It's a two-party system. Republican or Democrat the USA is fucked for the next decade no matter what because Bush-Cheney stole every cent they could.

If you're really into being apathetic, consider the number of years we have before THE nuclear war. Fifty? A hundred? Two Hundred? Yeah.

Polls?
 

It appears that there is a poll and post for every taste.
Obama polls vs Palin polls opinions not to waste
evidence here and evidence there bad guys everywhere
what shall we do and where shall we go
keep looking keep searching somebody will know
the answers my friend are they blowing in the wind
the winds will be strong and we will be long gone

It's a multiple party system. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to vote for Ron Paul. Dems and Repubs just happen to dominate the political scene.

I'm not apathetic; I just generally tend to hate most everyone with the exception of trannies and their cohorts who enjoy their company.

Ron Paul? You waited in line to vote for Ron Paul? Polls? I hang up when a pollster calls. Obama is perfect. Obama is God. When will you morons aknowledge this? I'll tell you when. NEVER!

Wow... you'll probably love this then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq4c2lFMmmU

And this photo definitely confirms that Obama is God!

reps or dems, it doesnt matter
 

anyone who says that obama is a much different choice then mcain should understand this very important fact. the same people contibuted campaign contributions to both parties.
so even though they are two different parties, youre still getting the same person for the job. its been this way for years. gm, exxon, bank of america and citi group own this country.
and until we demolish the party system, and stop putting buisness men and lawyers in political positions and start putting actual represenatives of the majorities views and opionions, and continually educate the masses to properly make educated decisions and not propoganda indused ones, america will still belong to the wealthy one percent.
and we will continue to work to pay off the debt that we incure by bying things we cant afford, and our government forces on us by borrowing more money(debt) from the federal reseve.

You got it right.
The founding fathers were very concerned about news and a well informed electorate. In fact in the early days, the government subsidized the newspaper industry believing it essential to provide the public with information to make intelligent voting decisions. No restrictions were placed on the opinions expressed in the press, however.
Now, we have Fox news spewing conservative BS day in and day out along with Russ and other opportunists playing to the ignorance of a poorly informed public. Why? because it makes money for the media. PBS and Bill Moyers provide some honest news and the BBC also is good. Most of the US media is crap particularly TV media. The popularity of Sarah Palin testifies to the ignorance and anti intellectual bent of the public. The "news" is just another form of entertainment for a brain dead public. :censored:

Damn near every media outlet has it's own political bias, not just Fox news. Even good ol' PBS and BBC...

The Obama machine and the Bush machine have taken all that stuff into consideration, believe me, and it's all accounted for. In a country that is supposed to be based on the Freedom of the American voter, nowhere in the world has the Art of Manipulating the Consumer flourished more than right here, and if Massachusetts votes with it's ass instead of it's head tonight, not only will Teddy be spinning in his grave, so will Washington, Jefferson, and every freethinking American who loves or tolerates the sexual liberties the Republicans and Conservatives want to destroy.

Bias toward the public good sounds good to me. That what a Democracy is supposed to be about, the public good.
Not the rich, or the conservatives, or the liberals, or the ultra religious, or the atheists, just whats good for the country and the people living in it.

A democracy is about the whims and wants at a particularly given point of a society and is never usually long-lived. A republic is about justice and law previously agreed upon for the benefit of the society, both present and future. But I digress...

All these media outlets have some sort of political bias whether or not you would like to acknowledge it or not. Just because it is subtle and not blatantly obvious does not mean that it is not present. And most don't care about the "public good" or any such thing. Long gone are the days of objective reporting.

I just came all over myself. HAHAHA I knew 2010 was going to be a good year :coupling: One down, 36 more to go this year.

With Massachusetts being one of the bluest states with democrats outnumbering republicans 3 to one, it makes you progressives here wonder just how far left you are doesn't it?

A lot of Dem's started vomitting last night. I understand everything came up Brown.:lol:

Yes, the Democrats and Obama fucked up big time. They had an opportunity to reform the government and clean up the mess left by years of Republican malfeasance. Now we can watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as the country descends into third world status.

I guess the worms always win in the end.

Squandered opportunity
 

From Drew Westen, Huffington Post



Probably too late. :frown:

Shall we start keeping track of every state that goes from BLUE to RED and relabel them BROWN?

Just watched Pelosi talking---she looks like she is having a nervous breakdown.

And OBAMA the idiot--says Mass went for Brown because they are still pissed at Bush---that just proves he is an idiot.

At this point I don't see why you kept reading. Because how many more times did BO overspend than Bush's 8 years after only one month? All together kids... 2.5 times more. So obviously the writer is clueless. If I were you I wouldn't associate myself with the clueless. It doesn't look good ;)

LOL I would have given anything to spend the day with ol Nancy today :lol:

LOL well you know if they paid any attention to reality they wouldn't have done %90 of the stuff they did over the last year.

Wake Up Randolph
 

Idiot Obama says Brown's winning shows that people of Mass are still pissed about Bushes reign for the last eight years. He is so delusional. And you idolize him?????

Hey? Where do you come up with I idolize him? Originally, I felt we had an opportunity to improve Washington. As time went on it became increasing obvious that Obama and Congress were not working for the American people but for the bankers and corporate interests. I am disillusioned with Obama and Congress. Washington is dysfunctional. The vote in Massachusetts reveals the frustration of all of us.
On that note does anybody seriously believe the Republicans can do any better?

[QUOTE=randolph;128805]Unfotuneately we have a choice between the two parties ONLY. What we need to do is get new people in there--run them 2 terms max and kick em out. The is what the original fathers said to do and it is the best.

Vote independent.

If you have a Democrat, a Republican and an Independant running and you vote for the independant you really have jsut given your vote to the Dems.
I will repeat A VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDANT IS A VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT it happens every single time.

Wait, wait, wait! Who do you think elected Brown?
It was the INDEPENDENTS!

Yes. Even the RINOs will not overspend by $3 trillion per year. They will not spend millions to give our rights to terrorists. They will not punish those who are trying to protect America. They will not attempt to steal 1/6 of the American economy without the acceptance of the American people. They do not support criminal groups like ACORN. They do not associate themselves with communists and other groups who want to start a revolution in America. They would not try and move the US census to the Executive Branch. They realize people who are able should work for a living.

There are some of them who think man lived with the dinosaurs, but that's a small price to pay. And BOTH sides have a severe problem when it comes to illegal aliens but again, the republicans are not quite as bad as the democrats who would eventually insist that we pay for the health care of the millions of illegal aliens that are here.

[QUOTE=CCC;128808]Yes, unfortunately it must be two parties. Otherwise the vote would be split. BUT... what we can do is what the progressives have done. They hijacked the democrats party. If they can do that, then conservatives can retake the republican party.

No, what CCC is saying is don't vote for an independent, not the other way around. Brown ran as a republican.

The Republicans achieved NOTHING in their 8 year term. NOTHING!!! Can you believe that shit?

This is a ridiculous statement.

Are you kidding!
Lets see now;
Clinton left them a healthy surplus which was promptly turned into a deficit.
They gave a huge tax break to the rich.
Passed a huge expensive drug bill with no funding.
Went to war in Irak costing billions.
Corrupted all of the regulatory agencies which contributed to the meltdown.
Oh, well the list is endless.:censored:

Gimme a ridiculous answer.

Your purposefully ignorant remark gives me no reason to think you want an answer.

China
 

I just watched an interview on World News discussing why China pulled itself out of recession while we have not. The consensus is that the stimulus funds China poured into its banking system were used to loan money to industry while the taxpayer money we poured into our banking system stayed in the banks. Meanwhile our banks are paying their CEOs huge bonuses. Somebody (Obama) is fucking up bigtime by not clamping down on our banks. The public (including me) is outraged. Now all of a sudden Obama is talking tough, we shall see if anything comes of it. :frown:

Every body back off and let a BLACK MAN throw down!!!!! ACT I scene II -stay tuned!!! I told you that Barack was a baaaaaaaad Mutha (shut my mouth!)

Let's not be racist ok?

What chew talkin' bout, Willis? I'm not Newt Gingrich! I'm Harry Reid!

Where's the nekkid shemales??!!!??

Have the fat cats finally gone too far?



By Alex Brummer
Last updated at 10:39 AM on 22nd January 2010
Hard to imagine, isn't it, that just 15 months ago the chairman of Goldman Sachs was chasing around like a headless chicken trying to save his company from collapse.

In the end Lloyd Blankfein's finance house was saved by a ?6.25billion loan from legendary investor Warren Buffett and a bailout credit from Washington.
There was also a change in status from broker-dealer to bank holding company that allowed Goldman to borrow directly from the Federal Reserve.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...92_468x323.jpg Rescued: Goldman Sachs chairman and chief executive Lloyd Blankfein

The result of this rescue is that Goldman Sachs has revealed one of the most profitable years in its history, clearing some ?8billion.
This outcome was achieved after the bank set aside ?9.99billion in pay and bonuses, representing an average of ?308,000 for everyone at the bank from Mr Blankfein down to his chauffeur and the security guards in London.



The remarkable aspect of this figure, a 57 per cent rise on the pay and bonuses of the previous year, is that it came after Goldman sought to calm the political storm engulfing its reputation by paying no bonuses at all for the final three months of the year and stepping up its charitable contributions.

It is the first time in Goldman's recent history that it has shown any recognition that the bank is in danger of becoming a political pariah around the world.

But the contrition from the 'Masters of the Universe' has come a little late. The global investment banks now face the double whammy of super-taxes and regulations which will make it far more difficult to make bonanza profits.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...48_233x406.jpg Getting tough: Mr Obama yesterday

Finally President Obama has recognised that allowing the banks to rampage untrammelled has been a political disaster.

In the U.S. it is seen as a key reason for the shock loss of the former Kennedy Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts.

Mr Obama is recognising that ordinary taxpayers and bank depositors should not be funding risky dealings on the financial markets.

He is asking Congress to reform regulation so that no bank in the U.S. can be involved in high-risk hedge fund, private equity or share and commodity dealings on their own account.

The President's views echo those voiced last year by Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England. He suggested it was time to separate casino banking - of the kind described by Mr Obama - from the utility banking of taking deposits and making business and personal loans.

At the same time Mr Obama has recognised that some Wall Street finance houses have become too big and powerful and made it clear that the White House no longer wants to see any more major financial mergers.

The measures he outlined have a striking similarity to Glass-Steagall, the law passed in the midst of the Great Depression of the 1930s, which forced the separation of risk-taking finance from traditional commercial banking.
If Goldman Sachs has hoped to insulate itself and Wall Street from criticism by curtailing its bonus culture in the final months of the year then its concession has come too late.

By setting the bonus bar so high in the first nine months of the year Goldman is privately blamed by the financial services, including Britain's HSBC and Barclays, for the new bonus taxes and fees being imposed by governments around the world.

Alistair Darling led the way with a 50 per cent one-off bonus tax in his Pre-Budget Report last month. This was quickly matched in France by President Sarkozy.

President Obama announced a fee designed to ensure 'every last dime' of the ?430billion bank bailout is repaid to the U.S. Treasury. The movement for super taxes on the banks is gathering momentum with Sweden this week proposing a European-wide tax policy to punish the banks for their extravagant bonuses.

If Mr Obama and Congress succeed with their reforms it could be the end of the multi-billion bonus pots at Goldman, Barclays Capital and others.

In 2009 the big upsurge in income at Goldman and other banks largely came from casino banking and trading - much of it on the bank's own account.

The figures just published show that revenues from this source climbed to ?14billion last year against just ?1billion the year before.
This is precisely the kind of 'casino' trading which Mr Obama wants to ban.

The President's sensational intervention could mean that the door is slammed on the 'fat cat' banking which brought the world to the precipice.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz0dMfcEUur

The Battle lines have been drawn. PEOPLE vs. MONEY. Talk is over, it's ON now, it's war. It will be hilarious to hear Fox and Rush defend the freedom of the Wall St. thieves.

YES THE WAR IS ON----That A-Hole Obama with his idiots now wants to destroy banking because they don't control it like they control your mind. The stock market just dropped 3 days ina row because of his big mouth---you happy?--you friggin liberal idipots don't realize that it's the businesses in this country that pay your wages and pay all the taxes. Remember the bottom half of income earners only pay 3% of the taxes to run this country and 90% or better of them are flaming loser liberals. Does that include you?

Look at taxes by state and general liberal/conservative leanings. Then look at tax burden in these states. You will find the majority of federal tax PAYING states vote liberal, while the most conservative voting states tend to be higher tax RECIPIENTS.

For example - Vermont = liberal = federal tax excess. Okalhoma = conservative = tax burden.

Well the banks have paid back the bailout they took... with interest. Oh well... go get em BO

Hey Genius, where do you think the businesses and banks GET their money? From the LOSERS? The middle class pays for EVERYTHING!!!

I am going to try to play nice here BUT all the businesses and banks get all thier money from everyone---winners and losers---whether they be black, white, pink or purple. The problem is the dang liberal dems need a welfare class to vote to keep them in business--that is why there are more liberals in the cities and especially where there are universities.

Just a thought--could it be as a person gets more successful in the city that they try to escape to the country to get away from the libs??? Just a thought :innocent:

Isn't ironic that the most conservative anti liberal states are the poorest and least educated and require the most government assistance? Of course that is Pat Roberts, Russ Limbaugh, Fox News territory.

The disconnects in the American voter is an odd odd thing. The base of the Conservative movement here is two-pronged. You have the "values voters" and "Free market folks". Ultimately these two will have to sort out their own laundry since "values voters" require welfare, state funding of religion, onerous laws and in short, MASSIVE government.

Free market dudes just want to remove child labor laws, government foreign aid, the Family Medical Leave Act, medical research and education grants.

Sooner or later they will realize they are their own worst enemy. The Free market dudes will eventually hive off, the values crowd will hook up with the Blue Dog Dems (good to see them go), and we can finally have an actual Liberal party as an option.

Population trends say... NO, not really. The most liberal cities tend to have massive housing shortages (even after the housing bust) while suburban and rural housing no such shortages (one could even say surplus given the current market)

That American voters so consistently vote against their real interest is actually not such a mystery. It becomes understandable when one considers the unique "ideology" that is instilled in American children from an early age ... an ideology that is largely unknown in the rest of the world. Specifically, those who control the wealth in this country figured out a long time ago that the so-called "American dream" (e.g., anyone can become rich, anyone can grow up to be president, etc.) was a powerful tool to use in avoiding having to do some of the things that the European welfare states have had to do, specifically have strong social safety nets in essentially capitalist countries. If you hammer into people's heads, at a young age, the notion that it is their own responsibility to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, you gradually erode within society the sense of social solidarity that is common to Europeans. It makes it easy to argue against the essential human reality that -- when it comes to living socially and ensuring a good life for all, especially in a wealthy land like the United States -- and injury to one is an injury to all.

I remember once when I was living in Paris for a short while that I would walk by, in my neighborhood, a creche (daycare center) every day on my way to work. There seemed to be about 30 or so children who were taken care of at this particular place. One morning, I walked by and found a large crowd, about 400 people, demonstrating. Many of them had their children with them, and few (obviously) were the parents of the actual children who attended the daycare center. The government had announced a cutback the day before, and the entire neighborhood came out in protest -- even the relatively wealthy people who had children with nannies! I asked some of my neighbors why they were there and they said that it was their civic duty to defend the interests of the people who needed this government-provided assistance. That was it. Simply put and simply true.

American "individualism" is a trick used by those who seek to control the wealth. But it is so deeply ingrained that you can find people voting and acting against their own economic interests and those they share with their neighbors at every turn.

The "wink wink" factor you will never hear any politician talk about is the perception that Republicans are white and Democrats are black. And Republicans want you to keep the money you earn while the Dems want you to "spread it around" to welfare mothers. The perception is your one choice is to hang with the white people, or hang with the black people. While this is partly true, the greater truth is that if you make less than $100,000/yr, you ARE a black person!!!! And unless you are one of the very small percentage of people that strike it rich, the HOUSE will always win, and you lose. The game is fixed. The Republican plan is that every cent a working man earns goes towards "goods and services" ...and, oh yeah, (wink wink) they control all the "goods and services"
A strong middle class equals a strong America. Don't you worry about the rich people, they'll be fine.

JIM:

Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton, Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43, Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Conse 'Pubs put us in a hole with tax cuts, and The Dems have to pay the bill. Then, Conse 'Pubs say we cut taxes, and Dems raise taxes. Will that Conse 'Pub vote be cash or charge?


TAL

Fast Track to scandal
 

From England I fear for Obama. I just hope he isn't given the ' bum's rush ' before he has an opportunity to show what he is capable of. We are still suffering in the U.K. from the aftermath of Flim-Flam endless-promises Tony Blair, but we hope that Obama doesn't end up being coralled down the same reformist route that Clinton did ( and I'm NOT referring to his sex life either ! )

Obama can be a great president given time and luck, that's as I see it.

There's no such thing as a "middle class." You either sell your labor, or you profit off the labor of others. Where's the middle in that?

In Olde Europe, people followed leaders who were "Father Figures" and were trusted to serve them. American Leaders are civil servants. Taxes pay for goods and services: Schools, military, medicare, social security, etc. The problems arise when our leaders are not civil servants, but servants to Big Oil, Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical companies, and Banks.
In the Garden of Eden, God owned the Tree of Knowledge. In the USA, the People own it. Oh, Shit!!

The middle class are the MAJORITY of Americans who make between x-dollars and y-dollars a year. LOTS of small business owners fit in this category. The more money the middle class has, the more money goes to the poor and the rich, TRICKLE OUT. You starve the middle class like Bush did, everything goes to Hell.

Yes, and in a Court of Law, case closed. That's all the evidence you need.
Of course, Jimmy Carter kind of screwed things up. JFK took us toe to toe with WWIII. And Reagan took Moscow.
And if a quake ever hits California like it did Haiti, we're all fucked.

I truly believe that until Americans understand class distinctions, and understand them as a scientific concept provable by economic law, there is little hope for achieving long-term solutions to any of the problems various members of the Forum raise. Yes, we can achieve this or that incremental improvement, perhaps for a limited time, but ultimately the choice is a fundamental reshaping of society or barbarism.

Corporatism
 

This is the main threat to our liberty"

From: Huffington Post
Anis Shivanic

:frown:

The Supreme Court decision makes this even stronger.

Look,, up in the sky,,,
 

it's a bird, it's a plane,,,,it's Obamaman,,, lol. Well it's good to see so many folks here take the time to comment on the guy. What's a shame though is how so very many believe what the mass media 'feeds' them. I could spend hours listing all Obamamans' ills, but I'll just mention 1,,,he's not even an American. Wait now,, b4 consigning me to the ranks of the wild and crazy folk, consider a few facts: he's spent 2 mil and counting fending off numerous suits to basically keep ALL his personal records 'top secret'. In his race for the Senate he tacitly admitted he was NOT born American. Those are verified facts. What's interesting though is 'why', he do that, lol. I mean all he need do is take off 1 sock and shoe, and give the American people a footprint. Case closed either way.... hardly seems so invasive a way to prove he has the right to BE the President of the USA.
Ok, let it rip, lol.

HEAD:

Yes, and Bush 43 was honest, transparent & bi-partisan to a fault.


Talking with Conse 'Pubs on this site is depressing.


TAL

Can we PLEASE get some Republicans on this site like Pat Buchanan? I just saw him sitting next to that nauseating Fox parrotcunt Monica Crowley, admitting that the Republicans have NO platform, and don't need one. He then admitted that as soon as the new wonderboy from Massachusetts gets to DC, he's going to be sat down in a back room and EXPLAINED a few things.....
I just hope Scalia has a history of heart disease in his family. What a prick.....

Ah, the perfect wonderboy candidate. Posing nude and presenting his bikini clad daughters as "available". If he teams up with Sarah the Republicans will have a perfect team for the next presidential campaign. A stud and a bimbo, isn't that great! :lol:

RANDY:

Yeah! Palin-Brown brought to you by Foreign & Big Oil.


TAL

Corpocracy
 

Buy enough members of the house and senate to impeach Obama right after the 2010 election.

Permanent Conse 'Pub governance is fair and balanced.

Mmmmm... Monica :turnon:

Humm, Monica looks very good, do you still have some hot for girlies?

I love hot women. :coupling: If they have a cock, even better.

Yeah, don't you love it when these hot babes show up for interviews on tv, sit on the couch with their legs crossed and you keep wondering if they are going to pull a Sharon Stone right in front of the camera. ;)

Well, if Bush left a "whopping deficit for Obama", just what is Obama leaving the next president?
Or all of us, as citizens, for that matter?
As Tracy CORRECTLY pointed out in another thread...

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

This fiscal irresponsibility -- and a laissez-faire attitude toward the excesses of the financial industry -- helped create the conditions for the deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Economists across the political spectrum agreed that to deal with this crisis and avoid a second Great Depression, the government had to make significant investments to keep our economy going and shore up our financial system.

That is why President Obama and Congress crafted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is widely accepted that the difficult but necessary steps Obama took have helped save our economy from an even deeper disaster. It was President Bush -- not Obama -- who signed into law the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout for banks, the Obama administration's rigorous stewardship added transparency and accountability that have cut the expected cost of that program by two-thirds.

Obama has proposed billions of dollars in cuts, and he'll continue to fight for them and others in the upcoming budget. Obama had been more successful in getting his proposed cuts through Congress than his predecessor was in any of his eight years in office.

And even as Obama has pursued landmark health insurance reforms that will hold the insurance industry accountable and expand coverage to working Americans, he has insisted from the beginning that any reform legislation must not add to the federal deficit and must help reduce it over time. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the legislation making its way through Congress upholds this principle. As the president has said, the federal budget is like an ocean liner, not a motor boat, and it will take time to redirect its course. But the course correction that was so badly needed after the previous administration has begun in earnest.

There's an old saying that everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

See, that's where you've already gone off the rails. But at least you used the right word to try and sneak one through.

When Bill Clinton left office, he did the exact same thing that ALL presidents are required do: namely, he submitted a 5 year PROJECTED budget report based on the economic indicators that HE (as current president) was basically GUESSING the way the economy would go, if Congress pursued his suggestions in the future.

The only problem for Clinton is that he basically guessed WRONG on pretty much everything across the board. In his 5 year projection, he stated (for example) that the boom "dot coms" that were currently blossoming at the time and making people overnight multi-millionaires would continue and grow the economy...when in fact the "dot com" bubble actually burst and NEVER lived up to Clinton's projections. Likewise Clinton predicted that energy costs would drop and thus trim the budget...except than the direct OPPOSITE happened and energy coasts literally SOARED, coupled by energy companies like Enron even going bankrupt due to financially fake book-keeping.

And before anyone on the Left tries to pull the old bullshit line about Bush being in the pocket of companies like Enron, keep it mind that it was UNDER CLINTON that Enron grew in size and doctored its books and went unchecked. Why? Because Clinton wanted to cite and incorporated their profit numbers as proof that his economic plan was working.

The crock of this being that during the 1980 presidential debates, Bush literally POINTED to the fact that far too many companies were doctoring their books...that far too many of Clinton's numbers were actually waaaaay off and misleading...which prompted an infamous historical exchange in the debates where Gore accused Bush of trying TO CREATE a recession by talking down the economy. Those on the Left love to conveniently forget that in 1980 Bush WARNED that a recession was looming, while Gore (and the running candidate) and Clinton said it was all nonsense and the economy was perfectly sound...

...At which point it turned out Bush was right, and we did enter a recession. And Bush was right again as companies like Enron went under. And for all the talk on the left how Bush was in the pocket of Enron, let the record show that it was BUSH and HIS justice department that went after Ken Lay and Enron, to throw them into jail and to expose the bookkeeping corruption that was going on.


Which the Democrats ALSO continually voted for as well.
So your point? Or are you admitting the Dems have no clean hands as well?

As for Bush handing Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit after 8 years, given your indignation, how do you feel about Obama QUINTUPLING that amount in only ONE year?

Nice try, but as a historical TRUTH that is actually a well-documented and proven FACT about Obama. The bottom line: in only ONE YEAR in office, Obama has now SPENT MORE THAN EVERY PRECEDING PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY COMBINED.

Actually, it's NOT "widely accepted" anymore. In fact, just as many economists -- and even polls of the American people themselves -- now show that a majority of people feel Obama basically "scared" people into allowing him (and the Democrats in Congress) to break the national piggy bank and to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave, by constantly labeling the crisis "the worst disaster since the Great Depression."

As many economists have noted -- including even people like Paul Krugman, noted LIBERAL economist, who of late has likewise turned on Obama -- how can you call it "the worst crisis since the great depression" when all it took was a one time cash infusion to right the system, and in only ONE YEAR the veru same banks Obama was claiming were on the verge of total collapse have not only paid their loan money back, but are now likewise posting RECORD PROFITS?

You're right. So congratulations on proving my point. Even if you DO want to call it "the worst crisis since the Great Depresssion", then the CREDIT for saving the banks and re-stabilizing the system should NOT go to Obama, but should actually belong to -- yes -- George Bush!

I call bullshit on that one. It's not that Obama CUT the cost by 2/3 through any stewardship. And the idea that ANYTHING Obama does can be called transparent is laughable. The reason there was a savings is because they never NEEDED to spend all the allocated money -- which dovetails right back into my point above, that the banks righted themselves to a large degree and are now even back to posting profits.

Not true at all. What the CBO report states is that it would INITIALLY save money, but that only a mere 5 years out costs start to rise -- and 10 years out the program is running a huge deficit, nearly a whopping $2 trillion.

In fact, even the CBO's assertion that there will be some initial savings were highly dubious and could only be derived through Enron-like doctoring of the books, which EVEN THE CBO ACKNOWLEDGED IN THEIR REPORT.

Basically, to pay for a $1 trillion health care plan, Obama simply CLAIMED he would come up with $500 billion of that through Medicare cuts (in other words, that's how he'd literally find HALF of the money for his progam) -- and yet to this day O-dumba (and the Democrats) still can't actually name where these so-called cuts are going to come from. Instead, they just SAID they'd magically find HALF A TRILLION in savings, and then decided to add that money -- still sight unseen -- into the pile.

Tell you what.
I can play the Democratic game of creative accounting too.
Here's how it works...

I have bills to pay... I need to save money this year... but hey, no problem!
Since I work in Hollywood, I'm SURE that I'm gonna sell a $1 MILLION screenplay this year.
I'm SURE things will break my way the best way imaginable!

What's that? You want to know if I have a $1 million offer on the table now?
Uh...no...I don't. But, hey, I'm thinking positive, and that's all that counts -- right?
So since I'm SURE it's gonna happen, I'm just gonna go ahead
and add that million bucks into my bank account, BEFORE I've even made it.

WOW! LOOK AT THAT!
Once I toss a mythical million dollars into my bank account, I have no more debt!
Wow, that sure was easy to balance my check book.
Guess I won't have to worry about any bills this year after all!

And, yes, that's EXACTLY how Obama and the Democrats did their health care reform math...

Politics on this site sucks
 

C-MIN:

Tracy is correct and she just happens to agree with you? I'm not going to engage with you, because I don't want to read a short story.

Conse 'Pubs have the POV that any pol who isn't
a Conse 'Pub will FAIL, and a Conse 'Pub who fails isn't Conse enough. Can it be any more narrow that? Make it short or don't reply.


TAL

OWWWCH!!! Another post deleted?
OK, lets wrap this up...Would SOMEBODY tell me Bush's greatest achievement?

That's so easy: TAX CUTS.

The best way to buy a vote legally.

For the country? Taking the fight to Al Qaeda after 9/11 and keeping America safe from 9/11 till the end of his presidency. This is something Obama has failed at. He's lost soldiers at Fort Hood because of domestic terrorism and came dangerously close to losing hundreds of American civilians on xmas from that underwear-bomber. You will say why didn't Bush stop 9/11, and I'll remind you the hijackers were already in the country before Bush took office. And something else you probably didn't know is that he went from Clinton's neglect of Al Qaeda to signing an order for military action against Al Qaeda on September 10th, 2001. It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics.

What else is his greatest achievement from my perspective? Initiating the Moon/Mars exploration program at Nasa. It's been 38 years since we've been beyond low Earth orbit and there's still several years to go, but we're finally on track.

I like reading your posts, Tracy. You bring a sane perspective to all the antiBush rantings that are so common throughout your country. I would like to know though why you blame Obama for what happened at Fort Hood. I don't think that anyone could have prevented that except those in the army.

Oh boy! Tracy, you are amazing! How can such an intelligent person be so biased and then actually blame Gore for 9/11! :rolleyes:

It is more of Clintons fault than anything. When he was in office, he mandated that on any military installation, any weapon not in use for training be locked up, effectively disarming everyone on base. Before that, people could carry sidearms on base. Had another troop been armed, alot less people would have been hurt and the Major would have had a couple more orifices to breathe out of. That and Clintons EO policies which if you aren't "tolerant" towards other people's feelings or background, could get you canned or possibly sent to Leavenworth. Had anyone protested or questioned the Major's recent evangelical and radical positions, odds are, he could have complained about them being "racist" or "xenophobic" and ruined that persons career.


Feel free to blame "Bubba" for Ft. Hood.

Read it again Mr. randolph. She said nothing of the like.

Amazing Conse 'Pubs
 

RANDY:

Didn't you know that according to Dana Perino, there were no domestic attacks on Bush's term.

St. Rudy of 9-11 said there were no attacks under Bush and 1 under Obama, but then his staff changed it to after 9-11. He forgot, no doubt. Or he meant to say, or he meant.

Mary Matilin said Bush inherited 9-11.

We were attacked under Clinton & Obama, while Bush-Cheney kept us safe.

Rush Limbaugh blamed Obama for the economy in 9/08, and like Palin said about us: Quit making things up.


You and I have opinions, and so do they. One of them on this board feels Obama is not an American. He's an illegal alien who plotted his way into office. and fooled all but a few Conse 'Pubs. He needs to be arrested and imprisoned. Now, if I was a rich Conse 'Pub, I'd buy a majority in the house and senate to impeach and convict Obama after the 11/4/10 election. Just buy what you need to convict and imprison Obama for deliberately trying to ruin the country, like Coulter knows for a fact. Conse 'Pubs on The SC have evened the playing field that was unfair to Conse 'Pubs, no doubt.

TAL

ILA:

We south of the border have an interesting dynamic of debate: honest and political. In an honest debate you deal in only facts or bluffs. In a political debate a Conse 'Pub (conse-rvative re-pub-lican) can claim that Obama is NOT an American, and that is an EQUAL opinion.

Using that yardstick, any attack that occurred on American soil is due to Clinton or Obama. Conse 'Pubs feel insulted when they are mocked, and they feel outrage over Obama on a daily basis for what he last did or will do or is doing. We used to have this only during election time, we now have it every day, and it used to be called silly season.

TAL

ILA:

According to Cheney, hundreds of thousands of lives were saved, because of their policies.



TAL

Tracy--"It might have been sooner if his transition into office hadn't been delayed by Gore's antics."

The implication of this statement is that if Bush had had more time, he could have prevented 9/11. This is total BS!

1) The attack would have happened regardless of who was in office. They were already here so the finding of the terrorists would have been a job for our alphabet agencies. That shows failure of our security measures and our policies which were emplaced by Clinton who knew about the threat and brushed it aside.

2) He recognized a threat and did not casually blow it off. Could he have found the terrorists had his order been signed earlier? Probably not. Our measures are more defensive and reactive in nature. Bush actually had an offensive mindset and took the fight to them rather than bending over and taking it in the ass.

3) I guarantee you that if Gore won, he would blow off the threat of Al-Qaeda just like his predecessor and once we were attacked, he would try to engage in "peaceful dialogue" and "empathy" or "understanding" with Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile his little tip-toeing would present the country as spineless and invite even more attacks against us.

This was from the NY Times, 2004

You guys seem to have rather short memories.:rolleyes:

President Clinton took the fight to Bin Laden when he dropped a cruise missile in his camp in August '98. Missed him by two hours. Republicans called this a publicity stunt to divert attention from Monica Lewinski. It was actually this attack that probably prompted 9-11.

Thank you :) I blame Obama indirectly. He is the one who sets the tone of political correctness that we can't allow to get in the way of security. See here.

What? I didn't blame Gore for 9/11. I said Gore antics delayed Bush's transition.

How? Considering that Bush had a certain amount of time to work on the Al Qaeda problem, and that it progressed to the point that he signed an order for military action on September 10th. Obviously if he started working on the problem sooner, he would have initiated military action sooner. When you look at the fact that Bush was delayed in receiving funds to start his administration, and putting together his cabinet because of the contested election, you have to realize that that delayed any action against Al Qaeda. Or am I a Time Lord and therefore the only one able to see such complexities in SpaceTime?

Yes, they did warn Bush. But later than they would have if Bush had been given the win earlier. Also, Bush was unable to assemble a team to act on the information. Also remember who the source is. Bill Clinton does not want to look like they dropped the ball. But if they had such urgent warnings, why didn't they act on it? Why didn't they at least hand Bush their draft of a plan of attack?

What is labor? Is work with your brain considered labor? Cause I'll tell ya, physics & calculus are pretty laborious....

The Ft. Hood shooter had a questionable record. First he lied on his papers to get into the Army (under nationality he listed palestinian, when he was born and raised in Virginia), he repeatedly stated that he admired the suicide bombers, when he interned at Walter Reed he was trying to convert his patients and other staff to islam, and he was already under investigation for posting on terrorist websites. Every time someone raised a concern about him, it was ignored.

Yes. If you are a drafter and get paid to doodle all day, all the effort you put into designing is considered labor. You are getting compensated for your effort by the way of money.

I don't think I'd ever be able to grasp calculus or physics. I was reading something on quantum physics and it was so mind boggling that I went into my Keanu Reeves mode...

"Whoa!"

Kinda like when you turn an electron around 360 degrees, it doesn't look the same. You have to turn it around another 360 degrees before you're back to where you were.

Obama is expected to call for a spending freeze for the next free years on "non-security" budget items. How convenient, now that he's finally getting around to figuring out what to do with the space program.

Yes, work with your brain is labor. The point is about whether you get paid the full value of your labor, or whether someone else who does none of the labor succeeds in boosting the "price" of the labor to profit in some way.

Engineers get paid pretty damn well. BAM! Solution found.

I meant more like the math behind all that. I understand the basic concepts; I'm just not a whiz kid when it comes to the math part.

I guess if your looking for a simplistic measure, to which little thought has been given, you could say that. But if you want to grasp the complexity, you need to be a bit more scientific. One's wage level is decidedly not the criterion.

Prediction
 

Conse 'Pubs will savage Obama's speech.

They will say this proves the people have realized Obama was a mistake.

Polling has proven the American People want Change, but they want somebody to change things for them, "The Party of No" is what the people want right now, Obama knows this. Ignore the State of the Union Address, the state of the union sucks. Even with losses in the House and Senate this year, "The Party of No" has no legs, and certainly has no leaders. Obama knows it's always darkest before the dawn, and he's manipulated the Republicans into cowering together in the dark. When Dawn breaks, the Truth will be seen by all, and the remaining stench of the Bush/Cheney Death March will be expunged.

That idiotic ambiguous line isn't going to work next election. People will have seen what 'Change' means and they won't want it. TMF will be forced to talk about issues and that's the last thing he wants to discuss.

Thank your president.

That's because it's a true grass roots uprising that's pushing the dems out.

You're a good cheerleader, Tracy, but your team is fucked, and they know it. Corporate America isn't so sure it wants Repunlicans back, seeing as how THEY ALMOST DESTROYED THE STOCK MARKET!!!!!!!
You saw Corporate America rear it's ugly head in 2000, when they gave little Bush the election, 5-4. You just saw them come out of the shadows again last week when they suceeded in enacting a Law that will enable them to skip any possibility of them losing power, 5-4.
There are two kinds of power: PEOPLE and MONEY. Each needs the other. The face of the Republican party is Sarah, Rush, and Glenn. That has Corporate America shitting it's pants! They want a sleepy president, like Reagan, or Daddy Bush.
The question is will Corporate Money back Romney, a sure loser? No, they'll pick up nickel and dime candidates now and wait til 2016, after Obama has fixed the Economy. The Republicans have no platform and they know it. If the terrorists attack again, Obama WILL become FDR! People will flock behind the President then. They always do.