More conservative ideas from the Obama camp.

[top gun]

Yes, we've discussed this many times, and each time I proved you wrong with facts and evidence against your unsupportable claims and hearsay.

You claim the republicans obstructed the democrats. So name the bills the republicans prevented? You claim they couldn't pass an override, yet they passed the Farm Bill over the veto, the medicare spending increase over a veto, the Water Development act over a veto, and a few others. All of which increased spending, and didn't help the economy.

You claim they didn't have a filibuster proof majority, then name the bills republicans filibustered?

You claim they couldn't pass anything, but then it's proven they did. You claim they couldn't stop the over spending, yet it was their bills passed over a veto that increased over spending. You claim this, you claim that, you have nothing to support it, and tons of evidence against you. You have absolutely nothing but political partisan crap. You really should give this up!

Andy is it at all possible you ate a lot of paint chips as a child because you are really struggling here.

Let me break this down for ya one LAST time. The Democrats were told by the Bush White House in advance what they would or would not veto.

The ONLY THINGS THAT PASSED were only passed by REPUBLICANS coming over and voting with the Democrats. THE DEMOCRATS BEFORE 2006 were completely out of power and SINCE 2006 COULD NOT FORCE ANYTHING THROUGH WITHOUT REPUBLICAN SUPPORT!

It don't get any easier to understand than that Andy. Now after January 20th expect to see movement... because there will be movement.

Oh really? Let's see if that's true. How about 1995 vs 2005?

GDP growth rate % per quarter.

95 Q1 3.66%
95 Q2 2.16%
95 Q3 5.15%
95 Q1 4.87%

1995 Average growth rate = 3.96%

05 Q1 6.88%
05 Q2 5.38%
05 Q3 7.17%
05 Q4 5.05%

2005 Average growth rate = 6.12%

Once again, facts and evidence disprove lame hearsay and empty claims.

BTW, simply saying there was a good economy, doesn't mean Clinton had anything to do with it. The only major economic bill Clinton passed was NAFTA, which granted conservative economic principals always work, so it doesn't surprise me that helped.

It's frickin' ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You pull out GDP as THE ONLY MARKER OF A GOOD ECONOMY?????????? Are you kidding me! If half the country was out of work, or interest rates were @ 20% or the National Debt was 100 Trillion dollars... GDP is the ONLY THING that defines an overall economic situation... Pleeeeeease!

Any honest thinking person would jump back to Clinton economic times in a heartbeat and be thrilled just to get the chance!

Then after all that work trying to trick somebody into the idea that BUSH has actually given us a good economy... then you actually say Clinton had NOTHING, Zip, ZERO, NOTTA to do with our economy for 8 straight years in office.

Then you say NAFTA which almost everyone now says did not work at all well or as planned was some great triumph. WOW!

Oh, I'm just stunned into submission to your evidence and logical thinking. "Dude", you haven't formed a substantive argument this whole thread.

Dude... look at the election. It ain't no secret or up for some big debate. Facts & figures clearly show how far into the economic ditch Bush/Cheney drove us. The whole world knows they were a bunch of liars and from the start had their own personal background reasons for wanting to move into Iraq none of which had anything to do with WMD's or 9-11. There are several books on the shelves as we speak from high ranking insiders from this administration that CLEARLY state this as fact... and before you go to your old stand by "Rockefellerr Report" that was way....... way before all this other information came forward.

This is what's been found out since...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
CBS News Exclusive: W.Va. Senator Says Invasion Unnecessary Even If Saddam Would Still Be In Power
Sept. 9, 2006 | by Christine Lagorio

Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., left, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., discuss a newly released committee report Friday, Sept. 8, 2006 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)

Pre-War Intel Report Fallout
A Senate report finding no link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein has led a key Democratic senator to accuse the Bush Administration of manipulating the public into supporting the Iraq war.

(CBS) The Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week.

Its statements like this one, made Feb. 5, 2003, by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that have become so controversial, implying Iraq was linked to terror attacks.

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," Powell said.

But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.

"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"

Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.

He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, "because it is called the 'war on terror.'"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't get the polling designation as WORST PRESIDENT EVER for doing a good job.

 

[PLC1]

Say, Andy, Top Gun, just how much influence do you think the president has over the economy?

If the current downturn is over by the next election, it is a dead certainty that Obama supporters will give him the credit, while his detractors will say that he had little or nothing to do with the recovery.

Which side are you willing to support? No fair waiting to see whether or not the economy recovers under Obama's first term. Declare your position now!

 

[Alexithymia]

Andy is it at all possible you ate a lot of paint chips as a child because you are really struggling here.

Do you honestly feel like your arguments are made more coherent by statements like this?

Let me break this down for ya one LAST time. The Democrats were told by the Bush White House in advance what they would or would not veto.

The ONLY THINGS THAT PASSED were only passed by REPUBLICANS coming over and voting with the Democrats. THE DEMOCRATS BEFORE 2006 were completely out of power and SINCE 2006 COULD NOT FORCE ANYTHING THROUGH WITHOUT REPUBLICAN SUPPORT!

Well you seem to forget that actually going through the motions of passing a bill even one doomed for failure is a political tool to put pressure on a given administration or congress. Furthermore it seems like you are trying to forget all the democratic support for bills like the Patriot Act.

It don't get any easier to understand than that Andy. Now after January 20th expect to see movement... because there will be movement.[/COLOR]

Honestly there isn't anything unique about what Obama is planning that I'm excited for. He seems to be planning to spend even more money than Bush did (Which is already waaaaay too insane of a figure to even fathom) on things that are just unnecessary and illogical.

It's frickin' ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You pull out GDP as THE ONLY MARKER OF A GOOD ECONOMY?????????? Are you kidding me! If half the country was out of work, or interest rates were @ 20% or the National Debt was 100 Trillion dollars... GDP is the ONLY THING that defines an overall economic situation... Pleeeeeease!

Perhaps you should offer evidence of your own instead of just complaining about the criteria he is using to compare the economy.

Any honest thinking person would jump back to Clinton economic times in a heartbeat and be thrilled just to get the chance!

Clinton wasn't a bad president at all. He balanced the budget, which was a smart thing to do. However, the economic boom and budget balancing his 8 years are remembered for would have been impossible if he hadn't been preceded by Ronald Regan. Furthermore, it was during his administration that our government decided to start forcing banks to take on bad loans which is one of the primary components of our trouble today. So we should follow Clinton's excellent example of a balanced budget, but keep in mind that government interference with the economy has dastardly consequences.

Then after all that work trying to trick somebody into the idea that BUSH has actually given us a good economy... then you actually say Clinton had NOTHING, Zip, ZERO, NOTTA to do with our economy for 8 straight years in office.

Its simply ignorant to imply that the ONLY factor to how well our economy will do is the president. If you feel that Bush's actions have contributed to the current economic crisis, please describe those actions, don't insinuate that his presence in the oval office has somehow corrupted the economy.

Dude... look at the election. It ain't no secret or up for some big debate. Facts & figures clearly show how far into the economic ditch Bush/Cheney drove us. The whole world knows they were a bunch of liars and from the start had their own personal background reasons for wanting to move into Iraq none of which had anything to do with WMD's or 9-11. There are several books on the shelves as we speak from high ranking insiders from this administration that CLEARLY state this as fact... and before you go to your old stand by "Rockefellerr Report" that was way....... way before all this other information came forward.

I'm shocked at what ignorance and hyper-partisan politics can convince people to believe. If you think that these slanderous political books hold truth, why don't you try picking up some of the propaganda produced by radical republicans, like "An Obamination" (It plays off the word Abomination)

What on earth did we get out of Iraq besides setting people free from a crazed dictator? Don't tell me oil, any reliable fact sheet will tell you that we get the vast majority from Mexico and Canada, NOT from the Middle East.

 

[Andy]

Let me break this down for ya one LAST time. The Democrats were told by the Bush White House in advance what they would or would not veto.

So? Are you saying that your democrats were so spineless and cowardly, that if the mean ol Mr President said he'd veto the legislation that would fix everything, that they just rolled over and didn't even try to?

So they had all the answers to everything, but didn't even try and help us because they were just that pathetic?

Yet, they still passed things... didn't they? So which is it? Did they pass stuff, just nothing that would help, or did they roll over like spineless cowards and not even try?

The ONLY THINGS THAT PASSED were only passed by REPUBLICANS coming over and voting with the Democrats. THE DEMOCRATS BEFORE 2006 were completely out of power and SINCE 2006 COULD NOT FORCE ANYTHING THROUGH WITHOUT REPUBLICAN SUPPORT!

Yet, when they did pass things, it was things that made the situation worse. Like a Bailout, or like an overspending bill that violated the Senates own self imposed pay-go rule about not over spending.

So your theory is that the democrats were so spineless, they even try to pass anything helpful until they gained the majority. Then when they did get the majority, the continued over spending and pointless pork-filled bills to pay off lobbyists. In either case, they never once did anything of any value the entire time, while supposedly holding the answers to all the problems.

But your sure their going to fix everything now... right... I can see how you base your faith in them on historical precedence.

It's frickin' ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You pull out GDP as THE ONLY MARKER OF A GOOD ECONOMY?????????? Are you kidding me! If half the country was out of work, or interest rates were @ 20% or the National Debt was 100 Trillion dollars... GDP is the ONLY THING that defines an overall economic situation... Pleeeeeease!

By all means, which economic marker would you like?

The interest rate in 95 was 9% in 05 was 5.5%.
The unemployment rate in 95 was 5.8% and in 05 was 4.9%

Feel free to let me know which economic marker you'd like to hear.

Then after all that work trying to trick somebody into the idea that BUSH has actually given us a good economy... then you actually say Clinton had NOTHING, Zip, ZERO, NOTTA to do with our economy for 8 straight years in office.

Not so. He passed NAFTA, which was a large boost to our economy.

Then you say NAFTA which almost everyone now says did not work at all well or as planned was some great triumph. WOW!

Are they saying that based on economic factors, or based on hearsay like yourself?

Hey, if you wish to claim it was Clintons legislation that boosted the economy, by all means, name the legislation. Let's investigate the bill you claim helped, and see if it did. As for me, there are only two bits of legislation I see that had a positive effect on the economy. First, NAFTA, and second, Welfare reform. Pushing people off the public dole, forcing them to provide for themselves by taking jobs, does have a positive effect on the economy.

Dude... look at the election. It ain't no secret or up for some big debate. Facts & figures clearly show how far into the economic ditch Bush/Cheney drove us. The whole world knows they were a bunch of liars and from the start had their own personal background reasons for wanting to move into Iraq none of which had anything to do with WMD's or 9-11. There are several books on the shelves as we speak from high ranking insiders from this administration that CLEARLY state this as fact... and before you go to your old stand by "Rockefellerr Report" that was way....... way before all this other information came forward.

Ah, good for you to remember the Rockefeller report the clearly proved that there were no lies going into the Iraq war.

Funny you should mention 9/11 that Clinton had the opportunity to stop, but squandered it.

This is what's been found out since...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
CBS News Exclusive: W.Va. Senator Says Invasion Unnecessary Even If Saddam Would Still Be In Power
Sept. 9, 2006 | by Christine Lagorio

Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., left, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., discuss a newly released committee report Friday, Sept. 8, 2006 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)

Pre-War Intel Report Fallout
A Senate report finding no link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein has led a key Democratic senator to accuse the Bush Administration of manipulating the public into supporting the Iraq war.

(CBS) The Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week.

Yes, I know all about this. Rockefeller presented the report as a condemnation of Bush. The report was intended to be an attack on Bush. The problem is, when you read the actual report, it is not as condemning as stated. It's the very same report mentioned in your article that states:

On Iraqs Nuclear program: The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

In other words, while you found a CBS article on a report, saying it condemned Bush, the report itself, doesn't. It's a classic case of left-wing slanted media.

It's the same as "Republicans vote against mothersday" and "Ann Coulter blames Vietnam Vet for losing the war". It's just false slanted media.

If you actually read the report yourself, instead of relying on others to tell you what you want to hear, you might be informed about what is actually written in the report.

 

[top gun]

PLC1;81484]Say, Andy, Top Gun, just how much influence do you think the president has over the economy?

If the current downturn is over by the next election, it is a dead certainty that Obama supporters will give him the credit, while his detractors will say that he had little or nothing to do with the recovery.

Which side are you willing to support? No fair waiting to see whether or not the economy recovers under Obama's first term. Declare your position now!

Well you could wait and let me see how it goes...

I'll say this in clear unequivocal terms... It depends!.

I say that about our economy in general because there is some overlapping. For instance Bush #41 wasn't nearly as bad handling the economy as Reagan was but Reagan was seen as doing well and Bush bad... which it was... but the reason it was wasn't much his fault. Bush #41 got left holding the bag on Reagan's huge deficit spending. When Bush #41 called Reagan's trickle-down economics voodoo economics he was actually quite correct.

But I'll answer your question directly: Whenever there is a leader that takes bold steps to try and change a major problem and that problem ends up becoming better... that leader deserves high marks and credit.

 

[top gun]

Alexithymia;81528]Do you honestly feel like your arguments are made more coherent by statements like this?

Yes... if you deal with Andy much humor is essential!

Well you seem to forget that actually going through the motions of passing a bill even one doomed for failure is a political tool to put pressure on a given administration or congress. Furthermore it seems like you are trying to forget all the democratic support for bills like the Patriot Act.

Not at all. But when there is a complete lock up of power as in before 2006 there's is little pressure to bring to bare.

And I was personally against most of the Patriot Act from the start because I believe it gives far to much power to the Executive and not enough oversight which easily leads to abuse of power... plus the FISA court already in place was no burden since they did not have to prior approve this type surveillance, it just at some point had to be reviewed and cleared by the court.

I understand the paranoia and hype the administration put forward and the times themselves after 9-11 created an atmosphere where Democrats were understandably concerned... but I myself never agreed with them going along.

Honestly there isn't anything unique about what Obama is planning that I'm excited for. He seems to be planning to spend even more money than Bush did (Which is already waaaaay too insane of a figure to even fathom) on things that are just unnecessary and illogical.

Well you are entitled to your opinion we will have to see how it goes. I'm understandably somewhat more optimistic.

Perhaps you should offer evidence of your own instead of just complaining about the criteria he is using to compare the economy.

I've done that already in more posts than I care to remember. Graphs and charts and news accounts of the time. Andy just likes a lot of repetition to try and help wear ya down. But it gets rather burdensome when it's a point that everyone already knows the answer to. Watch I'll ask you... Was the economy better off all 8 years of President Clinton or George Bush today? See...

Clinton wasn't a bad president at all. He balanced the budget, which was a smart thing to do. However, the economic boom and budget balancing his 8 years are remembered for would have been impossible if he hadn't been preceded by Ronald Regan. Furthermore, it was during his administration that our government decided to start forcing banks to take on bad loans which is one of the primary components of our trouble today. So we should follow Clinton's excellent example of a balanced budget, but keep in mind that government interference with the economy has dastardly consequences.

Well your facts are really blurry there my friend. First Clinton didn't follow Reagan, he followed Bush #41. Second Reagan was the deficit spender that caused the economy to crash on Bush #41. Third The policy to loan to low income people was a bipartisan effort. Dems liked it for trying to create pride & ownership in troubled often transient type communities and Pubbies liked it because they thought it would help business.

But regardless of all that only a mere 12% of all this bad mortgage loan paper we're hearing about is from that type of loan anyway... leaving 88% something more secured and not part of this program.

Its simply ignorant to imply that the ONLY factor to how well our economy will do is the president. If you feel that Bush's actions have contributed to the current economic crisis, please describe those actions, don't insinuate that his presence in the oval office has somehow corrupted the economy.

The President is not the only factor. But when he repeatedly looks the American people right in the eye and says... THE FUNDAMENTALS OF OUR ECONOMY ARE STRONG when the walls are really crumbling down it's either ignorance, incompetence, deceit or some combination of all the above. He is responsible for what he says.

I'm shocked at what ignorance and hyper-partisan politics can convince people to believe. If you think that these slanderous political books hold truth, why don't you try picking up some of the propaganda produced by radical republicans, like "An Obamination" (It plays off the word Abomination)

What on earth did we get out of Iraq besides setting people free from a crazed dictator? Don't tell me oil, any reliable fact sheet will tell you that we get the vast majority from Mexico and Canada, NOT from the Middle East.

These are first hand accounts, reports and books from people in the Bush administrations inner circle not some tabloid fodder guesswork. And I see no lawsuits coming for liable or slander do you?

We had no right to invade period. The people (other than the ones we put into power) there hate us much more than they did Hussein. And oil was a component. Bush/Cheney hoped to secure another US friendly oil source. This wasn't as major as the fact Bush had an ax to grind about Hussein threatening his father Bush #41... but it attributed.

 

[PLC1]

Well you could wait and let me see how it goes...

I'll say this in clear unequivocal terms... It depends!.

I say that about our economy in general because there is some overlapping. For instance Bush #41 wasn't nearly as bad handling the economy as Reagan was but Reagan was seen as doing well and Bush bad... which it was... but the reason it was wasn't much his fault. Bush #41 got left holding the bag on Reagan's huge deficit spending. When Bush #41 called Reagan's trickle-down economics voodoo economics he was actually quite correct.

But I'll answer your question directly: Whenever there is a leader that takes bold steps to try and change a major problem and that problem ends up becoming better... that leader deserves high marks and credit.

Yes, and if he takes bold steps and the situation worsens, is it his fault?

If the situation worsens, then Obama supporters will be arguing that the president doesn't have much influence over the economy, while his detractors will be saying that it is all his fault. If the situation improves, then his supporters will argue that he deserves high marks and credit, while his detractors will be arguing that he doesn't have much influence. That is one thing we can all count on.

That, and that there will be a whole lot more supporters if the economy rebounds than there will be if it worsens.

So, clearly and unequivocally, it does depend, doesn't it?

How about you, Andy, are you willing to take a stand now, or do you agree that it depends?

 

[top gun]

Andy;81540]So? Are you saying that your democrats were so spineless and cowardly, that if the mean ol Mr President said he'd veto the legislation that would fix everything, that they just rolled over and didn't even try to?

So they had all the answers to everything, but didn't even try and help us because they were just that pathetic?

Didn't say they had the answers to everything. I said they could not force their hand so the Republicans had there way. And their way led us to where we are now.

Now the tables are turned and Democrats will and should be held just as accountable.

Yet, they still passed things... didn't they? So which is it? Did they pass stuff, just nothing that would help, or did they roll over like spineless cowards and not even try?

Democrats were involved in passing stuff IF they could get some Republicans to cross over... they could pass nothing without that happening. Hey I'm more upset about it than you. I'd have loved to stop Bush like 100 different times!

But your sure their going to fix everything now... right... I can see how you base your faith in them on historical precedence.

Yes I firmly believe things will be better in a year and much much better going into President Obama's second term. He has the best and brightest around him and he's universally considered a very intelligent man himself.

Unlike Bush he's a thinker not a drinker!

By all means, which economic marker would you like?

Easy to compare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvHyyhFKJOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3-uDFacezo

If you seriously... seriously can stand there straight faced and believe this country is in better economic shape now than when Bill Clinton was President you are completely alone & nothing less than INSANE!


And I've already posted Senator Rockefeller's apology and supporting documentation as he presented it AT A TIME AFTER THE ROCKEFELLER REPORT WAS SUBMITTED for not seeing the Bush pattern of lies and deception sooner so I have no need to post it again.

 

[top gun]

PLC1;81564]Yes, and if he takes bold steps and the situation worsens, is it his fault?

If the situation worsens, then Obama supporters will be arguing that the president doesn't have much influence over the economy, while his detractors will be saying that it is all his fault. If the situation improves, then his supporters will argue that he deserves high marks and credit, while his detractors will be arguing that he doesn't have much influence. That is one thing we can all count on.

That, and that there will be a whole lot more supporters if the economy rebounds than there will be if it worsens.

So, clearly and unequivocally, it does depend, doesn't it?

Your observation is fair...

I think the reality is if President Obama takes bold steps and the economy worsens it will be seen as his fault... stays the same the second guessing starts.

I also think however it's fair he should be allowed enough time to fully implement his plan and give it time to take hold.

I predict the economy will be marginally better one year and noticeably better two years after President Obama's plan is fully implemented. The hope will be that trend continues to build and the Bush Recession will have been bottomed out.

 

[PLC1]

I predict the economy will be marginally better one year and noticeably better two years after President Obama's plan is fully implemented. The hope will be that trend continues to build and the Bush Recession will have been bottomed out.

I sincerely hope that your prediction is accurate.

 

[Andy]

Didn't say they had the answers to everything. I said they could not force their hand so the Republicans had there way. And their way led us to where we are now.

Now the tables are turned and Democrats will and should be held just as accountable.

Yeah, the sub-prime loans, traced back to Clintons change in the CRA, was actually the result of spineless democrats unable to stop Bush 12 years after the legislation is passed. That might make sense if you are mentally unstable.

Democrats were involved in passing stuff IF they could get some Republicans to cross over... they could pass nothing without that happening. Hey I'm more upset about it than you. I'd have loved to stop Bush like 100 different times!

Right, but instead of stopping his policies, they actually voted FOR his policies. I suppose it makes sense that if the spineless democrats couldn't pass their own legislation (which I doubt) then they might as well vote FOR policies they are completely against.

Yes I firmly believe things will be better in a year and much much better going into President Obama's second term. He has the best and brightest around him and he's universally considered a very intelligent man himself.

Unlike Bush he's a thinker not a drinker!

uh er... it would cost... uh.... about... er.... um... breathilizer... er...

Another example of Obama "thinking" I suppose. Of course I too am looking forward to more well "thought out" policies like "inflate your tires" as a solution for national energy policy.

If you seriously... seriously can stand there straight faced and believe this country is in better economic shape now than when Bill Clinton was President you are completely alone & nothing less than INSANE!

Hey, you made a foolish claim that every year of Clinton was better than any year of Bush.

I proved 05 was better than 95 in GDP growth, unemployment, and interest rates. All of which you claimed were valid economic indicators. If you want to list another, I'll be glad to look it up.

I can't help it when a fool opens his mouth, and ends up shoving his foot in it. I just point it out when it happens.

And I've already posted Senator Rockefeller's apology and supporting documentation as he presented it AT A TIME AFTER THE ROCKEFELLER REPORT WAS SUBMITTED for not seeing the Bush pattern of lies and deception sooner so I have no need to post it again.

Actually they were both the same report. One has a leftist spin on it. The other stated the plane facts of what the report showed. Thank, but you are wrong again, as you always are.

 

[top gun]

Andy;81580]Yeah, the sub-prime loans, traced back to Clintons change in the CRA, was actually the result of spineless democrats unable to stop Bush 12 years after the legislation is passed. That might make sense if you are mentally unstable.

Bipartisan legislation Andy.

Right, but instead of stopping his policies, they actually voted FOR his policies. I suppose it makes sense that if the spineless democrats couldn't pass their own legislation (which I doubt) then they might as well vote FOR policies they are completely against.

Andy you are soon to get a feel for just how difficult it really is. When one Party has control of both Houses of Congress and the Executive the minority is in the spot of having to do a lot of compromising or the government gets completely shut down... then the minority can't get anything.

Things will be changing for the better hang in there and you'll see it.

Another example of Obama "thinking" I suppose. Of course I too am looking forward to more well "thought out" policies like "inflate your tires" as a solution for national energy policy.

Actually you must have missed the report on the news that the "inflate your tires" thing was actually a recomendation set forth by the National Highway Safety Institute specifically to help increase gas mileage.

Let's see if inflate your tires is President Obama's only energy policy. Since it never was I'm feeling pretty confident here.

Hey, you made a foolish claim that every year of Clinton was better than any year of Bush.

Andy if you believe THE BUSH RECESSION... the worst RECESSION since THE GREAT DEPRESSION is better than 8 years of not only a great thriving economy but the largest job growth ever recored in the United States of America... you missed the med cart my friend!

Actually they were both the same report. One has a leftist spin on it. The other stated the plane facts of what the report showed. Thank, but you are wrong again, as you always are.

No they weren't. There was the actual REPORT... and then there were statements made later on by Senator Rockefeller including his apology for being taken in by the Bush Sham!

It will be so refreshing to have a straight forward President again! It was such a good thing President Obama was elected!

 

[Andy]

Bipartisan legislation Andy.

Which still implies they could pass something, now doesn't it? Are you claiming that the amazing republicans were able pass everything they wanted without any democrat votes at all, but the poor pathetic democrats couldn't pass anything whatsoever without the republican vote, even with a majority some of the time?

You still are not making me very confident the democrats have anything to offer at all. In fact, nearly every point you've made seems to indicate utter incompetence at anything but complaining. Something that seem the major of the democrats ability even on this forum. No ideas, no support, tons of complaints.

Andy you are soon to get a feel for just how difficult it really is. When one Party has control of both Houses of Congress and the Executive the minority is in the spot of having to do a lot of compromising or the government gets completely shut down... then the minority can't get anything.

Funny, I remember 1993-1994 when democrats had both houses and the executive, and they simply screwed up everything. It was so bad, that 1994 election was a landslide victory republicans in all of congress.

Now honestly, I hope the democrats do something conservative which will make a repeat un-necessary. However, just based on your view point on this, my confidence is lower than ever in democrats. Maybe if James Trafficant was still there... but I'm not seeing much hope otherwise.

Things will be changing for the better hang in there and you'll see it.

Yeah, I already see him following the same pattern of Bush. Huge changes... *cough*

Actually you must have missed the report on the news that the "inflate your tires" thing was actually a recomendation set forth by the National Highway Safety Institute specifically to help increase gas mileage.

ooooOOOOooooo.... So the National Highway Safety Institute can read a car's owners manuel too.... well great. Nice to see other government agencies have litterate people employed.

Once again, Obama reads a gas saving tip that's been around for the past 60+ years or more, and Obamabots are so keen to jump to his defence, they actually find other idiots who say it's true, as if that makes it a national energy policy. Brilliant.

Let's see if inflate your tires is President Obama's only energy policy. Since it never was I'm feeling pretty confident here.

Tell you what. Since you got it figured out, and I have yet to find it... by all means, explain what his energy policy is?

Andy if you believe THE BUSH RECESSION... the worst RECESSION since THE GREAT DEPRESSION is better than 8 years of not only a great thriving economy but the largest job growth ever recored in the United States of America... you missed the med cart my friend!

That didn't make "every year of Clinton better than every year of Bush" like you claimed before. Are you saying your prior statment is not true?

No they weren't. There was the actual REPORT... and then there were statements made later on by Senator Rockefeller including his apology for being taken in by the Bush Sham!

It will be so refreshing to have a straight forward President again! It was such a good thing President Obama was elected!

Later on? Then why wasn't there a retraction or correction of the report? I know there hasn't been, because I downloaded the report itself from the Senate Post-Iraq Intelligence report, to verify the claims. Rockefeller can say anything he wants after the fact, but unless he has new evidence, that he's failed to add to the report, I'm going with the findings by the Senate Intel committee.

The link you posted provides nothing but claims, not facts. Ironically much like your posts.

Once again, I'm going with the facts, not claims.

 

[PLC1]

Yeah, I already see him following the same pattern of Bush. Huge changes... *cough*

Does that mean you think that Bush was planning to close down Gitmo?

 

[Rockin Mark]

read and pay attention ................this should be a good and interesting ride


can't knock him yet.................................



hasn't started........................




either way it IS HISTORY next Tuesday a proud day in America i just hope he really dose work with BOTH sides rep and dem