You anti-Trump people are just not sophisticated enough to understand.

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Trump is the least intelligent President of my lifetime.

You support him. You're a moron.

And yet smart enough to win the Electoral College.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But of course you being the economically and business knowledge challenged idiot...didn't take in account ACA's stupid ass requirements regarding group insurance for companies with 50 + employees. Where it costs an employer $14,000 a month to hire the 50th employee!
Stupid idiots like you were what Gruber was describing when he said
"And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass

He was talking about idiots like you!

While that ACA was part of the shift, you ignore that the shift to alternative work started in 2005, the ACA mandate did not go into affect till Jan 2015, the last year that this study looked at.

If the ACA did anything good, which is debatable, it started to break the connection between employment and insurance.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump is the least intelligent President of my lifetime.

You support him. You're a moron.

And yet smart enough to win the Electoral College.

Winning an election is more about the intelligence of the voters than the candidate.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Trump is the least intelligent President of my lifetime.

You support him. You're a moron.

And yet smart enough to win the Electoral College.

Winning an election is more about the intelligence of the voters than the candidate.

True but the candidate has to be smarter than his base to get them to vote for him...

Wait...

 

[healthmyths]

G5000 wrote...Gee, if only Trump matched Obama's growth in the DOW by this same point in his presidency.
OK... WITHOUT QE1,2,3 contributing
So how much did the Fed's QE1,2,3 pump up the stock market?
After spending $2 trillion on government bonds in an effort to stimulate the economy, the U.S. Federal Reserve can hardly admit that it doesn’t know how, or even if, it worked.
$2 Trillion Later, Does the Fed Even Know if Quantitative Easing Worked?

How did the 1.27 trillion in deficit spending that Trump did in the previous FY pump up the economy?

Why do you ignore the Trump debt yet always harp on the Obama debt?

Probably because the majority of the INCREASED expenditures was to build up the military!
Trump gives $717 billion defense bill a green light. Here's what the Pentagon is poised to get

• President Donald Trump signed the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act which authorizes a top-line budget of $717 billion.
• "The National Defense Authorization Act is the most significant investment in our military and our war fighters in modern history," Trump said Monday. "We are going to strengthen our military like never ever before and that's what we did."
• Here's a roundup of some big-ticket items the Pentagon is approved to buy.

Trump gives $717 billion defense bill a green light. Here's what the Pentagon is poised to get

Now where are YOUR facts?

Here are my facts...

On 1 Oct 2017 the total national debt was $20,244,900,016,053
On Sept 30th the total national debt was $21,516,058,183,180

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

That is a difference of 1.27 trillion dollars.

Here is another fact...not one dime of the $717 billion dollar defense bill you quoted is a part of that because that is the budget for 2019...so it is not part of the debt added during FY-18.

I cannot help that you are too stupid to know that money for FY-19 was not spent in FY-18. Do you even know what an FY is?

You are ignoring the FACT that the vast majority of the debt contribution comes from military spending increases AFTER the idiot you worshipped Obama CUT military spending
leaving our troops in really dire shape!

Trump’s military budget proposal is far above cap set by Obama and Congress
Trump requests $639bn for defense, up from $587bn in Barack Obama’s final defense budget request and surpassing ‘sequestration’ caps set in 2011
Trump’s military budget proposal is far above cap set by Obama and Congress

The difference between Trump's first DOD budget and Obama's last one is 52 billion dollars...and you think that is the vast majority of a 1.27 trillion deficit?

You are just not a very smart person, I am not sure what else to say.

Oh, and here is the military spending over the last 10 years...very little change and more than the Bush years...you are just parroting talking points again.

View attachment 232637

Idiots like you BELIEVE the truly biased MSM like this article!

Federal revenues only increased by 1 percent this year, held down by a big drop in corporate payments thanks to Trump tax cuts. Meanwhile, the bumper spending bill that allowed expanded military and domestic programs increased the cash flowing out of American coffers by 4.4 percent.

How much higher are Trump’s budget deficits than Obama’s?
And by the way the editor of Newsweek once said of Obama...
Yes but we KNOW Trump is a sinner... But Obama? God Obama?
Evan Thomas, Editor of NewsWeek... "I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above above the world, he's sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’

Now for reality regarding revenues increase!
Go Figure: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs Under Trump Tax Cuts
Critics of the Trump tax cuts said they would blow a hole in the deficit. Yet individual income taxes climbed 6% in the just-ended fiscal year 2018, as the economy grew faster and created more jobs than expected.
Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily
So biased Newsweek's statement "increased by 1%" LIE!

ANOTHER dumb ass LIE told to idiots like you by Newsweek...held down by a big drop in corporate payments thanks to Trump tax cuts.

Tell me idiot! What net effect did cutting corporate taxes have on reducing FEDERAL REVENUE when corporate taxes amount to less than 10% of gross revenue while
InCREASING Payroll taxes PAID by employers/employees make up the 2nd largest!!!
But of course dummies like you obviously never comprehend that employers pay the same amount in payroll taxes as employees!
You idiots never consider that when Obama's efforts to make part time workers the meme!
Remember your god as Evan Thomas' god once said:
But the smartest president we’ve ever had, Barack Obama, said manufacturing was never coming back.
So did the really smart people in the media. Obama wouldn't have been wrong, would he?

Obama Flashback: Jobs NOT Coming Back Under Trump

You know it must be easy for you to mouth MSM garbage as that's all you eat it appears from your limited mental output!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Idiots like you BELIEVE the truly biased MSM like this article!

Federal revenues only increased by 1 percent this year, held down by a big drop in corporate payments thanks to Trump tax cuts. Meanwhile, the bumper spending bill that allowed expanded military and domestic programs increased the cash flowing out of American coffers by 4.4 percent.

How much higher are Trump’s budget deficits than Obama’s?
And by the way the editor of Newsweek once said of Obama...
Yes but we KNOW Trump is a sinner... But Obama? God Obama?
Evan Thomas, Editor of NewsWeek... "I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above above the world, he's sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’

Now for reality regarding revenues increase!
Go Figure: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs Under Trump Tax Cuts
Critics of the Trump tax cuts said they would blow a hole in the deficit. Yet individual income taxes climbed 6% in the just-ended fiscal year 2018, as the economy grew faster and created more jobs than expected.
Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily
So biased Newsweek's statement "increased by 1%" LIE!

ANOTHER dumb ass LIE told to idiots like you by Newsweek...held down by a big drop in corporate payments thanks to Trump tax cuts.
View attachment 232639
Tell me idiot! What net effect did cutting corporate taxes have on reducing FEDERAL REVENUE when corporate taxes amount to less than 10% of gross revenue while
InCREASING Payroll taxes PAID by employers/employees make up the 2nd largest!!!
But of course dummies like you obviously never comprehend that employers pay the same amount in payroll taxes as employees!
You idiots never consider that when Obama's efforts to make part time workers the meme!
Remember your god as Evan Thomas' god once said:
But the smartest president we’ve ever had, Barack Obama, said manufacturing was never coming back.
So did the really smart people in the media. Obama wouldn't have been wrong, would he?

Obama Flashback: Jobs NOT Coming Back Under Trump

You know it must be easy for you to mouth MSM garbage as that's all you eat it appears from your limited mental output!

What the fuck are you even talking about? I did not post an article, I posted the exact numbers given by the treasury department and gave you the link.

Here, I will do it one more time for you...

Here are my facts...

On 1 Oct 2017 the total national debt was $20,244,900,016,053
On Sept 30th the total national debt was $21,516,058,183,180

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

That is a difference of 1.27 trillion dollars.

Then, you claimed that the "vast majority" of that 1.27 trillion dollars was from Trump bumping up the DOD budget, yet even your own link showed that the difference in DOD budget was 4% of the added debt.

You whine and bitch and moan about Obama and then give Trump a virtual blow job for adding 1.27 trillion to the debt in a single year in the middle of an booming economy.

You are nothing but a partisan hack with the IQ of a turnip. No offense to turnips.

 

[Crepitus]

In discussing with a friend about George H. W. Bush and his legacy, we recalled this remark he made about President Trump:
"I don't like him. I don't know much about him, but I know he's a blowhard. And I'm not too excited about him being a leader," said George Bush Sr, who was president between 1989 and 1993.
George Bush Sr calls Trump a 'blowhard'

And I agree with George H. W. Bush! And I agree with all that say President Trump is obnoxious. A braggart. A loud-mouth. All the adjectives the "sophisticated" politically adroit and politicians have said about Trump.

But they are missing the point.

Trump is not a politician. He is a boss. He wants things done and in many ways HIS way!

And all these sophisticates including GWB Sr and Jr. didn't get it.

Most of us don't like Trump personally BUT totally admire what he has accomplished in his two short years!

Tump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping
Trump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping

Again... most of us that have respect for the Presidency and the President have a deeper respect for people that
1) Love America...2) Love their families ..3) Respect law enforcement and 4) get things done!

And so Bush Sr,Jr.,Clintons, and hosts of other unsophisticated people that look at the packaging i.e. Trump and not the contents because that's what the MSM is doing...i.e. advertising the negatives about Trump which for a FACT:
Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage Of His Presidency: Study
Anti-Trump Media? 92% Of Coverage Of His Presidency Is Negative: Study | Investor's Business Daily

The FACT is the MSM et.al. Anti-Trumpers are just not sophisticated to look beyond the packaging and
are NOT seeing the results.
And that's OK! Trump is getting around them and most of us sophisticated people that agree...
President Trump is obnoxious. A braggart. A loud-mouth. All the adjectives the "sophisticated" politically adroit and politicians have said about Trump...BUT HE IS GETTING THINGS DONE!!!
US will hold off on raising China tariffs to 25% as Trump and Xi agree to a 90-day trade truce

• Xi Jinping and Donald Trump discussed a range of issues — among them the trade dispute that has left over $200 billion worth of goods hanging in the balance.
• "President Trump has agreed that on January 1, 2019, he will leave the tariffs on $200 billion worth of product at the 10 percent rate, and not raise it to 25 percent at this time," the White House said.

US, China call a 90-day truce in trade war as Trump, Xi agree to continue wide ranging talks
This is a start!

Is this some kinda joke?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In discussing with a friend about George H. W. Bush and his legacy, we recalled this remark he made about President Trump:
"I don't like him. I don't know much about him, but I know he's a blowhard. And I'm not too excited about him being a leader," said George Bush Sr, who was president between 1989 and 1993.
George Bush Sr calls Trump a 'blowhard'

And I agree with George H. W. Bush! And I agree with all that say President Trump is obnoxious. A braggart. A loud-mouth. All the adjectives the "sophisticated" politically adroit and politicians have said about Trump.

But they are missing the point.

Trump is not a politician. He is a boss. He wants things done and in many ways HIS way!

And all these sophisticates including GWB Sr and Jr. didn't get it.

Most of us don't like Trump personally BUT totally admire what he has accomplished in his two short years!

Tump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping
Trump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping

Again... most of us that have respect for the Presidency and the President have a deeper respect for people that
1) Love America...2) Love their families ..3) Respect law enforcement and 4) get things done!

And so Bush Sr,Jr.,Clintons, and hosts of other unsophisticated people that look at the packaging i.e. Trump and not the contents because that's what the MSM is doing...i.e. advertising the negatives about Trump which for a FACT:
Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage Of His Presidency: Study
Anti-Trump Media? 92% Of Coverage Of His Presidency Is Negative: Study | Investor's Business Daily

The FACT is the MSM et.al. Anti-Trumpers are just not sophisticated to look beyond the packaging and
are NOT seeing the results.
And that's OK! Trump is getting around them and most of us sophisticated people that agree...
President Trump is obnoxious. A braggart. A loud-mouth. All the adjectives the "sophisticated" politically adroit and politicians have said about Trump...BUT HE IS GETTING THINGS DONE!!!
US will hold off on raising China tariffs to 25% as Trump and Xi agree to a 90-day trade truce

• Xi Jinping and Donald Trump discussed a range of issues — among them the trade dispute that has left over $200 billion worth of goods hanging in the balance.
• "President Trump has agreed that on January 1, 2019, he will leave the tariffs on $200 billion worth of product at the 10 percent rate, and not raise it to 25 percent at this time," the White House said.

US, China call a 90-day truce in trade war as Trump, Xi agree to continue wide ranging talks
This is a start!

Is this some kinda joke?

The author of the thread is a joke, but to him the post is deadly serious.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Trump is the least intelligent President of my lifetime.

You support him. You're a moron.

And yet smart enough to win the Electoral College.

Yep. That's right. Smart enough to dupe 100k morons in three states.

Go ahead. Tell me that YOU think Trump is an intellectually curious man who has a firm grasp on the issues.

Go on.

 

[Faun]

G5000 wrote...Gee, if only Trump matched Obama's growth in the DOW by this same point in his presidency.
OK... WITHOUT QE1,2,3 contributing
So how much did the Fed's QE1,2,3 pump up the stock market?
After spending $2 trillion on government bonds in an effort to stimulate the economy, the U.S. Federal Reserve can hardly admit that it doesn’t know how, or even if, it worked.
$2 Trillion Later, Does the Fed Even Know if Quantitative Easing Worked?

How did the 1.27 trillion in deficit spending that Trump did in the previous FY pump up the economy?

Why do you ignore the Trump debt yet always harp on the Obama debt?

That guy’s an idiot. He moronically claims no president has ever faced the financial tribulations trump faced — while he ignores the tens of trillions of dollars lost in Bush’s Great Recession which more than doubles all of the calamities on Bush’s watch combined.

It was NOT JUST financials your dumb ass!
HERE read and dispute that events such as these occurred with such ferocity and frequency in any other presidency!
Recession. dot.com bust. 9/11! hurricanes. economic terrorist attack. IN spite of deficit was DECREASING until the idiots that supported Fannie/Freddie helped cause the recession!
View attachment 232594

All combined, it still pales in comparison to the tens of trillions of dollars lost in Bush’s Great Recession.

 

[Faun]

Gee, if only Trump matched the job growth of Obama's last five years.

Gee, if only Trump matched Obama's growth in the DOW by this same point in his presidency.

Gee, if only Trump had not DOUBLED THE FEDERAL DEFICIT in less than two years in order to artificially juice the GDP, which still has not matched Obama's growth.

Then, maybe then, the dipshit elected on third base who thinks he hit a triple might be impressive.

Right job growth!
FACTS here G5000 which you ignore!
And then the OTHER monstrosity of Obamacare that totally discouraged economic growth!

Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate
Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate

The Affordable Care Act requires businesses with more than 50 full-time employees to provide health insurance

Up to 250,000 positions may have been eliminated by small businesses seeking to avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to estimates in a new working paper distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Altogether between 28,000 and 50,000 businesses appear to have reduced their number of full-time employees from 2014 to 2016 because of the mandate.

The share of businesses with fewer than 50 employees grew between 2012 and 2016 to 45% from 37%.
Meanwhile, a June 2016 study determined that 500,000 workers in the retail, hospitality and food service sectors were forced involuntarily into part-time employment as companies sought to circumvent the employer mandate. A separate Goldman Sachs study found that a few hundred thousand people found themselves in this position.

Now for the actual proof!

Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.

Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month

A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.
The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.
shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.
Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

And you idiots that say Obama contributed to the "economic recovery" are the SAME dummies that the guy who designed ACA said it took well here's his exact words:
"And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass

What kind of "job growth" are part time jobs?
By the way please dispute the above experts ok?

I wish I could get paid for this, I post it so much....

Jobs are growing at the same rate as they have been for the last 9 years. Trump’s big accomplishment is not fucking it up; and taking a record of 76 consecutive months of job growth and extending that to 97 months (so far).

JOBS growth ?
Part time dumb shit!

View attachment 232595

LOLOL

There was something like 11 million jobs created under Obama. And that’s factoring in Bush’s Great Recession. Set aside the jobs lost from that, and Obama added some 15 million jobs during his last 7 years in office.

Now compare that with Bush, who’s the only president since Depression era Herbert Hoover to leave office with FEWER private sector jobs than when he started.

Bush’s presidency was an abject failure. You should toy with the notion of rejoining reality sometime.

 

[healthmyths]

Gee, if only Trump matched the job growth of Obama's last five years.

Gee, if only Trump matched Obama's growth in the DOW by this same point in his presidency.

Gee, if only Trump had not DOUBLED THE FEDERAL DEFICIT in less than two years in order to artificially juice the GDP, which still has not matched Obama's growth.

Then, maybe then, the dipshit elected on third base who thinks he hit a triple might be impressive.

Right job growth!
FACTS here G5000 which you ignore!
And then the OTHER monstrosity of Obamacare that totally discouraged economic growth!

Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate
Businesses eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandate

The Affordable Care Act requires businesses with more than 50 full-time employees to provide health insurance

Up to 250,000 positions may have been eliminated by small businesses seeking to avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to estimates in a new working paper distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Altogether between 28,000 and 50,000 businesses appear to have reduced their number of full-time employees from 2014 to 2016 because of the mandate.

The share of businesses with fewer than 50 employees grew between 2012 and 2016 to 45% from 37%.
Meanwhile, a June 2016 study determined that 500,000 workers in the retail, hospitality and food service sectors were forced involuntarily into part-time employment as companies sought to circumvent the employer mandate. A separate Goldman Sachs study found that a few hundred thousand people found themselves in this position.

Now for the actual proof!

Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.

Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month

A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.
The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.
shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.
Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

And you idiots that say Obama contributed to the "economic recovery" are the SAME dummies that the guy who designed ACA said it took well here's his exact words:
"And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass

What kind of "job growth" are part time jobs?
By the way please dispute the above experts ok?

I wish I could get paid for this, I post it so much....

Jobs are growing at the same rate as they have been for the last 9 years. Trump’s big accomplishment is not fucking it up; and taking a record of 76 consecutive months of job growth and extending that to 97 months (so far).

JOBS growth ?
Part time dumb shit!

View attachment 232595

LOLOL

There was something like 11 million jobs created under Obama. And that’s factoring in Bush’s Great Recession. Set aside the jobs lost from that, and Obama added some 15 million jobs during his last 7 years in office.

Now compare that with Bush, who’s the only president since Depression era Herbert Hoover to leave office with FEWER private sector jobs than when he started.

Bush’s presidency was an abject failure. You should toy with the notion of rejoining reality sometime.

Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents because up till now NO PRESIDENT has ever faced these events that AFFECTED billions of people lives around the world!
And I know I'm right because YOU CAN"T say these events didn't occur. NONE of which were the fault of GWB!
And following the below CONSIDER what the totally incompetent Obama SAID and did to THWART the economy!

What kind of idiot wishes bankruptcies, 1,400 businesses to go out of business throwing half million people out of work and costing $100 billion a year in taxes!

 

[hunarcy]

No American President has ever been globally despised mocked and humiliated the way Donald Trump has.

What does that matter? Trump is not the President of the Globe. He is President of the United States. If others don't appreciate him because he doesn't kowtow to them, that is not a bad thing.

 

[Thinker101]

No American President has ever been globally despised mocked and humiliated the way Donald Trump has.

Yup, that's certainly possible when it's time to be accountable...dumbass.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...

Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.

 

[healthmyths]

G5000 wrote...Gee, if only Trump matched Obama's growth in the DOW by this same point in his presidency.
OK... WITHOUT QE1,2,3 contributing
So how much did the Fed's QE1,2,3 pump up the stock market?
After spending $2 trillion on government bonds in an effort to stimulate the economy, the U.S. Federal Reserve can hardly admit that it doesn’t know how, or even if, it worked.
$2 Trillion Later, Does the Fed Even Know if Quantitative Easing Worked?

How did the 1.27 trillion in deficit spending that Trump did in the previous FY pump up the economy?

Why do you ignore the Trump debt yet always harp on the Obama debt?

That guy’s an idiot. He moronically claims no president has ever faced the financial tribulations trump faced — while he ignores the tens of trillions of dollars lost in Bush’s Great Recession which more than doubles all of the calamities on Bush’s watch combined.

It was NOT JUST financials your dumb ass!
HERE read and dispute that events such as these occurred with such ferocity and frequency in any other presidency!
Recession. dot.com bust. 9/11! hurricanes. economic terrorist attack. IN spite of deficit was DECREASING until the idiots that supported Fannie/Freddie helped cause the recession!
View attachment 232594

All combined, it still pales in comparison to the tens of trillions of dollars lost in Bush’s Great Recession.

The government set them up this way to allow them to buy qualified mortgages from banks, insure them, and resell them to investors. Banks used the funds to make new mortgages. Throughout the years, Fannie and Freddie supported half of all new mortgages issued each year. By December 2007, when banks began to constrict their lending, they touched 90 percent of all mortgages.

 

[healthmyths]

Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...

Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.

What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!


"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...

Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.

What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!


"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

I love how in your little pea brained mind the fact that the Dems talked about makes it cool for Bush II to have done it.

What he did in Iraq was sacrifice the lives of more than 4,400 US service members, the bodies of more than another 50,000 US service members and wasted more than 2.4 trillion dollars and counting, a cost that will rise as the Veterans of that war age and require more VA services.

And he did all of that for a country that was no threat to the US and had no part in the 9/11 attack.

The result was a region that was less stable than before our attack and the rise of ISIS.

Yet you still eat the corn out of his shit because he has an (R) before his name.

 

[deanrd]

Difficult to have positive press with everything you say is a lie.

 

[deanrd]

Right... and I'll predict that in 20 years GWB will be considered one of the GREAT presidents...

Facing adversity and responding to it in a shitty way does not make one great. Bush II will forever and always been seen as one of the worst 3 presidents, ever. What he did in Iraq will never be whitewashed by the sands of time, it will forever remain one of the biggest fuck ups (if not the biggest) ever made by any major world leader.

What did he do in Iraq????
Simply what the democrats asked for!!!


"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

A brutal murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime.

Sounds like Trump’s friends, doesn’t it?