looking for work and instead of concentrating on fiscal policy that would get the economy growing again, Barack Obama chose instead to chase the progressive "holy grail" of government funded health care for the first year he was in office. Even now, four years into his Administration he STILL doesn't have a clue about what makes the economy work. In a weak economy he sought tax increases? Duh? Whatever small growth we HAD is pretty much doomed. Instead of growth we're probably going to slip back into a double dip recession.

The fact that our Ambassador wasn't in a "safe house" is the crux of the problem, Dubya! He and three other Americans are dead because our State Department bungled the security for them so badly and then the Obama Administration decided that getting their "story" straight before the election was more important than sending aid to people fighting for their lives. The bullshit story that we were fed about the attack being the result of a You Tube video instead of the well planned terrorist attack they KNEW it was is shameful. The only thing MORE shameful is the way the main stream media went along for the ride. Al Queda is not "decimated"...it's not "on the ropes"...it's not "on the run"! It's regaining strength daily. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your "narrative" of what this President supposedly achieved but it's the truth.

What are you babbling about? There were no "tracking devices" in Fast & Furious. They let those weapons walk even though they KNEW they couldn't trace them. The Holder Justice Department didn't give two shits about the people they were putting in harms way inside Mexico and along our border. This was ALWAYS about showing that gun trafficking was a problem that needed to be addressed with stricter gun control laws and if some "eggs got broke" making that omelet than the people in charge of Fast & Furious were OK with that. This isn't a "witch hunt". It's the exposure of people who put a political agenda before the safety of the people they were supposed to be protecting. Defending what they did is partisan politics at it's worst. It's shameful and immoral.

The Republicans are "slowing down the economic recovery"? Really? How exactly? By not letting Obama, Reid and Pelosi spend as much as they wanted to on progressive pork like Solyndra? By asking for cuts in spending to a government that is so bloated and inefficient that if it was a human being they'd be cutting a hole in the side of the house and bringing in a crane to rescue the 800 pound bed ridden blob? You want to know what the problem is in Washington? They won't stop spending money they don't have...like they can print it in the basement! Oh, wait...that's right...they CAN print it in the basement!!!

You obviously have never studied economics and inflating a depressed economy requires plugging the holes where the money leaks to get a quick recovery. We've never had times with such massive trade imbalances before, so when consumption increases, it isn't our people getting the jobs. To recover quickly, you have to get that positive feedback. You claim a crashed economy recovers quicker and that's bullshit comparing what happened to recessions. We didn't get out of the Great Depression until WWII stimulated the economy. You Republicans didn't create a downturn in the business cycle, you created a full blown financial crisis larger than the financial crisis during the Great Depression. Republicans have proven themselves very good at destroying economies, so remember to tell them that the next time someone calls the Republicans good for nothing.

The rest of what you post is babble. Bengazi involved a safe house and not an embassy, you don't know any of the details about Fast and Furious, so why wouldn't an intelligent human being put a tracking device in the ammo of a .50 cal. rifle or hide it in the weapon? Solyndra was a victim of the collapse in the price of silicon and competition from cadmium telluride PVs. They still have the patents on their thin film process and since cadmium telluride has a limited supply, the thin film silicon will eventually be the best choice in the future. As far as economics is concerned, the Republicans have never wanted an economic recovery and have worked their asses off to keep one from happening. The elite who the Republican Party serves can invest accumulated wealth in amounts that dwarf annual income, so they make more money during bad times in the short run.

As far as talking point goes, I've researched all these things with the best primary source information available. I don't know what the Democrat or liberal talking points are or if they even exist, because I don't visit sites with the potential of bias. You aren't going to find what I know on a blog or some type of online media. I don't use talking points like you obviously do. Your shit is right out of right-wing think tanks and they are pulling your strings without your mind connected. Being brainwashed to believe what they tell you to believe isn't thinking.

Actually I did study economics while in college. I even had the great pleasure of taking an economics class taught by Thomas Sowell at Amherst College. Where did you get YOUR economics background?

Inflating a depressed economy? What exactly does that mean? Let me guess...you're one of those Rshermr types that thinks coming here and talking a bunch of gibberish and pretending you're an authority on economics is going to fly? Good luck...

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why the progressive policies of FDR DIDN'T lead the US out of the Great Depression? And if those policies didn't work then...why would you think they will work now?

The economy crashed primarily because of a housing bubble collapse. How you make THAT the fault of the Republicans I find rather hard to grasp. Wasn't George W. Bush one of the few people in Washington warning about just that before it happened? Wasn't it Barney Frank who pooh poohed that? Remind me who was a Republican and who was a Democrat?

So what if Benghazi involved a "safe house"? What was Ambassador Stevens doing there if it was obviously "unsafe" and why did the US government not respond when it saw that Americans were in mortal danger in Benghazi? Or do you actually BUY the story that we didn't have the capability to put military assets on site in less than seven hours? Are you REALLY that naive?

As for what "intelligent" people would have done in regards to Fast & Furious? I don't think you can assign much intelligence to whoever thought up the plan to flood another sovereign nation with high powered weapons...weapons that they KNEW were going to hyper violent drug cartels...and somehow thought that was a GOOD plan. Once again you have some delusional idea that there were "homing devices" secreted in the guns or ammo. Sorry but that wasn't done under the Fast & Furious program.

Solyndra was destined to be a financial failure before it even started. Their solar panels were so much more expensive than what was being made in China there was absolutely no way they were going to be financially viable. The red flags on that were raised during the Bush Administration...but since some of Solyndra's money people were Obama supporters their loan guarantee got fast tracked once Barry was elected. Hey, that the way things work in Washington but at least have the honesty to admit it and take the blame for wasting billions in tax payer money.

Quite frankly, Dubya...I don't need help from any "sites" to debate your outlandish posts. A little common sense does the trick just fine.

 

[percysunshine]

Can't y'all boil this down into one or two sentences?

When the government spends all of your money on stupid shit, shit happens.

 

[MarcATL]

It's safe to say that for most users, it was when they first saw him, or found out what he was, etc.

There are the few others who aren't total right winged nuts and actually have a reason.

And then there are the almost extinct bunch who still act like adults about their political views and obama.

I think most are just partisan hacks hell-bent on only seeing/finding wrong in the other party...specially those on the right.

 

[Claudette]

1 embassy is now "our embassies" huh? What were you saying, or said about King Reagan's governorship when hundreds of Americans died at our embassies abroad?



What!?!?!?!

Oh man, oh man oh man....

Welcome to the TOP of the far RW hack list of USMB dude...you've earned it.

Another one who blames Bush for 9-11.

Jesus your an idiot. Bush was POTUS for eight months when they hit the TT.

That attack was years in the planning. Those years were all under Clinton.

His FBI agent John O'Neil knew something was up. He couldn't get his bosses at the FBI to listen to him. He eventually got forced out. He retired in 2001 and became head of security at the Twin Towers. He died in same on 9-11.

If you want to blame anyone but the dirtbags flying the planes and the dirtbag who planned it then you can set your sites on Clinton. The whole thing was planned under his watch and his FBI dropped the ball.

You can bet your ass that Clinton is on his knees thanking God every night that AQ held off on that attack till he was out of office. I sure as hell would be.

He FAILED to protect us.

I don't care if this plan was underway since Nixon or King Reagan, the FACT remains that Bush. did. not. keep. us. safe.

Period. Point blank. End-of-story.

That just shows how idiotic you are Marc. Bush was POTUS for EIGHT MONTHS when 9-11 rolled around. Clinton was POTUS for 8 YEARS. The planning all took place under his watch. His FBI dropped the ball. Its easy to blame Bush because he was POTUS but Clinton is way more to answer for. His FBI with the exception of John O'Neil didn't take the threats seriously.

I'm wondering if Clintons FBI even passed O'Neils vague info on to Bush's administration. I always assumed they did. Hell. They didn't believe O'Neil so now I wonder if they even bothered to pass that vauge info on to the new administration.

You can blame Bush all you want because he was POTUS but any thinking person will be taking a good hard look at Clinton's FBI.

Clinton also refused to take UBL when the Sudan offered him up on a silver platter. If he had taken that dirtbag they might have been able to get the particulars on the attack that was in the works. Of course you don't want to hear that. You're to busy blamming Bush. God your blind.

You can blame Bush all you wamt. ME? I'll blame the dirtbags who flew the planes and the dirtbags who planned it. I know most of em are rotting in hell.

And as I said. Clinton is on his knees every night thanking God that AQ waited until he was out of office before they struck. I sure as hell would be.

 

[Stephanie]

When he declared he would socialize medicine, revoke freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to defend oneself.

IOW, when the fucker turned out to be a democrat.

This, right here, tells me that there's no Democrat in the world that could ever earn your support.

Which puts you deep and comfortably in the far right wing radical fringe.

The only thing I can do for you, at this point, is to thank you for your honesty.

You have your mind made up already. So why did you bother starting this thread.
All you are doing is expressing your hatred toward all people not liberal.
You said so yourself, we're all radicals.

that's what all his thread he starts are about..really best to ignore them

 

[Uncensored2008]

How am I a hypocrite now?

Blaming Bush for acts not under his control whilst condemning those who blame Obama in the same way.

You have one set of standards for Bush, and a VASTLY different set for Obama.