Will Republicans ever admit the mess they left President Obama?

[Faun]

So why would I post links that prove me wrong? What a dumb statement!

Why would you post links that prove you wrong?? You have to ask?

Because you really are as retarded as I say you are. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're posting links without reading or understanding the content within them.

Perfect example... after being shown you were wrong when you falsely claimed the 2001 recession started while Clinton was president, you posted this link...

USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months​

...which proves you wrong as it reads...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

... do you see that? Your own link proves you wrong. But as you say, What a dumb statement.

I've not seen one of your links.

Of course you have. You just choose to ignore them. Like when I posted this link (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) ... proving a) the 2001 recession did not start under Clinton as you falsely claimed; and b) you're an ineducable lying imbecile who thinks if he repeats his lies enough, he may be able to fool someone, who doesn't know any better, into believing your lies.

 

[healthmyths]

So why would I post links that prove me wrong? What a dumb statement!

Why would you post links that prove you wrong?? You have to ask?

Because you really are as retarded as I say you are. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're posting links without reading or understanding the content within them.

Perfect example... after being shown you were wrong when you falsely claimed the 2001 recession started while Clinton was president, you posted this link...

USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months​

...which proves you wrong as it reads...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

... do you see that? Your own link proves you wrong. But as you say, What a dumb statement.

I've not seen one of your links.

Of course you have. You just choose to ignore them. Like when I posted this link (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) ... proving a) the 2001 recession did not start under Clinton as you falsely claimed; and b) you're an ineducable lying imbecile who thinks if he repeats his lies enough, he may be able to fool someone, who doesn't know any better, into believing your lies.

Again you are like a little kid. Wahhh... recession start day NBER says so!!!
Recessions don't just start on the day the NBER says it does!
They start long before as did the Clinton RECESSION!
The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.
The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact.
The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.

The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.
Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession.
It was the Clinton recession. Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy
But of course the MSM would NEVER report that after all:
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks

 

[Faun]

Only the truly dumbest imbeciles blame the 110th Congress for the economic collapse caused by toxic loans written years earlier.

FACTS...

On a parallel track was the Community Reinvestment Act. New CRA regulations in 1995 required banks to demonstrate that they were making mortgage loans to underserved communities, which inevitably included borrowers whose credit standing did not qualify them for a conventional mortgage loan.
A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And even though Bush administration made warnings about the potential housing bust!
GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
1
Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle

The CRA did not cause the meltdown.

Barney Frank did not cause the meltdown.

The meltdown was caused by dropping interest rates to 1%, putting people into homes with little to zero down payment, and a greedy Wallstreet able to write loans that didn't matter if they could be paid back. What was needed to prevent the meltdown was oversight but Republican leadership in the Senate blocked all GSE reform bills.

NOT ONE FACT!
provide sources for your statements otherwise you are full of crap!

LOL

You're a flaming idiot.

Hell, you post links that prove you wrong, yet you keep spreading the same lies over and over. What value is there in that? At any rate, I've posted links corroborating what I said many times. I need not post links every single time one of you yahoo's tries to blame either the 110th Congress, a single member from the minority party, or a 30+ year old law that comprised just a small minority of all the toxic loans which catered the housing markets.

This crap I've heard from you idiots..."comprised a small minority of all the toxic loans" stupid argument once too often.
IDIOT!
Let's assume 5% of the loans were "toxic"! Do you understand the implications of "toxic"? It meant that when a subprime loan defaulted, it now put pressure
on less "toxic" loans. Lenders as I am sure you have no understanding of, do not have a pile of money sitting around that when a loan is made, that pile of
cash is sent to the owner. IDIOT! less then 10% of banks keep green cash on hand. So the real number was something like:
and here is a FACT for you with a LINK!

World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion Notional, as Banks Fight Efforts to Rein It In
Posted on March 26, 2013 by Yves Smith
Derivatives, specifically credit default swaps, were the reason what would otherwise been a contained subprime crisis into a global financial meltdown. If you have not done so already, we strongly encourage you to call your Senator and Representative and tell them you are strongly opposed to this stealth effort by banks to keep taxpayers on the hook for the derivatives casino and allow it to continue to operate with minimal supervision.
World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion Notional, as Banks Fight Efforts to Rein It In | naked capitalism

Holyfuckingshit!

Yet again, you link an article which proves you wrong.

Yet again, you prove you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

This time, you post a link which blamed credit default swaps and not the CRA. Credit default swaps were largely unregulated, whereas CRA loans are heavily regulated.

Even worse for you ... your link champions Dodd/Frank and warns how banks are trying to whittle away at it and how dire the consequences would be if we were to return to the unregulated days of credit default swaps like we had before Dodd/Frank.

It's cute how you whine that I'm not posting links when I don't have to since you're posting links for me which prove you're wrong.

 

[Faun]

So why would I post links that prove me wrong? What a dumb statement!

Why would you post links that prove you wrong?? You have to ask?

Because you really are as retarded as I say you are. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're posting links without reading or understanding the content within them.

Perfect example... after being shown you were wrong when you falsely claimed the 2001 recession started while Clinton was president, you posted this link...

USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months​

...which proves you wrong as it reads...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

... do you see that? Your own link proves you wrong. But as you say, What a dumb statement.

I've not seen one of your links.

Of course you have. You just choose to ignore them. Like when I posted this link (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) ... proving a) the 2001 recession did not start under Clinton as you falsely claimed; and b) you're an ineducable lying imbecile who thinks if he repeats his lies enough, he may be able to fool someone, who doesn't know any better, into believing your lies.

Again you are like a little kid. Wahhh... recession start day NBER says so!!!
Recessions don't just start on the day the NBER says it does!
They start long before as did the Clinton RECESSION!
The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.
The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact.
The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.

The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.
Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession.
It was the Clinton recession. Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy
But of course the MSM would NEVER report that after all:
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks

You're too fucking rightarded to deal with.

You actually want folks here to ignore the NBER, the committee that puts official dates on U.S. economic expansions and contractions, and instead, take the word of an ineducable imbecile like you.



Sorry, but no sane person is taking your declaration for when the recession began over the determination by the committee officially tasked with that responsibility.

And again -- your own link proved you wrong. Your own link said the recession began in March. Not before then as you are falsely claiming.

Now stop lying.

 

[Faun]

So why would I post links that prove me wrong? What a dumb statement!

Why would you post links that prove you wrong?? You have to ask?

Because you really are as retarded as I say you are. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're posting links without reading or understanding the content within them.

Perfect example... after being shown you were wrong when you falsely claimed the 2001 recession started while Clinton was president, you posted this link...

USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months​

...which proves you wrong as it reads...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

... do you see that? Your own link proves you wrong. But as you say, What a dumb statement.

I've not seen one of your links.

Of course you have. You just choose to ignore them. Like when I posted this link (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) ... proving a) the 2001 recession did not start under Clinton as you falsely claimed; and b) you're an ineducable lying imbecile who thinks if he repeats his lies enough, he may be able to fool someone, who doesn't know any better, into believing your lies.

Again you are like a little kid. Wahhh... recession start day NBER says so!!!
Recessions don't just start on the day the NBER says it does!
They start long before as did the Clinton RECESSION!
The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.
The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact.
The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.

The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.
Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession.
It was the Clinton recession. Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy
But of course the MSM would NEVER report that after all:
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks

I also note ....

While I'm linking to the NBER, a non-partisan organization -- you're linking to the dailysignal.com, a highly partisan, highly conservative, highly biased website.

Just goes to prove how hypocritical you are. After whining incessantly about the MSM being biased toward Liberals, you turn around and rely on biased sources yourself. Seems bias doesn't actually bother you as long as the content is biased towards your ideology.

 

[healthmyths]

So why would I post links that prove me wrong? What a dumb statement!

Why would you post links that prove you wrong?? You have to ask?

Because you really are as retarded as I say you are. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're posting links without reading or understanding the content within them.

Perfect example... after being shown you were wrong when you falsely claimed the 2001 recession started while Clinton was president, you posted this link...

USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months​

...which proves you wrong as it reads...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

... do you see that? Your own link proves you wrong. But as you say, What a dumb statement.

I've not seen one of your links.

Of course you have. You just choose to ignore them. Like when I posted this link (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) ... proving a) the 2001 recession did not start under Clinton as you falsely claimed; and b) you're an ineducable lying imbecile who thinks if he repeats his lies enough, he may be able to fool someone, who doesn't know any better, into believing your lies.

Again you are like a little kid. Wahhh... recession start day NBER says so!!!
Recessions don't just start on the day the NBER says it does!
They start long before as did the Clinton RECESSION!
The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.
The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact.
The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.

The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.
Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession.
It was the Clinton recession. Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy
But of course the MSM would NEVER report that after all:
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks

I also note ....

While I'm linking to the NBER, a non-partisan organization -- you're linking to the dailysignal.com, a highly partisan, highly conservative, highly biased website.

Just goes to prove how hypocritical you are. After whining incessantly about the MSM being biased toward Liberals, you turn around and rely on biased sources yourself. Seems bias doesn't actually bother you as long as the content is biased towards your ideology.

AND YOU MISSED the point entirely!
Just like a little kid you think when someone says The recession started 3/1/2001 that meant the day before 2/28/2001 there was no recession and wallah...
3/1/2001 a recession. Doesn't work that way you little kid!

Manufacturing’s downturn started in late summer of 2000 and deepened in 2001,
as businesses sharply reduced spending on machinery, computers, and other capital goods.
However, retail sales and the housing market, both of which tend to be highly cyclical, held steady throughout most 2001.
Manufacturing’s downturn began in 2000, but worsened considerably in 2001.
This downturn followed a weak, short-lived period of expansion manufacturing.
In the fourth quarter of 1999, employment had barely begun to recover from the losses associated with the 1998 Asian currency crisis.
Even during that period, hiring was minimal, and by the third quarter of 2000, the job losses resumed.
By late summer of 2000, U.S. automakers anticipated a decline in overall demand for new cars and light trucks. They responded by reducing both output and employment, and by sharply discounting new cars and light trucks.
These auto-related industries, moving in step with the automakers they serve, eliminated 9.5 percent of their workforce, or 29,000 workers.
The difficulties for primary metals manufacturers, like those of the auto industry, date well before 2001, but worsened in 2001.
Capacity utilization fell from a May 2000 high of 88.8 percent to a historic low of 60 percent. Yet, as fast as IT manufacturers cut output and payrolls, these cut- backs still lagged behind the plummeting demand for their products

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/02/art1full.pdf

SO do you need more help in comprehending that RECESSIONS don't just start when the NBER says they start!
The downturn started under Clinton as early as 1999!

Here... an analogy you might as a little boy comprehend. It takes an oil tanker about 3 miles to turn around. They JUST don't turn right away.
So to does an economy. It doesn't just start turning down when the NBER says so! It was happening in 1999!

 

[Faun]

So why would I post links that prove me wrong? What a dumb statement!

Why would you post links that prove you wrong?? You have to ask?

Because you really are as retarded as I say you are. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're posting links without reading or understanding the content within them.

Perfect example... after being shown you were wrong when you falsely claimed the 2001 recession started while Clinton was president, you posted this link...

USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months​

...which proves you wrong as it reads...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

... do you see that? Your own link proves you wrong. But as you say, What a dumb statement.

I've not seen one of your links.

Of course you have. You just choose to ignore them. Like when I posted this link (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) ... proving a) the 2001 recession did not start under Clinton as you falsely claimed; and b) you're an ineducable lying imbecile who thinks if he repeats his lies enough, he may be able to fool someone, who doesn't know any better, into believing your lies.

Again you are like a little kid. Wahhh... recession start day NBER says so!!!
Recessions don't just start on the day the NBER says it does!
They start long before as did the Clinton RECESSION!
The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.
The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact.
The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.

The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.
Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession.
It was the Clinton recession. Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy
But of course the MSM would NEVER report that after all:
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks

I also note ....

While I'm linking to the NBER, a non-partisan organization -- you're linking to the dailysignal.com, a highly partisan, highly conservative, highly biased website.

Just goes to prove how hypocritical you are. After whining incessantly about the MSM being biased toward Liberals, you turn around and rely on biased sources yourself. Seems bias doesn't actually bother you as long as the content is biased towards your ideology.

AND YOU MISSED the point entirely!
Just like a little kid you think when someone says The recession started 3/1/2001 that meant the day before 2/28/2001 there was no recession and wallah...
3/1/2001 a recession. Doesn't work that way you little kid!

Manufacturing’s downturn started in late summer of 2000 and deepened in 2001,
as businesses sharply reduced spending on machinery, computers, and other capital goods.
However, retail sales and the housing market, both of which tend to be highly cyclical, held steady throughout most 2001.
Manufacturing’s downturn began in 2000, but worsened considerably in 2001.
This downturn followed a weak, short-lived period of expansion manufacturing.
In the fourth quarter of 1999, employment had barely begun to recover from the losses associated with the 1998 Asian currency crisis.
Even during that period, hiring was minimal, and by the third quarter of 2000, the job losses resumed.
By late summer of 2000, U.S. automakers anticipated a decline in overall demand for new cars and light trucks. They responded by reducing both output and employment, and by sharply discounting new cars and light trucks.
These auto-related industries, moving in step with the automakers they serve, eliminated 9.5 percent of their workforce, or 29,000 workers.
The difficulties for primary metals manufacturers, like those of the auto industry, date well before 2001, but worsened in 2001.
Capacity utilization fell from a May 2000 high of 88.8 percent to a historic low of 60 percent. Yet, as fast as IT manufacturers cut output and payrolls, these cut- backs still lagged behind the plummeting demand for their products



View attachment 70992
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/02/art1full.pdf

SO do you need more help in comprehending that RECESSIONS don't just start when the NBER says they start!
The downturn started under Clinton as early as 1999!

Here... an analogy you might as a little boy comprehend. It takes an oil tanker about 3 miles to turn around. They JUST don't turn right away.
So to does an economy. It doesn't just start turning down when the NBER says so! It was happening in 1999!

That's exactly how it works, ya rightard. March, 2001, was the peak of expansion before heading into decline.

That's why March, 2001, is when the recession began.

Your own link informed you of that. You're actually rejecting your own link.

You really can't get any dumber.

 

[Faun]

So why would I post links that prove me wrong? What a dumb statement!

Why would you post links that prove you wrong?? You have to ask?

Because you really are as retarded as I say you are. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're posting links without reading or understanding the content within them.

Perfect example... after being shown you were wrong when you falsely claimed the 2001 recession started while Clinton was president, you posted this link...

USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months​

...which proves you wrong as it reads...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

... do you see that? Your own link proves you wrong. But as you say, What a dumb statement.

I've not seen one of your links.

Of course you have. You just choose to ignore them. Like when I posted this link (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) ... proving a) the 2001 recession did not start under Clinton as you falsely claimed; and b) you're an ineducable lying imbecile who thinks if he repeats his lies enough, he may be able to fool someone, who doesn't know any better, into believing your lies.

Again you are like a little kid. Wahhh... recession start day NBER says so!!!
Recessions don't just start on the day the NBER says it does!
They start long before as did the Clinton RECESSION!
The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.
The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact.
The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.

The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.
Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession.
It was the Clinton recession. Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy
But of course the MSM would NEVER report that after all:
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks

I also note ....

While I'm linking to the NBER, a non-partisan organization -- you're linking to the dailysignal.com, a highly partisan, highly conservative, highly biased website.

Just goes to prove how hypocritical you are. After whining incessantly about the MSM being biased toward Liberals, you turn around and rely on biased sources yourself. Seems bias doesn't actually bother you as long as the content is biased towards your ideology.

AND YOU MISSED the point entirely!
Just like a little kid you think when someone says The recession started 3/1/2001 that meant the day before 2/28/2001 there was no recession and wallah...
3/1/2001 a recession. Doesn't work that way you little kid!

Manufacturing’s downturn started in late summer of 2000 and deepened in 2001,
as businesses sharply reduced spending on machinery, computers, and other capital goods.
However, retail sales and the housing market, both of which tend to be highly cyclical, held steady throughout most 2001.
Manufacturing’s downturn began in 2000, but worsened considerably in 2001.
This downturn followed a weak, short-lived period of expansion manufacturing.
In the fourth quarter of 1999, employment had barely begun to recover from the losses associated with the 1998 Asian currency crisis.
Even during that period, hiring was minimal, and by the third quarter of 2000, the job losses resumed.
By late summer of 2000, U.S. automakers anticipated a decline in overall demand for new cars and light trucks. They responded by reducing both output and employment, and by sharply discounting new cars and light trucks.
These auto-related industries, moving in step with the automakers they serve, eliminated 9.5 percent of their workforce, or 29,000 workers.
The difficulties for primary metals manufacturers, like those of the auto industry, date well before 2001, but worsened in 2001.
Capacity utilization fell from a May 2000 high of 88.8 percent to a historic low of 60 percent. Yet, as fast as IT manufacturers cut output and payrolls, these cut- backs still lagged behind the plummeting demand for their products



View attachment 70992
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/02/art1full.pdf

SO do you need more help in comprehending that RECESSIONS don't just start when the NBER says they start!
The downturn started under Clinton as early as 1999!

Here... an analogy you might as a little boy comprehend. It takes an oil tanker about 3 miles to turn around. They JUST don't turn right away.
So to does an economy. It doesn't just start turning down when the NBER says so! It was happening in 1999!

Again, from your own link....

The Nation’s longest postwar expansion ended in 2001, as the U.S. economy entered a recession in March 2001, after an unprecedented 10 years of growth

How many articles are you going to post which state the 2001 recession began in March, 2001? You've posted 3 so far. How many times can you lose this argument?

 

[healthmyths]

So why would I post links that prove me wrong? What a dumb statement!

Why would you post links that prove you wrong?? You have to ask?

Because you really are as retarded as I say you are. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're posting links without reading or understanding the content within them.

Perfect example... after being shown you were wrong when you falsely claimed the 2001 recession started while Clinton was president, you posted this link...

USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months​

...which proves you wrong as it reads...

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

... do you see that? Your own link proves you wrong. But as you say, What a dumb statement.

I've not seen one of your links.

Of course you have. You just choose to ignore them. Like when I posted this link (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) ... proving a) the 2001 recession did not start under Clinton as you falsely claimed; and b) you're an ineducable lying imbecile who thinks if he repeats his lies enough, he may be able to fool someone, who doesn't know any better, into believing your lies.

Again you are like a little kid. Wahhh... recession start day NBER says so!!!
Recessions don't just start on the day the NBER says it does!
They start long before as did the Clinton RECESSION!
The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.
The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact.
The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.

The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.
Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession.
It was the Clinton recession. Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy
But of course the MSM would NEVER report that after all:
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats.
In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
Research on Media Bias - Discover the Networks

I also note ....

While I'm linking to the NBER, a non-partisan organization -- you're linking to the dailysignal.com, a highly partisan, highly conservative, highly biased website.

Just goes to prove how hypocritical you are. After whining incessantly about the MSM being biased toward Liberals, you turn around and rely on biased sources yourself. Seems bias doesn't actually bother you as long as the content is biased towards your ideology.

AND YOU MISSED the point entirely!
Just like a little kid you think when someone says The recession started 3/1/2001 that meant the day before 2/28/2001 there was no recession and wallah...
3/1/2001 a recession. Doesn't work that way you little kid!

Manufacturing’s downturn started in late summer of 2000 and deepened in 2001,
as businesses sharply reduced spending on machinery, computers, and other capital goods.
However, retail sales and the housing market, both of which tend to be highly cyclical, held steady throughout most 2001.
Manufacturing’s downturn began in 2000, but worsened considerably in 2001.
This downturn followed a weak, short-lived period of expansion manufacturing.
In the fourth quarter of 1999, employment had barely begun to recover from the losses associated with the 1998 Asian currency crisis.
Even during that period, hiring was minimal, and by the third quarter of 2000, the job losses resumed.
By late summer of 2000, U.S. automakers anticipated a decline in overall demand for new cars and light trucks. They responded by reducing both output and employment, and by sharply discounting new cars and light trucks.
These auto-related industries, moving in step with the automakers they serve, eliminated 9.5 percent of their workforce, or 29,000 workers.
The difficulties for primary metals manufacturers, like those of the auto industry, date well before 2001, but worsened in 2001.
Capacity utilization fell from a May 2000 high of 88.8 percent to a historic low of 60 percent. Yet, as fast as IT manufacturers cut output and payrolls, these cut- backs still lagged behind the plummeting demand for their products



View attachment 70992
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/02/art1full.pdf

SO do you need more help in comprehending that RECESSIONS don't just start when the NBER says they start!
The downturn started under Clinton as early as 1999!

Here... an analogy you might as a little boy comprehend. It takes an oil tanker about 3 miles to turn around. They JUST don't turn right away.
So to does an economy. It doesn't just start turning down when the NBER says so! It was happening in 1999!

Again, from your own link....

The Nation’s longest postwar expansion ended in 2001, as the U.S. economy entered a recession in March 2001, after an unprecedented 10 years of growth

How many articles are you going to post which state the 2001 recession began in March, 2001? You've posted 3 so far. How many times can you lose this argument?

OK... You are missing the point entirely!
Here from NBER!!!
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP.
Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.
For more information, see the latest announcement from the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee, dated 9/20/10.

Do you finally understand? Recessions just because NBER says "started 3/1/01" doesn't mean one day there was no recession then on 3/1/01 there was!

The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.
"The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession," said a statement from the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization. Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26, 2001

The most common definition of a recession is two or more quarters of a shrinking economy; the nation's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, fell 0.4 percent in the third quarter and many analysts said it is probably declining more sharply in the current quarter.
Econbrowser: The 2001 recession revisited:
In a recent post, Greg Mankiw cites Hamilton and Chauvet in support of his view that a good argument could be made that the recession of 2001
actually began in 2000.... As some readers may recall, the 2004 Economic Report of the President contained this box, which states:

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) uses a variety of economic data to determine the dates of business-cycle peaks and troughs.... [T]he four data series that the NBER used to determine the timing of the recession have been revised.... Real personal income less transfers... peaked in October 2000. Nonfarm payroll employment... peaked in February 2001. Industrial production['s] peak came even earlier, in June 2000. Manufacturing and trade sales... the most recent data show a peak in June 2000.... [M]onthly GDP reached a high point in February 2001....

The median date of the peak for the five series discussed here is October 2000....
The 2001 recession revisited | Econbrowser

Now this is rather deep economic discussion for someone who truly believes what the MSM has told you...i.e. Recessions start the day the NBER declares.
NOT BEFORE. Exactly on the DAY!
I know it is very very hard to grasp the fine distinctions as you like most grade schools have to make gross assumptions... i.e. someone told me the recession
didn't start till the NBER said it started on 3/1/01... so it didn't!
Sad but you just can't admit that it was that discrete of a starting point. I don't know how many times to illustrate it but if you think just a little bit you might
grasp it. Recessions don't start the day the NBER says they start! Even the NBER agrees!

 

[deltex1]

There is no doubt that George W. Bush was a horrible President, but you left out the fact that the GOP lost control of the House and Senate in 2006 when the Democratic party swept them out of power.

It was economic bills like the Bridge to Nowhere and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that caused the GOP to lose control of the House and Senate.

Also what you did not write about is the length of time the GOP had control of the House and Senate, and for what came in 2008 to happen meant this was brewing for a long ass time.

So I will gladly admit that George W. Bush was a horrible President, and the GOP were swept from power in the Senate and House because of their economic policies but I will never be a partisan fool and pretend Pelosi and the Democratic party did not have control of the purse strings the last two years Bush was in office...

So I will admit both political parties failed us and left President Obama this mess, but alas you can only see the faults of the other side, so I will leave you with your blame game, and tell me why did President Obama fail to keep his Immigration Reform promise when he had both the House and Senate the first two years of his first term in office?

The mess created in 2008 was Obama himself. An unmoving pile of shit.

 

[MarcATL]

The failed economy.
The Iraq debacle.
The deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts.
The millions of jobs moved oversea.
The over 40,000 factories closed.
Medical bills becoming the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Not getting Bin Laden.

Republicans were able to use reconciliation three times which shows they controlled the entire government.
Will they ever take any responsibility for what happened on their watch?

Short answer. ... no.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The failed economy.
The Iraq debacle.
The deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts.
The millions of jobs moved oversea.
The over 40,000 factories closed.
Medical bills becoming the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Not getting Bin Laden.

Republicans were able to use reconciliation three times which shows they controlled the entire government.
Will they ever take any responsibility for what happened on their watch?

No doubt Obama was left a mess. What did he do about it? He made it worse.

How?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

Do you finally understand? Recessions just because NBER says "started 3/1/01" doesn't mean one day there was no recession then on 3/1/01 there was!

Holyfuckingshit!

You're fucking deranged.

That's exactly what it means. The NBER is the organization which officially determines if we're in a recession, not you.

Even worse for your mental instability is visible in the fact that you've now posted 4 articles stating the recession began in March, 2001.

You yourself have now posted 5 different articles stating the recession started in March, 2001...

• The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

• The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.

• The Nation’s longest postwar expansion ended in 2001, as the U.S. economy entered a recession in March 2001, after an unprecedented 10 years of growth.1

• March 2001(I) - November 2001 (IV)

• The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

Those are all from links you posted.

I've never seen anyone post so many articles which prove them wrong as you have done.

 

[healthmyths]

Do you finally understand? Recessions just because NBER says "started 3/1/01" doesn't mean one day there was no recession then on 3/1/01 there was!

Holyfuckingshit!

You're fucking deranged.

That's exactly what it means. The NBER is the organization which officially determines if we're in a recession, not you.

Even worse for your mental instability is visible in the fact that you've now posted 4 articles stating the recession began in March, 2001.

You yourself have now posted 5 different articles stating the recession started in March, 2001...

• The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

• The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.

• The Nation’s longest postwar expansion ended in 2001, as the U.S. economy entered a recession in March 2001, after an unprecedented 10 years of growth.1

• March 2001(I) - November 2001 (IV)

• The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

Those are all from links you posted.

I've never seen anyone post so many articles which prove them wrong as you have done.

So according to YOU... Feb 28, 2001 there WAS NO RECESSION. Then magically on 3/1/2001 JUST because NBER said so.
Presto! Magic! Recession started!
Wow.... You do believe in magic don't you!
But of course you do! Why else this φαῦνος?

 

[Faun]

View attachment 71013

Do you finally understand? Recessions just because NBER says "started 3/1/01" doesn't mean one day there was no recession then on 3/1/01 there was!

Holyfuckingshit!

You're fucking deranged.

That's exactly what it means. The NBER is the organization which officially determines if we're in a recession, not you.

Even worse for your mental instability is visible in the fact that you've now posted 4 articles stating the recession began in March, 2001.

You yourself have now posted 5 different articles stating the recession started in March, 2001...

• The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

• The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.

• The Nation’s longest postwar expansion ended in 2001, as the U.S. economy entered a recession in March 2001, after an unprecedented 10 years of growth.1

• March 2001(I) - November 2001 (IV)

• The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

Those are all from links you posted.

I've never seen anyone post so many articles which prove them wrong as you have done.

So according to YOU... Feb 28, 2001 there WAS NO RECESSION. Then magically on 3/1/2001 JUST because NBER said so.
Presto! Magic! Recession started!
Wow.... You do believe in magic don't you!
But of course you do! Why else this φαῦνος?
View attachment 71013

They evaluate the data; they determine the recession.

They determined that to be March of 2001. You should know this because you yourself have posted 5 different links to articles saying this...

• The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

• The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.

• The Nation’s longest postwar expansion ended in 2001, as the U.S. economy entered a recession in March 2001, after an unprecedented 10 years of growth.1

• March 2001(I) - November 2001 (IV)

• The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

All posted by you. You're now arguing with yourself as you repeatedly confirmed the recession began in March, 2001.

 

[Oldstyle]

Poor ol' Obama & those mean ol' GOP. .

I can't believe they armed the Mexican Drug Cartels & terrorists, drug the country into 2 civil wars betewwen terrorists & dictators without Congressional approval, allowed numerous terrorist attacks on US soil, used the IRS to target citizens, PREVENTED Obama from obeying the Constitution & from enforcing laws, framed him for that 'Lie of the Year', for the Syrian Red Line, and for setting a new record for 70% illegal viloations of the FOIA....

Poor man was the most inept, unsuccessful Presidents in history, overshadowed by the previous President and his fellow Democrats who held a near super majority in Congress - while controlling Congress, the budget, spending, & the economy....

Damn Republicans....

And yet, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's at this point. In fact, at 86 months in office, you have to go back 56 years to Dwight Eisenhower to find a Republican president with a higher job approval rating than Obama's.

Which as the reason I added to this thread was because idiots like you approve an idiot like Obama BECAUSE you get your opinions formed by the
MSM that donated millions to Obama, wrote more positive stories about Obama and think Obama is a God. So YES no reason to doubt the masses
that depend on the BIASED MSM for information have that attitude. Fortunately more and more of us are understanding when we read Obama's autobiography
how Obama depended on the IGNORANCE of his voters and the stupidity of the American Voter.

From Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995 page 94 -95
Note these incidents predict his behavior and we ignored this. This is like Hitler's "Mein Kempf" that was also ignored and look at the consequences.

A) His total disdain and dislike of law enforcement officers
B) His disdain and disgust for his mother read his condescension towards her!
C) Finally this shows Obama predilection towards lying. Towards using tricks, tactics and fooling people as to his real attitudes and aspirations!

"Of course either way you needed some luck. That's what Pablo had lacked, mostly, not having his driver's license that day, a cop with nothing
better to do than to check the trunk of his car..
Or Bruce not finding his way back from too many bad acid trips, winding up in a funny farm.
Or Duke not walking away from that car wreck....

I had tried to explain some of this to my mother once, the role of luck in the world, the spin of the wheel.
It was at the start of my senior year in high school; she was back in Hawaii her field work completed and one day she had marched into my room
wanting to know the details of Pablo's arrest.
I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid.
It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied.
They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Think about it... NOW we know why Obama has continually knocked the police...remember his statement in 2009...that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly"?
Doesn't this sound like when he was a senior in high school describing the "cop with nothing better to do"?

You're fucking nuts.

Of course, that was quite evident when you linked to breitbart.com while bitching & moaning about how biased the main stream media is.

Meanwhile, you can make up all of the silly excuses you want -- Obama has a higher job approval rating in his 87th month in office than every single Republican except for Eisenhower going as far back a Gallup collected such statistics.

Obama's average approval rating is 47.0 according to Gallop. George W. Bush's was 49.4. George H. W. Bush's was 60.9. Ronald Reagan's was 52.8. Gerald Ford's was 47.2. Richard Nixon's was 49.1!

You're so full of shit, Faun it's laughable!

 

[Oldstyle]

And if you'd like to give me a scenario that puts a standing Michael Brown's hand "inches" from Officer Wilson's gun as the officer is sitting in his squad car and Brown ISN'T going for that gun...I'd love to hear it! What exactly do you think Brown's hand was doing "inches" from a gun inside of that car?

You're too fucking retarded to deal with.

I never said Brown didn't go for Wilson's gun.

I said the autopsy Breitbart referred to did not indicate he did, though Breitbart lied and claimed the autopsy did in fact suggest he did.

Like I said earlier, and you confirm again... you don't argue what people actually say -- you argue what you think they say.

Your supposed argument is that Brown was "unarmed" and Wilson was armed...which is true but when an unarmed person is trying to wrest a firearm away from an armed person...they pretty much lose their "unarmed" status...especially when that person is a cop! Which is why Michael Brown got shot. I really CAN'T argue what you think, Faun...because you don't seem to be capable of rational thought!

 

[Oldstyle]

View attachment 71013

Do you finally understand? Recessions just because NBER says "started 3/1/01" doesn't mean one day there was no recession then on 3/1/01 there was!

Holyfuckingshit!

You're fucking deranged.

That's exactly what it means. The NBER is the organization which officially determines if we're in a recession, not you.

Even worse for your mental instability is visible in the fact that you've now posted 4 articles stating the recession began in March, 2001.

You yourself have now posted 5 different articles stating the recession started in March, 2001...

• The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

• The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office.

• The Nation’s longest postwar expansion ended in 2001, as the U.S. economy entered a recession in March 2001, after an unprecedented 10 years of growth.1

• March 2001(I) - November 2001 (IV)

• The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

Those are all from links you posted.

I've never seen anyone post so many articles which prove them wrong as you have done.

So according to YOU... Feb 28, 2001 there WAS NO RECESSION. Then magically on 3/1/2001 JUST because NBER said so.
Presto! Magic! Recession started!
Wow.... You do believe in magic don't you!
But of course you do! Why else this φαῦνος?
View attachment 71013

When recessions start and stop is subjective at best since all a recession is technically is two quarters of negative economic growth. Just because you have a two quarters with slowed growth followed by a quarter with very minor economic growth followed by two more quarters of slowed growth doesn't really mean the recession stopped except technically. Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history because it's dragged on for so long. The average recession lasts something like six months to a year and a half...the Obama Recession has dragged on for almost eight years now.

It's been that bad because Barry really has no clue what he's doing when it comes to economics and gave up even trying years ago.

 

[Oldstyle]

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.

Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.

Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?

LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!

The more you try to deflect the responsibility for a the Iraq mess onto those who voted for it instead of the asshole who proposed it and executed it, the more you look foolish. The President made the decision to attack, and he made the decision to involve Haliburton, which caused no end of trouble.

You lot don't have the stones to accept responsibility for your stupidity.

I've never claimed that George W. Bush doesn't have responsibility for the second Iraq War...he obviously does! What's amusing is watching you liberals try to claim that people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry don't have responsibility for the war as well after they voted for it! Talk about "stones"...

 

[Faun]

Poor ol' Obama & those mean ol' GOP. .

I can't believe they armed the Mexican Drug Cartels & terrorists, drug the country into 2 civil wars betewwen terrorists & dictators without Congressional approval, allowed numerous terrorist attacks on US soil, used the IRS to target citizens, PREVENTED Obama from obeying the Constitution & from enforcing laws, framed him for that 'Lie of the Year', for the Syrian Red Line, and for setting a new record for 70% illegal viloations of the FOIA....

Poor man was the most inept, unsuccessful Presidents in history, overshadowed by the previous President and his fellow Democrats who held a near super majority in Congress - while controlling Congress, the budget, spending, & the economy....

Damn Republicans....

And yet, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's at this point. In fact, at 86 months in office, you have to go back 56 years to Dwight Eisenhower to find a Republican president with a higher job approval rating than Obama's.

Which as the reason I added to this thread was because idiots like you approve an idiot like Obama BECAUSE you get your opinions formed by the
MSM that donated millions to Obama, wrote more positive stories about Obama and think Obama is a God. So YES no reason to doubt the masses
that depend on the BIASED MSM for information have that attitude. Fortunately more and more of us are understanding when we read Obama's autobiography
how Obama depended on the IGNORANCE of his voters and the stupidity of the American Voter.

From Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995 page 94 -95
Note these incidents predict his behavior and we ignored this. This is like Hitler's "Mein Kempf" that was also ignored and look at the consequences.

A) His total disdain and dislike of law enforcement officers
B) His disdain and disgust for his mother read his condescension towards her!
C) Finally this shows Obama predilection towards lying. Towards using tricks, tactics and fooling people as to his real attitudes and aspirations!

"Of course either way you needed some luck. That's what Pablo had lacked, mostly, not having his driver's license that day, a cop with nothing
better to do than to check the trunk of his car..
Or Bruce not finding his way back from too many bad acid trips, winding up in a funny farm.
Or Duke not walking away from that car wreck....

I had tried to explain some of this to my mother once, the role of luck in the world, the spin of the wheel.
It was at the start of my senior year in high school; she was back in Hawaii her field work completed and one day she had marched into my room
wanting to know the details of Pablo's arrest.
I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid.
It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied.
They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Think about it... NOW we know why Obama has continually knocked the police...remember his statement in 2009...that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly"?
Doesn't this sound like when he was a senior in high school describing the "cop with nothing better to do"?

You're fucking nuts.

Of course, that was quite evident when you linked to breitbart.com while bitching & moaning about how biased the main stream media is.

Meanwhile, you can make up all of the silly excuses you want -- Obama has a higher job approval rating in his 87th month in office than every single Republican except for Eisenhower going as far back a Gallup collected such statistics.

Obama's average approval rating is 47.0 according to Gallop. George W. Bush's was 49.4. George H. W. Bush's was 60.9. Ronald Reagan's was 52.8. Gerald Ford's was 47.2. Richard Nixon's was 49.1!

You're so full of shit, Faun it's laughable!

Oh, look... another rightard who can't deal with what I said so he too tries to change the discussion.



Let me remind you what I said... in his 87th month into his presidency, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his.