It must really sux to know the black guy in office just runs circles around the Republicans all day long. Reading these posts here and there and seeing the butt hurt is hilarious.
Political Thread: Global Warming Edition
- Thread starter kybobcat_rivals185207
- Start date
- Status
Unfortunately, anyone with any political convictions (right or wrong) runs circles around the current crop of Republicans because they are spineless. One thing you can say about the Dems is that they do not waver in their convictions (however misguided they may be).
This post was edited on 2/25 11:59 AM by BlueManToo
This post was edited on 2/25 11:59 AM by BlueManToo
Albany, it's not that he's running rough shod through the republicans, it's that he' runs rough shod through the checks and balances put in place specifically to keep a President from imposing his ideals.
One reason the forefathers included freedom of the press is to keep the government in check. By and large they have given this administration free reign, and it' isn't a good thing.
One reason the forefathers included freedom of the press is to keep the government in check. By and large they have given this administration free reign, and it' isn't a good thing.
One of the biggest problems we have now as a country is that so many of our citizens, like the poster above, see one political party as the answer, while the other party is the problem.
Im a conservative myself, but here's a newsflash for you....whatever adjective you use to criticize one party can most likely be used to describe the other as well.
A political party, no matter which one, is not the answer to our country's woes.
Agree. The woes of this country are mainly because of greed and corruption inside our government (both parties). Cast everyone in government out today and bring in a whole new lot of folks. Keep the same lobbyists, wealthy donors, etc. in place and the beat will go on. Until the symptoms of the problems are weeded out, it will never get better. Obama is a good example of how very wealthy and powerful people can take a guy with zero experience in doing much at all and turn him into a world leader who acts as their puppet to get their ideologies and best interests into the forefront of the political system.
I agree with 3rex. I've been a member of both parties, and have come very close of late to just changing to independent. I'm not sure like the idea of being associated with a political party anymore.
Yeah, he says that on a day when the Dem Governors are meeting to figure out why there are only 18 of them. Another Congressional group is holding meetings on why they have lost historic amounts of seats in the last two cycles. The shift in statehouses has also been historic over the past 6 years. All after Albany said the party was done. He is to Obama what Howie is to UL athletics...only with an added racecard.
BTW, only 42% of INDEPENDENTS in a HuffPo poll say they are sure Obama loves America.
There's truth to this. There are fewer and fewer members of congress that are there out of public service these days and many that were, have stepped down out of frustration. The vast majority's number one goal is to get reelcted not serve the country. That leads to pandering to the extremes and to big money donors. As a result partisan gridlock prevents anything meaningful from getting done.
If I was Ajit Pai, I'd be watching my back and making sure all my income tax returns have been filed correctly if the statute is still open.
At the very least he's facing an IRS audit for speaking out against the White House's corrupt involvement in the internet takeover.
At the very least he's facing an IRS audit for speaking out against the White House's corrupt involvement in the internet takeover.
Not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that I think the Republican party (or any political party) is the solution to our problems....quite the contrary. Neither party is the solution (and never will be), which is why I'm a whole-hearted fan of massive government gridlock --- if congress isn't passing legislation, they aren't eroding my liberty. The sad part is that legislation is no longer the threat to liberty it once was, considering the fact that hundreds of thousands of departmental regulations are handed down on a yearly basis by unelected paper-pushers, and these regs are legally enforced as if they were legitimately passed laws!
On the issues of lasting national substance and importance (amnesty, healthcare, national debt, et. al.) we basically only have one political party. A 'One Party System' is not what the Founders envisioned, but unfortunately, the current deficiency of true statesmen on Capitol Hill has resulted in a super majority RepubliCrat Party that drowns out any dissenting voices --- there's no real pushback from so-called conservatives or Republicans against anything this administration has proposed. They will talk a great game occassionally, but when the rubber meets the road, they will turn a blind eye to funding amnesty, funding Obamacare, enforcing border security law, adding to the debt, and so on. When there's no debate or ideological pushback on issues of such great import to the nation's future, we all lose, no matter which side of the ideological spectrum you reside.
Know this --- My allegiance is NOT to a political party, but to a political ideal based upon the Rule of Law, a Constitutional government, and a belief in American Exceptionalism. McConnell, Boehnner and those of their ilk deserve to be run out of Washington on a rail just as fast as the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis of this world need to be run out.
This post was edited on 2/25 10:59 PM by BlueManToo
At the least, the IRS will be turning him inside out. Probably be strip searched everytime he enters an airport. Not to mention having the NSA monitoring all his communications for the foreseeable future.
Wow. Just wow. While I rarely if ever post in this thread, this jumps out like the veritable sore thumb. For anyone to make this assertion as opinion - which makes it somewhat beyond reproach -- indicates to me that someone is blinded by party, not objective thinking.
While I would agree that Bush wasn't the best president we've had, but to indicate that he was '10x worse than Carter' -- that's not opinion -- it's ridiculous.
This post was edited on 2/25 3:59 PM by parrott
Indeed....There's no one happier than Carter for Obama bursting onto the scene because he was able to pass the torch of 'Worst President in Modern American History' over to Obama.
Hilarious. Prolly a repost, but I love this.
Edit: Language
This post was edited on 2/25 4:33 PM by Willy4UK
Jimmy Has What You Need Right Here
Edit: Language
This post was edited on 2/25 4:33 PM by Willy4UK
Jimmy Has What You Need Right Here
OK - how about his. Bush attacked a country that posed no threat to us, on false cherry-picked intelligence. That blunder cost the US tax payers one trillion dollars - that's $1,000,000,000,000 of borrowed money we didn't have in direct cost and by most estimates at least 1-2 more trillion in indirect costs associated with refurbishing the military and taking care of 50,000 disabled vets for life - again money that we have to borrow from China, Japan and others. On top of that 5,000 Americans (soldiers plus civilians) lost their lives in Iraq. That's 5000 moms and dads that no longer have a son or daughter, and wives, without husbands, kids without fathers. Add to that another 100,000 plus innocent Iraqi civilians dead and hundreds of thousand of others who fled in exile - including most all of the Christian Iraqis who lived there at the time.
What I would label the stupidest foreign policy blunder in American history not only resulted in nothing positive but rather, it has made Iraq essentially a proxy state of Iran allowing them to extend their tentacles into the mideast, the De-Baathification policy which was a blunder on top of a blunder that alienated 50,000+ Sunni Iraq soldiers many of whom became radicalized into Al Quida Iraq which then morphed into ISIS today.
If that's not sufficient, we can get into his regulatory policies that lead us into the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 30s.
Yea WOW is a great word WOW, JUST WOW! - now can you tell me what Carter did that made one tenth the damage to economy, the country and the world? And for the record I am not a Carter fan, didn't vote for him and regard him as below average.
Warrior Cat and Blue Man - that question is for you too since you couldn't resist jumping on the band wagon and taking a jab or two in my direction. And don't give me that crap that the Democrats did it. All this happened on BUSH's watch. It was his policies, his decisions, his cherry picked filtered intelligence and the Republican Congress he had for 6 years that backed him every step of the way that lead to all of this damage.
This post was edited on 2/25 5:56 PM by Deeeefense
It's drivel like this that annoys the crap out of me...
I mean, the black guy uses recess appointments like the white guy before him, but since the black guy does the same thing, the white party decides to take the black guy to court. The black guy looses and obey the law...CHECKS and BALANCES
The black guys appoints czars just like the white guy before him...the white party goes out of their way to slime to black guy as being some sort of communist.
The black guy uses executive order to change immigration enforcement just like the white guy before him, but once again, the white party decides to sue the black guy because he's not allowed to do what the white guy did before him.
I can go on and on...
First off, you cannot take facts off of the table and say Dems did not do it because, the fact is, they were involved. Most on both sides were given the same info and came to the same conclusion so, stop your bitching about how innocent dems are.
Secondly, as per normal yours numbers (lib talking points) are skewed. The cost of both wars as of Oct 2014 was 1.7 trillion and I am highballing because some claim as low as 1.57 trillion from 2003 to Oct 2014. The Iraq war has a cost of 815.8 billion to the date specified. As far as the trillions you added for refurbishing I suggest you learn something about the military. Refurbishing goes on during the fight and much of the cost of that has been added in to the above numbers. Most of the military's machinery goes through that at appointed times throughout its use. Sure there are some that are still there that will need maintenance when they get back but, that number you spouted will include what was already done and included in the numbers already spent. Your problem like many Obama supporters is you keep invoking Bush into the equation when his involvement has long since ceased. Obama has added over 8 trillion dollars to our federal debt in 6 years. Well more than any president in the history of this country. Bush is credited for about a trillion for both wars before he left office so, since Obama took over, much of the war cost was already factored into the Bush numbers which should alarm people because of how much debt Obama has added without the cost of the wars.
Now, as far as lives lost, that is war. As much as I hate to say it that way, that is the fact of the matter. While I prefer that we not get involved, it is inevitable sometimes and necessary because there are some very bad people out there. Plus, I hate to break it to you....no I don't, since Obama has taken over and implemented his policies, terrorism has increased dramatically. and blaming Bush shows a lack of character and a lack of leadership. It is not Bush's fault Islamic terrorism is on the rise. They see weakness in your president and have taken advantage of that.
Now, on to why people jump on the band wagon against you as you put it. It's because you make statements like one of the post above about how you agree that both parties are bad and then in the next breath bash Republicans and sing the praises of Obama. You are such a hypocrite with your postings it makes most people nauseated just to read them. Stand your ground and quit being a puss. Everyone knows you are a partisan player and that is ok. Just quit the pretense and people would probably respect you more.
It is BS like this that puts you in the same boat as Deee. You have no other intelligent response other than to spout race is the reason. You are really clueless as to the real reasons people do not like Obama. Weak arguments are for the weak minded.
Didn't call anyone out, but since some birdies chirped, guess the shoe fits. We can discuss Bush if you like --- especially since 'cherry picking' facts was brought up. Let's begin with Iraq....
The American and international intelligence on Iraq suggested that Iraq had WMD's, that those WMD's had been used on Iraqi dissidents, and that Iraq was a prime breeding ground for terrorists similar to those who perpetrated 9/11. Bush also took the issue before congress who had access to the same intelligence, and an overwhelming bipartisan majority (that means both Repubs and Dems) voted to invade Iraq. The NYT recently admitted that WMD's were, in fact, found in Iraq during the invasion and in the years following. I doubt it is just a coincidence that Syria happened to use chemical weapons similar to those believed to be in Iraq....Syria probably obtained these weapons from Iraq when Saddam was 'clearing the cupboard' prior to the US invasion.
On a side note: If Clinton had acted on reliable intelligence and taken action to capture or kill OBL, there may not have been a 9/11, and likewise, no Iraq invasion.
I take exception with the rampant spending the Bush administration rang up, but the groundwork of the housing and financial collapse was laid during the Clinton years when the 'powers that be' thought it would be a great idea to artificially address 'economic inequality' (sound familiar?) by encouraging lending institutions to loan money to people who could not afford it. Yet, despite the huge debt GWB ran up, the current President (with the help of enabling RINO'S) has STILL managed to add more to the national debt than every previous administration...combined!
Finally, Obama's decision to leave Iraq without securing a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government is the primary contributer to the rise of ISIS in the region. While we were there, ISIS was not an issue. Quite literally, every policy decision this administration has made in the Middle East has been exactly wrong! Yet, despite abject failure on every political front by our Community-Organizer-Come-President, there are still those clamboring with eager anticipation for Hillary to run in 2016! She is nothing more than Obama in a Pant Suit, but I digress ---- as she so famously said about 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, "What difference, at this point, does it make!".....our national course is probably too far gone to correct short of divine intervention.
As for Carter, we could talk about the hostage crisis, the terrible economy, and the oil shortage, but I'll save that for another post....
This post was edited on 2/25 11:32 PM by BlueManToo
The American and international intelligence on Iraq suggested that Iraq had WMD's, that those WMD's had been used on Iraqi dissidents, and that Iraq was a prime breeding ground for terrorists similar to those who perpetrated 9/11. Bush also took the issue before congress who had access to the same intelligence, and an overwhelming bipartisan majority (that means both Repubs and Dems) voted to invade Iraq. The NYT recently admitted that WMD's were, in fact, found in Iraq during the invasion and in the years following. I doubt it is just a coincidence that Syria happened to use chemical weapons similar to those believed to be in Iraq....Syria probably obtained these weapons from Iraq when Saddam was 'clearing the cupboard' prior to the US invasion.
On a side note: If Clinton had acted on reliable intelligence and taken action to capture or kill OBL, there may not have been a 9/11, and likewise, no Iraq invasion.
I take exception with the rampant spending the Bush administration rang up, but the groundwork of the housing and financial collapse was laid during the Clinton years when the 'powers that be' thought it would be a great idea to artificially address 'economic inequality' (sound familiar?) by encouraging lending institutions to loan money to people who could not afford it. Yet, despite the huge debt GWB ran up, the current President (with the help of enabling RINO'S) has STILL managed to add more to the national debt than every previous administration...combined!
Finally, Obama's decision to leave Iraq without securing a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government is the primary contributer to the rise of ISIS in the region. While we were there, ISIS was not an issue. Quite literally, every policy decision this administration has made in the Middle East has been exactly wrong! Yet, despite abject failure on every political front by our Community-Organizer-Come-President, there are still those clamboring with eager anticipation for Hillary to run in 2016! She is nothing more than Obama in a Pant Suit, but I digress ---- as she so famously said about 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, "What difference, at this point, does it make!".....our national course is probably too far gone to correct short of divine intervention.
As for Carter, we could talk about the hostage crisis, the terrible economy, and the oil shortage, but I'll save that for another post....
This post was edited on 2/25 11:32 PM by BlueManToo
Albany, it's not drivel, it's the truth and you know it. It doesn't have dick to do with what color he is, you're the only one that EVER brings up race.
I'm assuming you're referring to Reagan granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. I know you're smarter than that, the difference was Reagan was amending an error in a bill that was passed by congress on amnesty. Where Obama didn't like that congress didn't pass a bill, so he just acted unilaterally and made it the way he wanted. That's not the way our government is supposed to operate and you know it.
Not to mention his complete and utter failure of foreign policy. He is an awful president, I understand supporting your guy, but damn dude I know you're smarter than this. You act as if you don't care what he does as long as it pisses off conservatives, I don't understand that.
I'm assuming you're referring to Reagan granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. I know you're smarter than that, the difference was Reagan was amending an error in a bill that was passed by congress on amnesty. Where Obama didn't like that congress didn't pass a bill, so he just acted unilaterally and made it the way he wanted. That's not the way our government is supposed to operate and you know it.
Not to mention his complete and utter failure of foreign policy. He is an awful president, I understand supporting your guy, but damn dude I know you're smarter than this. You act as if you don't care what he does as long as it pisses off conservatives, I don't understand that.
What Executive Order did Bush invoke to attack said country? So Bush did this all on by himself -- the decision to attack Iraq? He (Bush) was the ONLY one in government to 'cherry-pick' intelligence, correct? And you believe that?
Does American hostages -- for over a year, I believe but I could have my math wrong -- in Iran ring a bell? Does a failed rescue for said hostages come to mind?
How about interest rates in double figures? Thought I was getting a bargain at 13% interest on my home loan -- for 30 years.
I wasn't comparing Bush to Carter straight up. If I was, I would still say that Carter is the worst President in my lifetime and it's not close. But you said Bush was 10X worse than Carter.
Hyperbole much?
I wonder if Rahm and Obama were aware of the black sites the Chicago Police Department were/are operating. Crazy to think that **** goes on in America. With a city police department. Good thing there's a newspaper in the UK to report it.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site
Also, I'm sure people will love this...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/us/washington-police-shooting/index.html
If you'd like to watch the nsfw disturbing video of the shooting:
http://youtu.be/y-0uqFTBclo
Very similar to the made up story that was pushed about the Michael Brown incident. Except this actually happened and is on video. Too bad for Sharpton and Co. this guy's not black.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site
Also, I'm sure people will love this...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/us/washington-police-shooting/index.html
If you'd like to watch the nsfw disturbing video of the shooting:
http://youtu.be/y-0uqFTBclo
Very similar to the made up story that was pushed about the Michael Brown incident. Except this actually happened and is on video. Too bad for Sharpton and Co. this guy's not black.
Those patriotic Republicans at it again.
DC Implements Pot Legalization despite threats by Republicans (btw 7 in 10 voted for this)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/republicans-dc-pot-legalization/index.html
Oklahoma Republicans Ban AP History
cause they don't take out bad things that happened in American history.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/oklahoma-ban-ap-us-history
DC Implements Pot Legalization despite threats by Republicans (btw 7 in 10 voted for this)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/republicans-dc-pot-legalization/index.html
Oklahoma Republicans Ban AP History
cause they don't take out bad things that happened in American history.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/oklahoma-ban-ap-us-history
Great, so now Obama is going to use his power as dictator to ban certain types of ammunition.
But no, he doesn't want to take your guns.
At what point do you dipshits on the left wake up and understand this isn't about Obama or one single person, it's about setting the precedent that shitting all over the Constitution and eliminating the separation of powers in the US government is OK.
But no, he doesn't want to take your guns.
At what point do you dipshits on the left wake up and understand this isn't about Obama or one single person, it's about setting the precedent that shitting all over the Constitution and eliminating the separation of powers in the US government is OK.
I'm not going to get into a blow for blow for these mostly nonsensical responses to the Bush presidency. However I'll simply say this. You have a President that selected his own Vice President who told the nation we would be in and out of Iraq in weeks, and then hand picked the intelligence reports claiming the Iraq/WMD connection and ignored other itel reports that refuted the claim, selected all the members of his national security team incluidng Paul Wolfiiwitzed that lied to congress saying the war would be paid for with oil money from Iraq, selected his CIA Director who told everyone the Iraq war would be a "slam dunk", selected a defense secretary that refused to listen to the generals and provided 1/3 the troops need for the mission and selected a Secretary of State who he used to sell the war to the UN by spoon feeding him false intel to parrot to the UN.
And you people want to ignore all that and blame the 37 Democratic Senators who accepted the faulty intelligence they were presented in good faith and gave this clown the green light to pursue this ill conceived, expensive, disastrous mission.
Even worse, the Bush economic policies that lead to the meltdown in the banking industry and plunging us into the worst economic downturn since the great depression you want to blame on a president that left office 8 years earlier. Even if you concede that the Clinton decision on banking contributed to the crisis Bush had 8 friggin years to do something about it before it occurred but ignored all the warning signs coming from the economists. He was in charge and did nothing.
What's comical is that you same people that blame the current president for everything including the weather, somehow find a way to contort all the facts to fit into convoluted sort of rational that totally exonerates the man who sat in the Oval Office for 8 years and presided over all these extraordinary cataclysmic events.
I mean these posts are Daily Show material.
And you people want to ignore all that and blame the 37 Democratic Senators who accepted the faulty intelligence they were presented in good faith and gave this clown the green light to pursue this ill conceived, expensive, disastrous mission.
Even worse, the Bush economic policies that lead to the meltdown in the banking industry and plunging us into the worst economic downturn since the great depression you want to blame on a president that left office 8 years earlier. Even if you concede that the Clinton decision on banking contributed to the crisis Bush had 8 friggin years to do something about it before it occurred but ignored all the warning signs coming from the economists. He was in charge and did nothing.
What's comical is that you same people that blame the current president for everything including the weather, somehow find a way to contort all the facts to fit into convoluted sort of rational that totally exonerates the man who sat in the Oval Office for 8 years and presided over all these extraordinary cataclysmic events.
I mean these posts are Daily Show material.
Originally posted by Deeeefense:
I'm not going to get into a blow for blow for these mostly nonsensical responses to the Bush presidency. However I'll simply say this. You have a President that selected his own Vice President who told the nation we would be in and out of Iraq in weeks, and then hand picked the intelligence reports claiming the Iraq/WMD connection and ignored other itel reports that refuted the claim, selected all the members of his national security team incluidng Paul Wolfiiwitzed that lied to congress saying the war would be paid for with oil money from Iraq, selected his CIA Director who told everyone the Iraq war would be a "slam dunk", selected a defense secretary that refused to listen to the generals and provided 1/3 the troops need for the mission and selected a Secretary of State who he used to sell the war to the UN by spoon feeding him false intel to parrot to the UN.
And you people want to ignore all that and blame the 37 Democratic Senators who accepted the faulty intelligence they were presented in good faith and gave this clown the green light to pursue this ill conceived, expensive, disastrous mission.
Even worse, the Bush economic policies that lead to the meltdown in the banking industry and plunging us into the worst economic downturn since the great depression you want to blame on a president that left office 8 years earlier. Even if you concede that the Clinton decision on banking contributed to the crisis Bush had 8 friggin years to do something about it before it occurred but ignored all the warning signs coming from the economists. He was in charge and did nothing.
What's comical is that you same people that blame the current president for everything including the weather, somehow find a way to contort all the facts to fit into convoluted sort of rational that totally exonerates the man who sat in the Oval Office for 8 years and presided over all these extraordinary cataclysmic events.
I mean these posts are Daily Show material.
And you want us to believe you are a moderate?
I'm basing this on memory, so it could be flawed, but I think Bush and McCain warned members of congress of the economic risk associated with the relaxed lending standards and tried to get those standards tightened. My recollection is that Democrats in congress, Barney Frank in particular, since he was the head of the financial services committee, blew it off and refused to consider measures that would curb the amount of bad loans that were being made. If memory serves me right, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were in good shape and there were no problems. I also remember him criticizing the Bush administration for not being concerned about low income people being able to get housing. I think your accusation is a little unfounded and is typically blinded by your partisan view of the world.Originally posted by Deeeefense:
I'm not going to get into a blow for blow for these mostly nonsensical responses to the Bush presidency. However I'll simply say this. You have a President that selected his own Vice President who told the nation we would be in and out of Iraq in weeks, and then hand picked the intelligence reports claiming the Iraq/WMD connection and ignored other itel reports that refuted the claim, selected all the members of his national security team incluidng Paul Wolfiiwitzed that lied to congress saying the war would be paid for with oil money from Iraq, selected his CIA Director who told everyone the Iraq war would be a "slam dunk", selected a defense secretary that refused to listen to the generals and provided 1/3 the troops need for the mission and selected a Secretary of State who he used to sell the war to the UN by spoon feeding him false intel to parrot to the UN.
And you people want to ignore all that and blame the 37 Democratic Senators who accepted the faulty intelligence they were presented in good faith and gave this clown the green light to pursue this ill conceived, expensive, disastrous mission.
Even worse, the Bush economic policies that lead to the meltdown in the banking industry and plunging us into the worst economic downturn since the great depression you want to blame on a president that left office 8 years earlier. Even if you concede that the Clinton decision on banking contributed to the crisis Bush had 8 friggin years to do something about it before it occurred but ignored all the warning signs coming from the economists. He was in charge and did nothing.
What's comical is that you same people that blame the current president for everything including the weather, somehow find a way to contort all the facts to fit into convoluted sort of rational that totally exonerates the man who sat in the Oval Office for 8 years and presided over all these extraordinary cataclysmic events.
I mean these posts are Daily Show material.
On a side note, can't you also argue that Obama has had over 6 friggin years to fix anything that Bush did wrong?
That is because the daily show leans way left and would never admit how wrong you are. Your blind allegiance to Obama and his administration is what makes all of your post laughable and fodder for many on this board.Originally posted by Deeeefense:
I'm not going to get into a blow for blow for these mostly nonsensical responses to the Bush presidency. However I'll simply say this. You have a President that selected his own Vice President who told the nation we would be in and out of Iraq in weeks, and then hand picked the intelligence reports claiming the Iraq/WMD connection and ignored other itel reports that refuted the claim, selected all the members of his national security team incluidng Paul Wolfiiwitzed that lied to congress saying the war would be paid for with oil money from Iraq, selected his CIA Director who told everyone the Iraq war would be a "slam dunk", selected a defense secretary that refused to listen to the generals and provided 1/3 the troops need for the mission and selected a Secretary of State who he used to sell the war to the UN by spoon feeding him false intel to parrot to the UN.
And you people want to ignore all that and blame the 37 Democratic Senators who accepted the faulty intelligence they were presented in good faith and gave this clown the green light to pursue this ill conceived, expensive, disastrous mission.
Even worse, the Bush economic policies that lead to the meltdown in the banking industry and plunging us into the worst economic downturn since the great depression you want to blame on a president that left office 8 years earlier. Even if you concede that the Clinton decision on banking contributed to the crisis Bush had 8 friggin years to do something about it before it occurred but ignored all the warning signs coming from the economists. He was in charge and did nothing.
What's comical is that you same people that blame the current president for everything including the weather, somehow find a way to contort all the facts to fit into convoluted sort of rational that totally exonerates the man who sat in the Oval Office for 8 years and presided over all these extraordinary cataclysmic events.
I mean these posts are Daily Show material.
Johnson's name hasn't come in in a while but since you bring it up, let me assure you I condsider Johnson amoung the worst presidents as well, for the very reason you state.
Cat - I think you are mostly right. Frank is a very liberal congressman and his objective was to give more minorities and working poor a chance to own a home instead of paying rent. The intention was good but the methodology was wrong as we saw. The Bush administration presided over more ease to the way investment banks packaged and sold mortgages. My point was that a lot of economists on Wall Street were predicting an economic crisis and no one did anything about it. The mantra from Bush then, as Republicans today was the same "lets get rid of all those burdensome regulations that keep the economy from moving forward".
BTW the original post that started this debate was not Obama vs. Bush it was Carter vs. Bush. So far I have heard next to nothing about Carter. But to answer your questions about fixing the Bush economic crisis. I would say ten million new jobs, the stock market at record highs, unemployment below 6%, GDP growth back to a normal 3% or so expansion, and now wages beginning to move up is a pretty good response.
This post was edited on 2/26 2:00 PM by Deeeefense
I do not exonerate Bush for many things in his presidency -- his kind of conservatism has helped to usher in the feckless Republicans of today who are more politically aligned with Libs than with Conservatives (see amnesty, runaway spending, 'social justice', etc.). If Jeb Bush (or any other establishment type) is the Republican nominee, I will not vote for him -- I'll either stay home or vote Libertarian.Originally posted by Deeeefense:
I'm not going to get into a blow for blow for these mostly nonsensical responses to the Bush presidency. However I'll simply say this. You have a President that selected his own Vice President who told the nation we would be in and out of Iraq in weeks, and then hand picked the intelligence reports claiming the Iraq/WMD connection and ignored other itel reports that refuted the claim, selected all the members of his national security team incluidng Paul Wolfiiwitzed that lied to congress saying the war would be paid for with oil money from Iraq, selected his CIA Director who told everyone the Iraq war would be a "slam dunk", selected a defense secretary that refused to listen to the generals and provided 1/3 the troops need for the mission and selected a Secretary of State who he used to sell the war to the UN by spoon feeding him false intel to parrot to the UN.
And you people want to ignore all that and blame the 37 Democratic Senators who accepted the faulty intelligence they were presented in good faith and gave this clown the green light to pursue this ill conceived, expensive, disastrous mission.
Even worse, the Bush economic policies that lead to the meltdown in the banking industry and plunging us into the worst economic downturn since the great depression you want to blame on a president that left office 8 years earlier. Even if you concede that the Clinton decision on banking contributed to the crisis Bush had 8 friggin years to do something about it before it occurred but ignored all the warning signs coming from the economists. He was in charge and did nothing.
What's comical is that you same people that blame the current president for everything including the weather, somehow find a way to contort all the facts to fit into convoluted sort of rational that totally exonerates the man who sat in the Oval Office for 8 years and presided over all these extraordinary cataclysmic events.
I mean these posts are Daily Show material.
GWB made numerous missteps during his tenure, particularly in the management of our runaway debt (which was exascerbated, admittedly, by the Iraq War). In hindsight (which is 20/20), I wish we had never invaded Iraq, not because I believe it was wrong, but because of how everything has played out --- we've basically lost whatever was gained politically, along with blood and treasure. The lack of a concrete plan to ensure that Iraq remained a stable government and alli in the aftermath of the invasion is a millstone around the neck of both Bush and Obama. You can argue all you want that the war was wrong, but the bottom line is that Obama inherited the aftermath and made policy decisions that all but ensured Iraqi instability for years to come. Obama may not have agreed with the war and, in his estimation, he may have inherited a 'bad poker hand' in having to deal with Bush's mess, but with so much on the line, you don't just 'fold the hand' --- you play the hell out of it until the opponent blinks.
Bush made his share of mistakes, but I do not believe anything he did was done in bad faith...he simply got it wrong, and he has paid the political price for it. On the other hand, finding a Lib who will honestly critique Obama on domestic or foreign policy issues is more difficult to find than a Sasquatch in the Sahara. Literally ---- and this is not hyperbole --- I can't think of one single policy decision Obama has made in the Middle East that has strengthened American standing, safety, or security. If anyone, anywhere can come up with one, I'd love to hear it.
hopefully a win for the Internet today. I know all the Republicans hate anything the left does, but I believe the FCC got this right as long as they don't go too far. Allowing slow/fast lanes is not what the Internet is about. And impede competition? I mean what are your choices now? Doubt that can get any worse. The fact that cities can award one player the entire market and freeze others out is ridiculous.
I think it was a combination of him allowing Cheney to influence his decision too much, and using poor judgement. IOW he is not a "bad" person he was just incompetent.
- Status