If You Want Change, Win An Election

[LTCArmyRet]

overall government employment is at a historic low. Nyc was talking about how overall government employment has effected the unemployment levels. Unemployment could be a full percentage lower if local governments were at the same levels they were in 2008.

Federal employment has increased about 6% under president obama...now, would you like to take a guess in what areas the increases occurred?

government jobs don't grow the economy idiot!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth grows government debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth increases beuracratic bullshit paperwork!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to keep reducing governement jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At all levels!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course they do. You can't say jobs grow our economy in one breath and then say government jobs don't. That's illogical on its face. Jobs grow the economy period. Unemployment would be a full percentage point LOWER if local governments had maintained their 2008 levels. What part of that don't you understand? That's over 500,000 people not consuming in our consumer driven economy.

The only thing increasing the number of government jobs does is CONSUME our taxes!!!!!

 

[Vandalshandle]

government jobs don't grow the economy idiot!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth grows government debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth increases beuracratic bullshit paperwork!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to keep reducing governement jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At all levels!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Defense spending is one of the major cornerstones of our economy.

Thanks Government

Okay dumbass, I'll entertain you, in order to expose your stupidity. Our defense budget is barely 3% of our GDP, all-time historical lows for our country. There are 10 other countries that spend a greater % of their GDP on defense than we do. So it IS NOT a cornerstone of our economy, Manufactoring and Agriculture, largest worldwide (as a % of GDP) in both categories are the cornerstone of our economy!!!!

...and yet, we maintain over 1,000 military bases overseas, NOT ICLUDING IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN. Hmmmmmmm........ I guess that really means that the USA is the cornerstone of other nations economies.

 

[jasonnfree]

the only decrease in government jobs that we have seen since 2009 have taken place at the state and local level, carbineer...the number of federal government employees has always been higher under obama than under george w. Bush.

State and local governments have lost jobs because unlike the feds...they can't simply print money to pay for their employees. Once the obama stimulus propping up local government jobs went away so did the jobs because the private sector was getting crushed and not producing the revenues at the state and local levels to support state and local government. It's what happens when your "stimulus" primarily helps keep government workers employed and does little to help private sector workers...which is exactly what the obama stimulus did. The following article from the ny times sums it up rather nicely.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/?_r=0

overall government employment is at a historic low. Nyc was talking about how overall government employment has effected the unemployment levels. Unemployment could be a full percentage lower if local governments were at the same levels they were in 2008.

Federal employment has increased about 6% under president obama...now, would you like to take a guess in what areas the increases occurred?

government jobs don't grow the economy idiot!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth grows government debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth increases beuracratic bullshit paperwork!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to keep reducing governement jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At all levels!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Better watch it lieutenant kernel, some of those employees are paying your pension the same as they paid you for goofing off for twenty or so years.

 

[Oldstyle]

[Oduma is the worst President in our proud nations history, he and his fellow democratic congressman have run up a tab that my grandchildren will be paying. EVEN WORSE THAN GW!!!! Heres the proof!!

ATTACH]28019[/ATTACH]
Chart 4.12: Government Debt as Percent of GDP

April 5, 2008

History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”

Here are some of the comments that the historians furnished:

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

Worst. President. Ever. | Harper's Magazine
isn
I sincerely doubt that Barack Obama will ever be considered to be in the same class as George W. Bush. Dream about it because it will never happen.

Gee, liberal historians hate W...what a shocker!!! Here's a hint for you, Rinata...how historians view Presidents evolves over time. At the end of Bush's second term he was seen as a terrible President by quite a few people, many of which declared here that he was the worst of all time. I made the statement then...and I'll repeat it now...that Bush in many ways will be judged by the success or failure of the President who comes after him. If Barack Obama is successful then Bush will be viewed as a goat...If Obama falls on his face then Bush will be viewed in a much more favorable light.

As of right now, Barack Obama is the best thing that could have EVER happened to George W. Bush and quite frankly I don't see Obama making any changes in his last three years to alter that perception. Obama makes Bush look good because Obama isn't a good President.

 

[Contumacious]

Hint to Republicans

You cannot repeal Obamacare.....you don't have the votes

Don't like it? make it better. Push for Tort Reform. Push for interstate insurance sales. Open up competition for doctors, hospitals and drugs. Advertise rates.

But Republicans can't do that. They are only capable of blocking legislation, not passing it

This is the ultimate in stupid! Anything that the GOP has "pushed" for since the 2010 mid-terms, Harry Reid has tabled in the Senate! Make it better? Well, gee, Winger...for THAT to happen the President and the Democratically controlled Senate would need to negotiate on bills...but that didn't happen following 2010. Harry Reid and Barack Obama have refused to negotiate. Why? Because they have the backing of the main stream media and know that in any dispute with the GOP that THEIR viewpoint will always be given priority. Obama and Reid don't negotiate because they don't think they have to. They simply blame the GOP for "holding the country hostage" and the main stream media dutifully puts that message out. In the meantime the economy stagnates and millions of Americans languish in extended unemployment.

Hint to Republicans

When your bills begin with...Kill Obamacare

They wll go nowhere in the Senate

Alex , I''ll take Congressional impasse for 2 billion dollars.

.

 

[Trajan]

Hint to Republicans

You cannot repeal Obamacare.....you don't have the votes

Don't like it? make it better. Push for Tort Reform. Push for interstate insurance sales. Open up competition for doctors, hospitals and drugs. Advertise rates.

But Republicans can't do that. They are only capable of blocking legislation, not passing it

This is the ultimate in stupid! Anything that the GOP has "pushed" for since the 2010 mid-terms, Harry Reid has tabled in the Senate! Make it better? Well, gee, Winger...for THAT to happen the President and the Democratically controlled Senate would need to negotiate on bills...but that didn't happen following 2010. Harry Reid and Barack Obama have refused to negotiate. Why? Because they have the backing of the main stream media and know that in any dispute with the GOP that THEIR viewpoint will always be given priority. Obama and Reid don't negotiate because they don't think they have to. They simply blame the GOP for "holding the country hostage" and the main stream media dutifully puts that message out. In the meantime the economy stagnates and millions of Americans languish in extended unemployment.

Hint to Republicans

When your bills begin with...Kill Obamacare

They wll go nowhere in the Senate

why is that? exactly?

 

[rightwinger]

[Oduma is the worst President in our proud nations history, he and his fellow democratic congressman have run up a tab that my grandchildren will be paying. EVEN WORSE THAN GW!!!! Heres the proof!!

ATTACH]28019[/ATTACH]
Chart 4.12: Government Debt as Percent of GDP

April 5, 2008

History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”

Here are some of the comments that the historians furnished:

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

Worst. President. Ever. | Harper's Magazine
isn
I sincerely doubt that Barack Obama will ever be considered to be in the same class as George W. Bush. Dream about it because it will never happen.

Gee, liberal historians hate W...what a shocker!!! Here's a hint for you, Rinata...how historians view Presidents evolves over time. At the end of Bush's second term he was seen as a terrible President by quite a few people, many of which declared here that he was the worst of all time. I made the statement then...and I'll repeat it now...that Bush in many ways will be judged by the success or failure of the President who comes after him. If Barack Obama is successful then Bush will be viewed as a goat...If Obama falls on his face then Bush will be viewed in a much more favorable light.

As of right now, Barack Obama is the best thing that could have EVER happened to George W. Bush and quite frankly I don't see Obama making any changes in his last three years to alter that perception. Obama makes Bush look good because Obama isn't a good President.

Historians universally deride the presidency of George Bush. Things may change over time but what won't change is..

Invaded two countries and botched both invasions
Gave up the war on terrorism to invade Iraq
Engaged in torture
Presided over the worst economic collapse in 70 years

 

[Oldstyle]

If you are a democrat and you want change, kill your opponent.

Authorities probe threat against Cruz - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

USMB's leading rw hyperbole queen never fails to deliver

This is the ultimate in stupid! Anything that the GOP has "pushed" for since the 2010 mid-terms, Harry Reid has tabled in the Senate! Make it better? Well, gee, Winger...for THAT to happen the President and the Democratically controlled Senate would need to negotiate on bills...but that didn't happen following 2010. Harry Reid and Barack Obama have refused to negotiate. Why? Because they have the backing of the main stream media and know that in any dispute with the GOP that THEIR viewpoint will always be given priority. Obama and Reid don't negotiate because they don't think they have to. They simply blame the GOP for "holding the country hostage" and the main stream media dutifully puts that message out. In the meantime the economy stagnates and millions of Americans languish in extended unemployment.

Hint to Republicans

When your bills begin with...Kill Obamacare

They wll go nowhere in the Senate

yep, they say "well we passed x amount of bills & sent them to the senate" but they fail to mention that each starts w/ a repeal or de-funding of the ACA.

You are either lying or woefully ignorant of what was in the bills that Harry Reid tabled over in the Senate...which is it, Dottie?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Obama to GOP: 'Win an election' to change policies

President Barack Obama challenged the GOP to end political brinkmanship and said Republicans should "win an election" if they so badly wish to change his policies.

In his first extended remarks since the government reopened, Obama said that the public has grown "fed up" with its government and urged lawmakers to move past the conflict of the past few weeks.

"To all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change," he said.

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election," The president said. "But don't break it.”

Obama to GOP: 'Win an election' to change policies - First Read

Good for the president!!! I guess he told them!!!

Yeah, win the House then, and maybe you can stop all the challenges to your liberal agenda.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

overall government employment is at a historic low. Nyc was talking about how overall government employment has effected the unemployment levels. Unemployment could be a full percentage lower if local governments were at the same levels they were in 2008.

Federal employment has increased about 6% under president obama...now, would you like to take a guess in what areas the increases occurred?

government jobs don't grow the economy idiot!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth grows government debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth increases beuracratic bullshit paperwork!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to keep reducing governement jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At all levels!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Better watch it lieutenant kernel, some of those employees are paying your pension the same as they paid you for goofing off for twenty or so years.

Watch what? Yeah, I was goofing off protecting your right to open your mouth and prove how stupid you really are.

 

[Oldstyle]

April 5, 2008

History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”

Here are some of the comments that the historians furnished:

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

Worst. President. Ever. | Harper's Magazine
isn
I sincerely doubt that Barack Obama will ever be considered to be in the same class as George W. Bush. Dream about it because it will never happen.

Gee, liberal historians hate W...what a shocker!!! Here's a hint for you, Rinata...how historians view Presidents evolves over time. At the end of Bush's second term he was seen as a terrible President by quite a few people, many of which declared here that he was the worst of all time. I made the statement then...and I'll repeat it now...that Bush in many ways will be judged by the success or failure of the President who comes after him. If Barack Obama is successful then Bush will be viewed as a goat...If Obama falls on his face then Bush will be viewed in a much more favorable light.

As of right now, Barack Obama is the best thing that could have EVER happened to George W. Bush and quite frankly I don't see Obama making any changes in his last three years to alter that perception. Obama makes Bush look good because Obama isn't a good President.

Historians universally deride the presidency of George Bush. Things may change over time but what won't change is..

Invaded two countries and botched both invasions
Gave up the war on terrorism to invade Iraq
Engaged in torture
Presided over the worst economic collapse in 70 years

Universally, Winger? You're as wrong about THAT as you are about the rest of that list.

We invaded Afghanistan and routed the Taliban in record time. We invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddam Hussein's regime in record time with almost non-existent casualties. We didn't botch the invasions...we botched the occupations.

Make up your mind...did we give up on the war on terrorism...or did we engage in torture? Because the enhanced interrogations were part of that war on terror that you claim we gave up on to invade Iraq.

Yes, Bush was in office when the collapse came but he's the one who made the tough call to do TARP and keep us from going down the toilet. Who knows what Barry would have done under the same circumstances! His inherent hatred for businesses in general and banks in particular probably would have led to something totally different from the successful TARP program that Bush attacked the financial collapse with. Bush's TARP program kept the financials running AND got us our money back with interest...Obama's TARP program kept the UAW's benefits in place with GM and Chrysler while it left the US taxpayer holding GM stock that is worth half what it needs to be for us to get paid back.

Historians WILL judge the Presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush over the coming years, Winger and when that happens I don't think history is going to be as "generous" to Barry as his present day "critics" are. All the smoke and mirrors get taken away with the passage of time and you're left with cold hard facts. When that happens, Bush will do better with historians than Obama will.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Defense spending is one of the major cornerstones of our economy.

Thanks Government

Okay dumbass, I'll entertain you, in order to expose your stupidity. Our defense budget is barely 3% of our GDP, all-time historical lows for our country. There are 10 other countries that spend a greater % of their GDP on defense than we do. So it IS NOT a cornerstone of our economy, Manufactoring and Agriculture, largest worldwide (as a % of GDP) in both categories are the cornerstone of our economy!!!!

...and yet, we maintain over 1,000 military bases overseas, NOT ICLUDING IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN. Hmmmmmmm........ I guess that really means that the USA is the cornerstone of other nations economies.

So you support an isolationist policy? Closing those military bases overseas would close many of the trade agreements we have with the country they are in. Overall, we gain more in the export of our goods to those countries than what it costs to show a military presence and enhance stability in a region.

 

[rightwinger]

Gee, liberal historians hate W...what a shocker!!! Here's a hint for you, Rinata...how historians view Presidents evolves over time. At the end of Bush's second term he was seen as a terrible President by quite a few people, many of which declared here that he was the worst of all time. I made the statement then...and I'll repeat it now...that Bush in many ways will be judged by the success or failure of the President who comes after him. If Barack Obama is successful then Bush will be viewed as a goat...If Obama falls on his face then Bush will be viewed in a much more favorable light.

As of right now, Barack Obama is the best thing that could have EVER happened to George W. Bush and quite frankly I don't see Obama making any changes in his last three years to alter that perception. Obama makes Bush look good because Obama isn't a good President.

Historians universally deride the presidency of George Bush. Things may change over time but what won't change is..

Invaded two countries and botched both invasions
Gave up the war on terrorism to invade Iraq
Engaged in torture
Presided over the worst economic collapse in 70 years

Universally, Winger? You're as wrong about THAT as you are about the rest of that list.

We invaded Afghanistan and routed the Taliban in record time. We invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddam Hussein's regime in record time with almost non-existent casualties. We didn't botch the invasions...we botched the occupations.

Make up your mind...did we give up on the war on terrorism...or did we engage in torture? Because the enhanced interrogations were part of that war on terror that you claim we gave up on to invade Iraq.

Yes, Bush was in office when the collapse came but he's the one who made the tough call to do TARP and keep us from going down the toilet. Who knows what Barry would have done under the same circumstances! His inherent hatred for businesses in general and banks in particular probably would have led to something totally different from the successful TARP program that Bush attacked the financial collapse with. Bush's TARP program kept the financials running AND got us our money back with interest...Obama's TARP program kept the UAW's benefits in place with GM and Chrysler while it left the US taxpayer holding GM stock that is worth half what it needs to be for us to get paid back.

Historians WILL judge the Presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush over the coming years, Winger and when that happens I don't think history is going to be as "generous" to Barry as his present day "critics" are. All the smoke and mirrors get taken away with the passage of time and you're left with cold hard facts. When that happens, Bush will do better with historians than Obama will.

I'm afraid yes, universally


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Obama will also be rated a top ten President

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Historians universally deride the presidency of George Bush. Things may change over time but what won't change is..

Invaded two countries and botched both invasions
Gave up the war on terrorism to invade Iraq
Engaged in torture
Presided over the worst economic collapse in 70 years

Universally, Winger? You're as wrong about THAT as you are about the rest of that list.

We invaded Afghanistan and routed the Taliban in record time. We invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddam Hussein's regime in record time with almost non-existent casualties. We didn't botch the invasions...we botched the occupations.

Make up your mind...did we give up on the war on terrorism...or did we engage in torture? Because the enhanced interrogations were part of that war on terror that you claim we gave up on to invade Iraq.

Yes, Bush was in office when the collapse came but he's the one who made the tough call to do TARP and keep us from going down the toilet. Who knows what Barry would have done under the same circumstances! His inherent hatred for businesses in general and banks in particular probably would have led to something totally different from the successful TARP program that Bush attacked the financial collapse with. Bush's TARP program kept the financials running AND got us our money back with interest...Obama's TARP program kept the UAW's benefits in place with GM and Chrysler while it left the US taxpayer holding GM stock that is worth half what it needs to be for us to get paid back.

Historians WILL judge the Presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush over the coming years, Winger and when that happens I don't think history is going to be as "generous" to Barry as his present day "critics" are. All the smoke and mirrors get taken away with the passage of time and you're left with cold hard facts. When that happens, Bush will do better with historians than Obama will.

I'm afraid yes, universally

Obama will also be rated a top ten President

I think you forgot to wear your oxygen mask a few too many times when working in those sewer systems.

 

[rightwinger]

Universally, Winger? You're as wrong about THAT as you are about the rest of that list.

We invaded Afghanistan and routed the Taliban in record time. We invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddam Hussein's regime in record time with almost non-existent casualties. We didn't botch the invasions...we botched the occupations.

Make up your mind...did we give up on the war on terrorism...or did we engage in torture? Because the enhanced interrogations were part of that war on terror that you claim we gave up on to invade Iraq.

Yes, Bush was in office when the collapse came but he's the one who made the tough call to do TARP and keep us from going down the toilet. Who knows what Barry would have done under the same circumstances! His inherent hatred for businesses in general and banks in particular probably would have led to something totally different from the successful TARP program that Bush attacked the financial collapse with. Bush's TARP program kept the financials running AND got us our money back with interest...Obama's TARP program kept the UAW's benefits in place with GM and Chrysler while it left the US taxpayer holding GM stock that is worth half what it needs to be for us to get paid back.

Historians WILL judge the Presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush over the coming years, Winger and when that happens I don't think history is going to be as "generous" to Barry as his present day "critics" are. All the smoke and mirrors get taken away with the passage of time and you're left with cold hard facts. When that happens, Bush will do better with historians than Obama will.

I'm afraid yes, universally

Obama will also be rated a top ten President

I think you forgot to wear your oxygen mask a few too many times when working in those sewer systems.

.Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vandalshandle]

Okay dumbass, I'll entertain you, in order to expose your stupidity. Our defense budget is barely 3% of our GDP, all-time historical lows for our country. There are 10 other countries that spend a greater % of their GDP on defense than we do. So it IS NOT a cornerstone of our economy, Manufactoring and Agriculture, largest worldwide (as a % of GDP) in both categories are the cornerstone of our economy!!!!

...and yet, we maintain over 1,000 military bases overseas, NOT ICLUDING IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN. Hmmmmmmm........ I guess that really means that the USA is the cornerstone of other nations economies.

So you support an isolationist policy? Closing those military bases overseas would close many of the trade agreements we have with the country they are in. Overall, we gain more in the export of our goods to those countries than what it costs to show a military presence and enhance stability in a region.

i sure am glad that that we have 68 military bases in Germany! It is so unstable over there that if we withdrew, we may never get decent beer steins with metal lids again!!!!!

 

[LTCArmyRet]

I'm afraid yes, universally

Obama will also be rated a top ten President

I think you forgot to wear your oxygen mask a few too many times when working in those sewer systems.

.Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

figures you would use Wikipedia as you source, LAME!

 

[LTCArmyRet]

...and yet, we maintain over 1,000 military bases overseas, NOT ICLUDING IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN. Hmmmmmmm........ I guess that really means that the USA is the cornerstone of other nations economies.

So you support an isolationist policy? Closing those military bases overseas would close many of the trade agreements we have with the country they are in. Overall, we gain more in the export of our goods to those countries than what it costs to show a military presence and enhance stability in a region.

i sure am glad that that we have 68 military bases in Germany! It is so unstable over there that if we withdrew, we may never get decent beer steins with metal lids again!!!!!

AND now we know why you will never be consulted for policy decisions!

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm afraid yes, universally

Obama will also be rated a top ten President

I think you forgot to wear your oxygen mask a few too many times when working in those sewer systems.

.Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[12] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average"."

If it was "universal", Winger...then why did Bush rank sixth best amongst Republican scholars and sixth worst amongst Democratic leaning scholars? As usual your claims are full of Grade A cow manure.

But hey, at least you didn't look as stupid with this claim as you have with your previous ones!

 

[candycorn]

It’s the elections you lost in 2010 that matter: state-wide senatorial and gubernatorial elections from coast-to-coast.

You’re not going to make any progress winning elections in gerrymandered red districts appealing to voters who agree with you already.

You’ve got to appeal to voters of entire states and Nation-wide, many of whom won’t agree with you on many issues.

And right now with the GOP government shutdown and other TPM nonsense, you have very little appeal among voters as a whole.

The hilarious thing is that for all the bitter hatred and anger from the right we've seen this week (directed at their own party), 90+% of them will be re-elected due to the gerrymandering.

Probably, and 90+% of the Democrats will also be re-elected due to the gerrymandering. Your point is.........................

Wow, went right over your head huh?

The Dems just handed the GOP it's ass because it the GOP gave in...as we all knew they would (any Party that pulled that crapola would have to) and a lot of posters here (Tiny Dancer for one) is swearing vengeance.