cawacko
Well-known member
Historically failed ideas like the ones used to bankrupt Detroit?
Liberals and One Party Rule
- Thread starter Boris The Animal
- Start date
Historically failed ideas like the ones used to bankrupt Detroit?
You're right; things would have been so much better if Al Gore had won the election. ::wink wink::
No; but it seems to be a surprise to dimwitted Democrats when Republicans say they want to defeat Obama.
Yes, you're THAT stupid and a hypocrite of the highest order.
The definition of irony; a dimwitted leftist who never makes any sense thinking others have small brains.
You really are a moron aren't you?
cawacko
Well-known member
I don't understand that mindset. I voted for George W. Bush twice. Me saying he sucked as President does not equate to me wishing Al Gore was President. And W. was a large reason we have President Obama for two terms today.
Even though I am a Republican and voted for Bush twice I'm not going to overlook the things he did wrong.
maineman
Banned
you're an obnoxious asshole. Every democrat is well aware that republicans want to win elections every bit as much as democrats do. Every democrat is well aware that republicans want to push their platform and defeat the democrat's platform and the reverse is true. What the fuck are you talking about?
I also voted for Mr. Bush but cannot overlook what I perceive were mistakes he made or decisions he made that I do not agree with. I have yet to find someone with whom I agree 100% of the time. Not even my wife. No, wait, maybe that should be: Especially my wife. 
So, you believe every snake oil salesman selling you a cure for what ails you, or do you determine what somebody is by their actions? Personally what people do is far more important than what they say, IMO.
Bush was no conservative, he spent like an amateur Obama on a bad day.
Let me try to explain my "mindset"; whenever we complain about how bad Bush was based on PERCEPTION, we must always remind ourselves how close we came to electing the dumbest man in America, although he had a thousand times more experience than the current dimwit.
Your view that he did something wrong is a personal opinion. I didn't like the drug reform act; but it wasn't that it was “wrong”; cheating on one’s wife is “wrong.” It was a bi-partisan effort that enjoyed a LOT of support; I just disagreed with it. The President does not merely serve a party, like Obama thinks, he serves ALL Americans.
Bush was one of the better presidents we have seen in a while when compared to the current dimwit and the philandering arrogant asshole that preceded him.
I don’t know how anyone can make such a claim; Bush had nothing to do with the economic implosion that occurred at the end of his Presidency and McCain came damn close to winning if not for the desperate efforts by the media to drag the first acceptable black man across the finish line.
Obama, the least experienced President in the history of the Presidency was able to get re-elected during economic malaise competing with a far more competent man in 2012; was that Bush’s fault.
My belief is that Obama was an anomaly; the first articulate acceptable black man Liberals could accept and whom many Americans determined to prove they are not racists voted for, for no better reason than he was a black man.
I would argue that his victory had very little to do with Bush; other than the desperate cacophony of the leftist media efforts to argue that McCain was just like Bush and that Bush even fooled them into supporting a war of choice based on “lies.”
Wrong is a state of mind; what you view as being "wrong", others would argue it was "right".
I'll put it into better perspective for you; what Clinton did was "wrong."
And you are a repugnant moron. Again, you mistake me for someone who cares about your moronic opinions. Are you THAT stupid that you can’t comprehend the obvious?
Wrong again shit-for-brains; every time someone ridicules Obama or complains about his Socialist agenda, we have to suffer morons on the left as they shriek that these are TEA party racists and only complain because Obama is a black man. I can’t tell you the number of times leftist dimwits used Mitch McConnell’s statement about defeating Obama as an example that Republicans don’t want to work with Obama. It is a moronic meme that only dimwits on the left can engage in.
Yes dimwit; you’re THAT incredibly stupid, THAT partisan, THAT big of a hypocrite and THAT and repugnant.
An amusing claim; what President didn't spend the nation in a deficit during wartime? Can you name one?
cawacko
Well-known member
I completely agree with you that it is a matter of opinion. Two people can view the job someone did two completely different ways. I just don't get much solace out of the fact that Bush sucked less than his competitors would have. I had high hopes when he took office that he would learn from mistakes his father made and he was going to be a great President. Clearly didn't happen.
I supported us going into Iraq. Clearly the execution and handling of the war was awful. That essentially cost Bush his Presidency, the Republicans Congress and helped propel Obama into the White House along with the financial crisis. The financial crisis is not Bush's fault but you are going to get blamed if it happens on your watch, that's the nature of the beast. Bush essentially continued Clinton's housing policies though which did lead to the collapse.
The Republicans in Congress during the '90's fought tooth and nail with Clinton over the budget which is how we got close to a balanced budget on paper. Once Bush took over the Republicans in Congress went on a massive spending binge and all fiscal restraint went out the window. It completely defeated the purpose of them being in power.
Now we see some Republicans again in Congress fighting spending because it is a Democratic President. Will they put up the same fight if a Republican wins office in '16?
maineman
Banned
unfortunately, the days when either party was willing to work with the other party are fading in the rear view mirror. The days when a legislator was revered for being a compromiser are gone but not forgotten. I am one who would welcome compromise on both sides of the aisle, but I don't see that as a viable possibility today.
As far as your ill-conceived opinions of me, I wouldn't trade places with you for all the tea in china, but you would jump at the chance to live my life... you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
But this is the nature of the political beast; when will you EVER have the person you REALLY wanted? I would say it will always be a choice of the least of two or three evils and you hold your nose and vote.
Being from California as I am, we are usually stuck with whoever was already chosen back east; so it is especially egregious for us AND the fact that our votes are meaningless in the President is decided long before our votes are counted and that California is an automatic for Democratic candidates.
Based on his reaction and response to the recession handed to him, his grace towards other former and present Presidents and his response dealing with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, I would place him in the pretty good category.
This again, in my opinion, is a talking point. What war is perfectly conducted; answer; NONE. What war is fought with a surplus; answer: NONE.
One cannot begin to fathom the mistakes made in WWI, WWII, the Korean conflict and Vietnam. Yet suddenly the American sheeple think that wars can be fought like ordering McDonalds from the drive thru and be conducted perfectly without error or loss.
It’s a moronic viewpoint from the historically challenged in my opinion.
Republicans in Congress oversight attempted reform; they were stopped by Democrats using the racist meme.
This is untrue; they had to deal with the devastating effects of 9-11 and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When Democrats took over the Senate and the House, the deficit had been managed down to $161 billion. Shortly after elections Democrats went on a spending binge never seen by any Congress.
Let’s hope they would be consistent in principle; and if not, they should rightly lose their jobs.
I, on the other hand, would like to see REAL reform by repealing the tax code and supplanting it with a Fair Tax or a Flat Tax and implementing permanent term limits and a balanced budget requirement.
But chances of any of that EVER happening is slim to none with the current level of ignorance displayed by the American sheeple.
I don't recall when any legislator was revered for being a compromiser; do you have anything to support this claim other than talking points?
I find your comments rather ironic when you voted for and desperately defend a President who believes that compromise means doing what he wants.
A wise quote: "Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another -- too often ending in the loss of both. -"
Margaret Thatcher on consensus:
“Consensus: “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?”
― Margaret Thatcher
I would argue that based on your rhetoric, they are not ill-conceived, but rather and accurate description of you. However, I would not hesitate to buy you a brew and argue politics in person in a civilized fashion. And if anyone impugned your service to this great nation I would be first to punch them in the head.
Who would want you to?? Besides, you couldn't possibly trade places with me, you lack the intelligence to be me.
Why would I? I have had a great life and a great career and married an outstanding woman who is one of the smartest people I know.
I plan to spend my retirement debt free on a 50 foot yacht, cruising around the coasts of Mexico and Alaska; why would I want to be you?
I have been all over Europe, Canada, Mexico, Thailand and Cambodia; I will be seeing more as my life continues God willing. I am happy being me and would never want to be you.
Where do you get this nonsense of wanting to be like you??? Weird.
He spent that way BEFORE wartime, TD.
Can you support that? I don't think it was "before" wartime.
He created deficits without regard to the war spending. War spending was done separate from the budgets. He spent the money like a drunken democrat, created HUGE inefficient government agencies (one of the reasons that Katrina was such a mess was the fact that FEMA no longer directly reported to the President and funding was always in question when trying to get help to areas in need), promoted amnesty, went to two nation building wars he promised he would never get in, pushed legislation that is at best "questionable" in regard to the 4th, and at every turn sought a government solution for every problem. That is not a conservative, TD. Not in any way.
His actions tell me he was not a conservative, regardless of how much he convinced stupid people by saying the right things and talking to his invisible friend in the shower.
2001 $128 billion surplus
2002 $158 billion deficit
2003 $378 billion deficit
2004 $412 billion deficit
2005 $318 billion deficit
2006 $248 billion deficit
2007 $160 billion deficit
War in Afghanistan - Operation Enduring Freedom began on 7 October 2001
War in Iraq - Began on 19 March 2003
I am thinking your talking points do not match the facts. So I will ask you again; what war was ever fought without a deficit?
2002 $158 billion deficit
2003 $378 billion deficit
2004 $412 billion deficit
2005 $318 billion deficit
2006 $248 billion deficit
2007 $160 billion deficit
War in Afghanistan - Operation Enduring Freedom began on 7 October 2001
War in Iraq - Began on 19 March 2003
I am thinking your talking points do not match the facts. So I will ask you again; what war was ever fought without a deficit?