tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 While she would not be my first choice, yes, I'd vote for Hillary over the current crop of republican choices, especially given the recent record. Thank goodness Bush will soon be relegated to the one chore he seems to be fit for, clearing brush at his Texas ranch. What a legacy. do you really think it's that bad? i fail to see it as the most drastically and acutely horrendous period the US has ever suffered through because of a presidency. hell, things aren't even that "bad"! You're kidding, right? Even the Republican candidates are running from the Bush legacy. Let's see, where to start. Faking the intelligence and starting an unnecessary war, cutting taxes at the same time, allowing an average of 7% increase in domestic spending a year while the Repubs held sway, passing a Medicare bill that's a deficit hog and giveaway to the drug companies, making the US the torture leader of the free world, losing all the world good will we had after 911 and those strategic alliances, putting in political hacks instead of seasoned diplomats in charge of Iraq, dropping the ball on Afganinstan where the Taliban is on the rise, loosening the reins on financial institutions that lead to the sub-prime repackaging fiasco, illegal wire taps on US citizens, extrodinary rendition, Gitmo, generous tax breaks for corporations and the rich that have added to the deficit. The list is quite long. In short - it's been a while since we had someone so bad on all presidential fronts. Tell me what exactly has gone well under this idiot. It's going to take a long time to dig out of the mess we've made in Iraq and the finances at home. Our kids will be paying for this mess. And then there's the lost opportunities. Instead of spending $40 billion a month in the desert we could have been investing in infrastructure, education, and health care at home. If there were a true fiscal conservative and social progressive in the Republican race I'd take a serious look at them. But, for whatever reason, the Republican party has abandonded their true fiscal conservative roots with Reagan and haven't looked back since. Your kidding right, must you be refered back to ms Clinton speach on how the war was justified and Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Democrats were in on it too. I do agree with the Reagan abandonment. Republicans fiscal responsibility has been sucking. Hell Clinton did a better job of that. http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html Please read the speech over and over you liberals. This is who you are voting for. LOL Reagan blew as a president. He was a fucking joke. His fiscal responsibility? He had none. His approval rating was in the toilet when he left office. The GOP has convenientely rewritten his legacy for modern consumption to keep the Koolaid flowing. The bottom line is that, since Reagan took office, GOP supported policies have one long series of train wrecks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 While she would not be my first choice, yes, I'd vote for Hillary over the current crop of republican choices, especially given the recent record. Thank goodness Bush will soon be relegated to the one chore he seems to be fit for, clearing brush at his Texas ranch. What a legacy. do you really think it's that bad? i fail to see it as the most drastically and acutely horrendous period the US has ever suffered through because of a presidency. hell, things aren't even that "bad"! You're kidding, right? Even the Republican candidates are running from the Bush legacy. Let's see, where to start. Faking the intelligence and starting an unnecessary war, cutting taxes at the same time, allowing an average of 7% increase in domestic spending a year while the Repubs held sway, passing a Medicare bill that's a deficit hog and giveaway to the drug companies, making the US the torture leader of the free world, losing all the world good will we had after 911 and those strategic alliances, putting in political hacks instead of seasoned diplomats in charge of Iraq, dropping the ball on Afganinstan where the Taliban is on the rise, loosening the reins on financial institutions that lead to the sub-prime repackaging fiasco, illegal wire taps on US citizens, extrodinary rendition, Gitmo, generous tax breaks for corporations and the rich that have added to the deficit. The list is quite long. In short - it's been a while since we had someone so bad on all presidential fronts. Tell me what exactly has gone well under this idiot. It's going to take a long time to dig out of the mess we've made in Iraq and the finances at home. Our kids will be paying for this mess. And then there's the lost opportunities. Instead of spending $40 billion a month in the desert we could have been investing in infrastructure, education, and health care at home. If there were a true fiscal conservative and social progressive in the Republican race I'd take a serious look at them. But, for whatever reason, the Republican party has abandonded their true fiscal conservative roots with Reagan and haven't looked back since. Your kidding right, must you be refered back to ms Clinton speach on how the war was justified and Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Democrats were in on it too. I do agree with the Reagan abandonment. Republicans fiscal responsibility has been sucking. Hell Clinton did a better job of that. http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html Please read the speech over and over you liberals. This is who you are voting for. LOL Reagan blew as a president. He was a fucking joke. His fiscal responsibility? He had none. His approval rating was in the toilet when he left office. The GOP has convenientely rewritten his legacy for modern consumption to keep the Koolaid flowing. The bottom line is that, since Reagan took office, GOP supported policies have one long series of train wrecks. and I bet you thought Carter before him was better LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Yeah no shit! Fiscal responsibility and Reagan? Hmmm...let's take a guess to which president held the previous record (before GWB) in terms of budget deficit. But with Repubs it's all cool since "defense" spending doesn't count as spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Yeah no shit! Fiscal responsibility and Reagan? Hmmm...let's take a guess to which president held the previous record (before GWB) in terms of budget deficit. But with Repubs it's all cool since "defense" spending doesn't count as spending. Democrats spend just as much if not more. They just offset it with increased taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Yeah no shit! Fiscal responsibility and Reagan? Hmmm...let's take a guess to which president held the previous record (before GWB) in terms of budget deficit. But with Repubs it's all cool since "defense" spending doesn't count as spending. Who held the purse strings? All spending bills originate where? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Yeah no shit! Fiscal responsibility and Reagan? Hmmm...let's take a guess to which president held the previous record (before GWB) in terms of budget deficit. But with Repubs it's all cool since "defense" spending doesn't count as spending. Who held the purse strings? All spending bills originate where? Let me guess, a democrat controlled congress?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) Yeah no shit! Fiscal responsibility and Reagan? Hmmm...let's take a guess to which president held the previous record (before GWB) in terms of budget deficit. But with Repubs it's all cool since "defense" spending doesn't count as spending. Who held the purse strings? All spending bills originate where? A bullshit argument in Reagan's case. Aside from the fact that presidential vetoes are very hard to override, the (defense) spending at that time was fully supported by Reagan. As for Carter, he's remembered for the oil embargo, economic stagnation, and a botched hostage rescue. The dismal economic situation was an inevitable byproduct of the out of control spending for the Vietnam war: any president would have suffered the same fate there. The oil embargo resulted in Carter pushing energy independence: had Reagan not dismantled his programs, we'd probably be much better off than we are now as a country (and a planet). And as for the hostage rescue; that was one small, failed mission, albeit embarrassing, not the two lost wars we currently face. What has been forgotten is that Carter was also the originator of a middle eastern rapid deployment force, which later allowed us to gain a quick Desert Storm victory. Edited January 18, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Look, the bottom line is this, the liberal media is doing everything in their power to get the conservatives out; if they can paint a poor picture on the economy then, AND get the moderates to buy into it then the liberals will win the election. Our economy is based on a trust and belief that the whole darn thing is not going to unravel. That is it, and nothing more. And YES it is that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Look, the bottom line is this, the liberal media is doing everything in their power to get the conservatives out; if they can paint a poor picture on the economy then, AND get the moderates to buy into it then the liberals will win the election. Our economy is based on a trust and belief that the whole darn thing is not going to unravel. That is it, and nothing more. And YES it is that simple. Yes, the liberal media does its best to magnify and exaggerate all problems when the R's are in power, and gloss over the same problems when "their side" is in power - even when the problems are worse under D's. It's par for the course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 you're back on ignore. this time for good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 you're back on ignore. this time for good. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M MELTIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 what a dumbass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Yeah no shit! Fiscal responsibility and Reagan? Hmmm...let's take a guess to which president held the previous record (before GWB) in terms of budget deficit. But with Repubs it's all cool since "defense" spending doesn't count as spending. Who held the purse strings? All spending bills originate where? A bullshit argument in Reagan's case. Aside from the fact that presidential vetoes are very hard to override, the (defense) spending at that time was fully supported by Reagan. As for Carter, he's remembered for the oil embargo, economic stagnation, and a botched hostage rescue. The dismal economic situation was an inevitable byproduct of the out of control spending for the Vietnam war: any president would have suffered the same fate there. The oil embargo resulted in Carter pushing energy independence: had Reagan not dismantled his programs, we'd probably be much better off than we are now as a country (and a planet). And as for the hostage rescue; that was one small, failed mission, albeit embarrassing, not the two lost wars we currently face. What has been forgotten is that Carter was also the originator of a middle eastern rapid deployment force, which later allowed us to gain a quick Desert Storm victory. You remember what you want to remember. I remember Carter was, and remains the most conservative Christina president EVER! Yes, an ordained minister..... I remember the USSR invation and ocupation of Afganistan, and that allowed the rise of the Taliban.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couloir Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 A diversified portfolio along with dollar cost averaging helps avoid any pain from a significant downturn in the stockmarket, and the economy as a whole. You don't quite get the full effect of any positive spikes, but you don't feel the pain either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Yeah no shit! Fiscal responsibility and Reagan? Hmmm...let's take a guess to which president held the previous record (before GWB) in terms of budget deficit. But with Repubs it's all cool since "defense" spending doesn't count as spending. Who held the purse strings? All spending bills originate where? A bullshit argument in Reagan's case. Aside from the fact that presidential vetoes are very hard to override, the (defense) spending at that time was fully supported by Reagan. As for Carter, he's remembered for the oil embargo, economic stagnation, and a botched hostage rescue. The dismal economic situation was an inevitable byproduct of the out of control spending for the Vietnam war: any president would have suffered the same fate there. The oil embargo resulted in Carter pushing energy independence: had Reagan not dismantled his programs, we'd probably be much better off than we are now as a country (and a planet). And as for the hostage rescue; that was one small, failed mission, albeit embarrassing, not the two lost wars we currently face. What has been forgotten is that Carter was also the originator of a middle eastern rapid deployment force, which later allowed us to gain a quick Desert Storm victory. You remember what you want to remember. I remember Carter was, and remains the most conservative Christina president EVER! Yes, an ordained minister..... I remember the USSR invation and ocupation of Afganistan, and that allowed the rise of the Taliban.... I remember Carter's goofy brother, and getting attacked by a killer rabbit. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 [ I remember Carter's goofy brother, and getting attacked by a killer rabbit. ;-) BILLIE BEER!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Yeah, and Clinton's druggy brother, and Reagan's nutty kids and Bush I's draft-dodging, coke-sniffing son.... the list goes on and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 BILLIE BEER!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 As for Carter, he's remembered for the oil embargo, economic stagnation, and a botched hostage rescue. You remember what you want to remember. I remember Carter was, and remains the most conservative Christina president EVER! Yes, an ordained minister..... I remember the USSR invation and ocupation of Afganistan, and that allowed the rise of the Taliban.... Oh and what about Jimmies ardent support of the miserably failed non aliened movement? Oh the things we choose to forget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 You remember what you want to remember. I remember Carter was, and remains the most conservative Christina president EVER! Yes, an ordained minister..... I remember the USSR invation and ocupation of Afganistan, and that allowed the rise of the Taliban.... Carter has always been a very liberal Christian. He did not attempt to enforce fundamentalist policies on the rest of America. And I did not know that Carter ordered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Thanks for the update. The rise of the Taliban was a bit more complicated that your statement; the Islamic revolution in Iran, the rise of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, etc, but I'll leave it to you to do your own research on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Blaming Carter for the rise of the Taliban is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 [quote=sirwoofalot[ Oh and what about Jimmies ardent support of the miserably failed non aliened movement? Earthspeak, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Oh and what about Jimmies ardent support of the miserably failed non aliened movement? Oh the things we choose to forget. We can, to a very large part, thank Jimmy for the overthrow of the Shah, the return of Khomeini, and a lot of our current problems with Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) I remember Carter's goofy brother, and getting attacked by a killer rabbit. ;-) BILLIE BEER!!!!!! Yeah, Billy was pretty dumb, but at least he spelled his name correctly. Edited January 18, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 While I believe Billy Beer was a national tragedy, I don't think it rises to the train wreck we now have. And while Billy was the president's brother, he wasn't nominally in charge, as is the current village idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.