Don't spend money you don't have. Rudimentary stuff like that.

Do you pay 35% income tax? No? The rich do.
The higher taxes we're about to pay are not because of the wars. It's because of BO's out of control spending, and the wallstreet bailout.

The wall street bailout was a gift from King George not Obama, And the rich don't pay anywhere near 35% with all thier taxcuts and tax loopholes and shelters , Next you'll tell me that King Georges taxcuts really helped the poor and hurt the rich. Like i said the King's party is over and it's time to pay the piper and i know Reagan and Bush always promised the rich that they'll never have to pay for the party and that the ones not invited will foot the bills, Hence your real fear of Obama :yes: Jennifer

I don't like Barack, but I just can't help but wonder what Michelle would look like with a fat dong between her legs:yes::p

Well she does look very manly so you never know :confused: Jennifer

Michell
 

She is a fine powerful women. That's why BO has to stay in shape. ;)

and, indeed, in power... :D

Obama endorsed it, and spent half of it. The necessity of the wall street bailout is because of CRA. I have yet to see you refute this, or explain exactly how Bush caused the financial mess. And sorry, blaming it on the war doesn't cut it. We've been at war before.

So what percentage do they end up paying? I think you're just mindlessly passing on an old lefty myth.

See this: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2420.cfm
Like Reagan says, Here we go again. Who owns the businesses? The rich. Who employs the poor? The rich. If the rich pay less taxes they can afford to pay more workers. And if you'll actually read what I quoted above you'll see the poor are paying less taxes too. Is it that hard to understand?

But we're not paying the piper. And you know what a party is? Shoving 1,000 page trillion dollar spending bills through congress without giving anyone a chance to read it. That's a party. BO and his lefties have come up with a mountain of new programs that dwarfs by 2.5 times anything Bush has done during his 8 years, including Bush's wall street bailout. That is FACT. That is the problem with it. We're going to have to pay the piper for this for generations.

Lying with statistics
 

Ah yes Tracy, I have been wondering where you get your statistics. Here is a brief analysis of the right wing Heritage Foundation, the experts on spin doctoring statistics.

From "Democratic Underground".
Back in college we had to read a book called "How to Lie With
Statistics". It was one of the best books I've read and incredibly
valuable in cutting though the fog of bullshit the politicians and
corporations use.

In this case I want to bring up examples of how the Right distorts the Reagan record. Here's a prime example on the issue tax cuts from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443es.cfm
I've edited out references to other tax cuts.

That propaganda house known as the Heritage Foundation shows some of the most creative misuse of statistics and distortions as can be imagined... all to paint a false picture of the Reagan record... then try to seal the deal with this conclusion:

"High rates of taxation and a tax code that punishes working, saving,
and investing do not add up to a recipe for long-term prosperity.
History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a
reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity. Reducing all
income tax rates is a responsible way to promote long-term economic
growth."

Let's look at their claims

CLAIM: "Lesson #1: Lower tax rates mean faster growth.
The Reagan tax cuts: The economic effects of the Reagan tax cuts were
dramatic. The tax cuts helped to pull the economy out of a severe
downturn and ushered in a period of record peacetime economic growth.
During the seven-year Reagan boom, yearly economic growth averaged 4
percent."

This is the classic one variable analysis. It pretends NOTHING else
was going on in the economy that led to the recovery. In reality businesses had learned to become more energy efficient after repeated oil shocks. Oil prices had dropped from record highs... nearly $75 a barrel constant 2000 dollars. Interest rates also dropped as a result of the Fed's tight money policy. Then there was pent-up consumer demand. Last was Reagan's own deficit spending for his defense buildup. Do they get any credit? Nah.... just tax cuts. Why is that?

Heritages claims also do not prove any causal relationship between tax cuts and economic growth. They only claim one. In reality there have been economic recoveries without tax cuts.... and even with tax HIKES... as we've seen in 93.

The Right lauds JFK's tax cuts for producing an economic boom yet the
top rate was 70%? How can that be when Heritage also claim "History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity." OK... bring back the JFK tax levels!!!!

CLAIM: "Lesson #2: Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The Reagan tax cuts: Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during
the 1980s. The results are even more impressive, however, when one
looks at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the
economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, personal
income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54
percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

There are four kinds of distortions used here.

The first is bait and switch. What do they mean by "during the 1980s"?
Doesn't that include both Carter and Bush1's terms? While their
statement is technically true.... revenues were 517 Billion in 1980
and 1032 billion in 1990... which I assume are the years they used...
the Heritage Foundation fails to mention that Reagan's own first FY82
budget bought in a mere 617 billion... going up to 991.2 billion in FY89... Reagan's last budget. Where Heritage implies a 515 Billion dollar increase there was but 374 billion.... 72% of their number. In reality revenue growth was predictably anemic after Reagan's tax cuts.

The second distortion is not to include Reagan's own tax HIKES in
those revenue numbers. How could they have omitted that?

There is more on the site. :eek:

And your source is democratic underground. Do I really need to point out the bias here?

Gmc
 

I think the bankruptcy of GM signals the end of the US as the dominant world power. The myopia of Greenspan and the worship of Milton Friedman's faulty economic theories allowed a runaway housing boom to turn into a gigantic Ponzi scam. We now risk rampant inflation in order to pay for the misdeeds. If Obama and his advisers can get us out of this mess he would deserve more than the Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath. :frown::turnoff::broken:

During WWII we pumped out more jeeps, planes, tanks, guns, bullets you name it and that was a big reason we won now every thing is made over seas if another wolrd war breaks out we are screwed because we can no longer make anything anymore, And Greenspan was only following orders from King George oh yes Regan nomics baby the biggest :coupling: ever invented :( Jennifer

Done bin had
 

Yes Jen, right on! :hug:
Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave, the last real Republican.
He warned us but nobody listened. :frown:

Awe man! All of this has been staring me in the face and I've only just now picked up on it. Why does Hank in Indonesia obsess over US affairs? Why is he so smitten with BO?

Because Obama, aka Barry Soetero was (perhaps still is) a citizen of Indonesia. I knew about this for a while but just didn't connect the dots with Hank.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=72656

(And yes, normally one would not be qualified to be president of the US if one had ever been a citizen of another country, but this IS Obama after all)

Question ,Was he actually a citizen or did he just live there? John McCain was born in Panama due to the fact his father was stationed there but i wouldn't call him a citizen of Panama :no: Jennifer

But the problem with Obama...for some strange reason that has conspiracy buffs in a tizzy...is that he still, to this day, has NOT released his full birth records from the hospital in Hawaii. Which has led many to believe that he actually wasn't born there or born a true US citizen. Or that his actual original birth record doesn't state that he was born a US citizen, which would mean he was technically and even more importantly legally ineligible to be President.

In fact, fueling the fire IS a rather interesting fact to will leave most average people scratching their heads: to date Obama's legal team has spent...wait for it...over ONE MILLION DOLLARS to keep his hospital birth records SEALED. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've applied for jobs in the past where I've had to provide a state-certified birth certificate or other kinds of documentation regarding the hospital where I was born, so my employer could do the usual 60 second phone call to confirm my citizenship. Most people have at one point or another.

Which begs the million dollar question (yes, pun intended) that even I'd like to know, and I'm not even a conspiracy nut: Seriously, who the fuck spends a MILLION DOLLARS IN ATTORNEY FEES TO BLOCK anyone from seeing your actual birth records? And considering we're talking about the freakin' President of the United States, why are so many in the media afraid to really cover this story -- especially since there's now something like over 100 civil lawsuits across the nation...with more being added all the time...demanding access to those hospital records, and yet the Obama people KEEP shelling out more and more legal fees to KEEP BLOCKING access to them.

It doesn't take a Brainiac to see something odd is going on, for whatever reason.

Here's a better photocopy of his school records.
http://rosettasister.files.wordpress...ool-record.jpg

Line 2 says "Warga negara" which means "Citizen" in indonesian. Then it says "Indonesian".

In 1981 when he visited Pakistan, he listed Indonesian as his citizenship.

Exactly. It's just standard paperwork. You want to be considered as a candidate for president of the US, you submit your documents -- NOT A WEB ADDRESS WITH A PHOTO OF YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE OTHER BIRTH CERTIFICATES FROM HAWAII FROM THAT PERIOD. It's just standard paperwork that every candidate should submit. Yet as CreativeMind says, Obama has blocked every attempt to see the actual papers. Oh, BTW. The company that has verified the accuracy of the web images is Fact Check - funded by the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, of which BO was a board member. Oh well, I'm way past being surprised at all the BS associated with BO.

I know this story has been kicking around since like Oct and i'm kinda left saying What's up, To me why not just put a halt to it and show the birth cert :confused: I can't say who's right as there is so much coming from both sides, Anywho i do find it odd that the same people care so much about records never cared about a chicken shit AWOL air national guard member's miltary record can't be found and his is the only one who's record is missing :confused: :confused: Jennifer

Wow using WorldNetDaily as a source... guess it's better than the FreeRepublic. Guess this means DailyKaos and EntertainmentTonight are valid sources to. *shrug*

I'm not an expert at what are valid resources. I needed a source for a story I read about months ago from more legit sources and what was printed in the world net article covered all the bases. I know you see "World Net" and have what you need to call it bunk. But the actual source is BO's school in Indonesia. That photocopy of his school records that lists his citizenship was not made up by World Net. If you're so inclined, and I know you're not, you can google this story and find the same story in whatever your favorite news outlet is.

The fact is, he has spent millions in legal fees to keep his physical birth certificate from being shown. Source? The US Supreme Court.

Well, the Daily Kos WOULD claim they're a valid news source for breaking certain news stories given their diary/blog structure composed by private citizens, people who supposedly have their ears to the ground and thus are giving you an "unfiltered truth." Which is why it's only fair to run the Internet tables and say that everyone ELSE is therefore a valid news source as well, regardless of where they land in the political scheme of things (ie. being on the Left, Middle or Right). In short: welcome to the digital age of the 21st century where anyone with a web site, blog or camcorder and YouTube account can claim to be a valid "reporter" who is breaking a news story.

Besides, while you might not like WorldNetDaily as a "true" news source, keep in mind that the document they are talking about IS a document that actually DOES exist. There's no denying that. So, the bottom line is that while you might not like the messenger, it doesn't discount the story or item they are bringing forth.

Better example still -- Who would've ever predicted that it would take the NATIONAL ENQUIRER of all things...the quintessential supermarket tabloid infamous for its fluff stories...to be the ONE "newspaper" that actually did the job of BEING reporters and following John Edwards, and being the ones to ultimately break the truth about his affair and "love child", which destroyed his run for the Presidency and any future political aspirations?

Ok, why has Obama's legal people reversed the conviction of Black Panther members who were charged and convicted with voter intimidation? There are videos showing them flashing weapons at voters to intimidate them into voting for Obama.

WHY?!!

Hi all, just adding a thought. Nothing to do with Barack Obama, but still relative. I'm a Brit, so I'm asking this, as a Brit. Do you Americans ever feel that you country is to big, both geographiclay, and population wise, to ever have a satisfactory 'please all' president? OK OK, I know that many countries do, and all countries are diverse in the attitudes of their populace, but I do feel that the USA has such varying ideals, beliefs wants and don't wants etc, often town by town differences, not just state by state, that having one President could never be a worthy representative of your nations wishes.
So, whoever the luckless soul is who has the presidential seat is going to be dog wipe to some, and candy to others.

Cheersm8, good question. It takes a president without the audacity to believe that he is the solution to everyone's problems. He should recognize what you say - that America is large and diverse, and also recognize that Americans are capable of solving many of their own problems.

The US is (supposed to be at least) a government for the people, by the people. It was recognized early on that different regions will have different needs. Thats why there are states, and the states are supposed to be largely self governing. The president should also be well aware of the self correcting nature of capitalism. He should strive to keep the government small and lean. Otherwise, they are inefficiently manging what can be better managed by states who can tailor policies for their specific population.

That said, capitalism isn't perfect. And for that, and other things there are places where US govt can and should step in as a stabilizing force. The US government needs to manage foreign policy, the economy and foreign trade. The president is also commander in chief and is therefore responsible for national security. Other than those things, the national government needs to get out of the way.

1) You are correct, and I think the Internet is doing a horrid thing wrt proper investigative journalism. If opinion can be counted as valid news, and editorializing by the reporter is accepted as fact "news" and "source" become meaningless terms.

2) WND has a deplorable history of fuzzing facts, omitting important bits that don't confirm their intended outcome, fail to cover stories. In short they are only a hair better than the Freepers (the Free Republic).

Here you go:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

Snopes has ZERO political aspirations and isn't trying to curry favor with any social element.

BHO ladyboy
 

Has anyone made a picture of what the CiC would look like as a Ladyboy in Chief?

What's your point? The Snopes article only verifies what I've been saying. Obama has fought in court to keep his original physical birth certificate from being seen. It does say that it has been seen though...

Where the word 'examined' links to http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

What authority does factcheck.org have to verify a presidential candidate's legal documents? Why does Obama recognize factcheck's authority while fighting to keep his birth certificate out of the courts?

Perhaps it would be easier to accept fact check's claim of authenticity if both factcheck and Obama's Chigaco Annenberg Challenge were not both funded by the Annenberg Foundation. This is a circumstantial connection, but has Conflict of Interest written all over it. To avoid the appearance of wrong doing Obama should have had his facts checked by an organization with zero ties to him, or even better, simply show it to the courts. Seriously... why not? When his swearing in was flubbed, he redid it the next day. Legally he didn't even have to. But he did it to remove any appearance of foul play. Same thing with the birth certificate. Just show it to the courts to remove any appearance of foul play.

I really don't know what to say without sounding like I'm trying to be insulting. Obama's mother was a US citizen and she gave birth in Hawaii. That makes him a US citizen.

Indonesian school records ... seriously??

As far as why doesn't he show the records? Well if I was in his position, I wouldn't. As long as the SCotUS, Congress, and the Senate were satisfied with the information presented. Also, one must look at the initial reasons that this was even brought up. I wouldn't dignify those accusation with a response either.

Conflict of Interest doesn't even BEGIN to describe it considering at one point Obama himself was actually the fucking Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge Board -- from whence Factcheck was born. Not to mention, Annenberg has ALSO locked away and blocked all access to records and meeting notes from when he served in that capacity, too!

You want F:censored:N conflict of intrest go back to 2000 and check on a bitch named Harris in FL and a worm named Jeb in FL, Harris was in charge of elections and also ran KING GEORGE's FL election campaign talk about a conflict of intrest :yes: Jennifer

Well, the problem is you turned a question into a statement of fact. The issue at hand is the debate over whether or not he actually WAS born in Hawaii or were those records forged after the fact.

And keep another X-Files conspiracy fact in mind. By nature, Presidents are instant worldwide celebrities. EVERYONE wants to say they had a part in his life. And, hell, Obama supposedly has a 70-plus popularity rating, right? So you'd REALLY think that people would want to race forward and say "I was there when it ALL began." And yet mysteriously NOT ONE doctor has come forward and stated he delivered Obama in a Hawaiian hospital...NOT ONE doctor has come forward to say he witnessed the birth...NOT ONE nurse has come forward to say she was in attendance either...and NOT ONE hospital worker has been able to attest to working at a hospital where Obama was born.

Why wouldn't you? These days for most job applications you have to produce a state certified birth certificate to prove your legal status to work. You know, I saw a message board where people were debating the Obma birth certificate issue and someone summed it up perfectly...

"If someone legally challenged you on your legal citizenship what would you do.
(A) Produce your vault copy Birth Certificate and quickly end the challenge or...
(B) Hire attorney's to represent you in an attempt to dodge it?

When the DNC challenged Senator McCain on the same issue because his birth was in Panama, he produced his in 2 days and abruptly ended the challenge. Meanwhile Obama has hired no less than THREE high priced and high powered law firms to duke it out in court to keep his birth certificate locked away. And he's spent over a million dollars to keep the fight going, with no sign in sight that he'll give up the battle to keep it locked away.

Seriously, think about that for a minute and then ask yourself the incredibly simple question "what's wrong with this picture?": When the Democratic National Committee thought it could make political hay out of McCain's birth, he responded by immediately producing his original birth certificate AND supplemental hospital records within 48 hours. Boom! Issue settled just like that. And yet in stark contrast, when asked to produce the same kind of paperwork, Obama digs in and proceeds to spend a million fucking dollars (and counting) to legally fight anyone seeking to see his.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to realize something funny is going on...

Actually, that's NOT a conflict of interest AT ALL. State officials -- whether elected or appointed -- have EVERY RIGHT to have their own political affiliations. If you're going to say Jeb Bush was a conflict of interest by virtue of being governor at the time, how is that any different from all the Kennedy's that have run for office while other Kennedys hold assorted government positions?

And Katherine Harris simply did her job. Florida state law REQUIRED HER to certify the election results by a selected deadline, which is what she did. And ultimately, if you even want to go there, I have no problem having that fight since I'll be more than happy to talk about Ohio and the Obama election, where the EXACT SAME CONFLICT that you're bitching about occurred, where the woman who was in charge of certifying election results that were in dispute was (1) a lifelong Democrat and (2) an incredibly active Obama supporter and campaigner in her own right, down to having helped with fund raising AND -- more important -- being the person charged with purging the election results of any fake votes (identity theft, etc).

Sorry, Jen, but if you want to go there, THAT door swings both ways...

Before FactCheck "verified" BO's birth certificate, if someone asked you who should verify his birth records who would you say should do it? Would FactCheck suddenly and naturally spring to mind? Or some government entity like the court or a congressional committee?

It was Harris's job, as defined by Florida law to rule on which candidate wins Florida based on the election results. If not her, tell me who?

And was she wrong? Which recount showed Gore ahead?

It doesn't sound like you're all that familiar with the case his critics are making. I can lead you to the water, but I doubt you'll drink it. If you want to discuss this based on the issues both sides have brought up, then I'll leave it to you to come up to date.

Yes she was wrong but she didn't give a rat's ass she wanted KING GEORGE and did everything to make sure he stole the election even before the results were being recounted she went on TV saying she intends to give FLs votes to KING GEORGE,And after the unsupreme court ruled for the lieing little weasel they did finish the recount and GORE had more votes but it was to late as we all got F:censored: With KING GEORGE the biggest desaster to ever hit the US. The truth is the weasel stole the election thanks to his shit brother and a bitch named Harris and 5 GOP unsupreme court judges who put party first and pissed on the US :yes: Jennifer

Just a thought....do you honestly believe that if Obama were not a legal citizen of the U.S., that John McCain would have conceded on election night, or that the Republicans would have ever allowed him to be seated as President? Bush v. Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court, if there was any doubt about his citizenship, trust me, the Republicans would have fought it all the way.

I don't care if you like Obama or not, but lets use some common sense here.

God I hate how stupid this country has become.

Actually, I would argue that it isn't that the country has become "stupid" -- but rather "lazy" when it comes to actually stopping and thinking and following through on things. Certainly today's journalists, for the most part, have become incredibly lazy when it comes to following certain stories through to their full and natural outcome. Now, part of that blame can be placed ON the news organizations themselves -- for example newspapers faced with dwindling revenue sources, so they simply can't afford the research or investigative staffs that they once did. AND I would also blame the advent of "commentary journalism", where reporters are no longer interested in asking the basic questions of "who, what, where, why, and when" and instead are more interested in inserting their own personal beliefs or political leanings into a story so it DOESN'T reach a truthful conclusion, but rather the one they WANT it to reach for their own reasons.

Perfect example of the former, newspapers like the NY Daily News or magazines like Time and Newsweek which have had to cut their staffs drastically. Perfect example of the latter, the same one I noted above -- the fact that it took the fucking National Enquirer to break the John Edwards story, simply because the other papers literally refused to pursue the story because they knew it would upset the Democratic side of things during the campaign season. And that's not me making a baseless accusation. For crying out loud, the friggin' Editor in Chief of the National Enquirer has since been on TV and given interviews where he's specifcally talked about how they actually OFFERED to share the Edwards story and some of their leads, free of charge, with other news outlets to cover all of the bases, and they were literally told "no" by other papers for that very reason -- namely, they didn't want to do anything that could potentially generate bad news coverage for the Democratic side.

So, since you brought it up, I would argue back that common sense is what you seem to be missing here -- which is WHY (as I mentioned before) that there are now over 100 civil lawsuits (and more growing in number with each passing week) over the Obama birth certificate. And why? BECAUSE THE STORY DOESN'T FIT THE PARAMETER OF COMMON SENSE. Again, I'll ask the most BASIC and the most COMMON SENSE question of all: why the hell would ANYONE hire not one...not two...but THREE high powered law firms and then spend OVER A MILLION DOLLARS (and counting) to BLOCK access to your birth certificate?

Seriously, this really is so fucked up that it's incredible, if you are ACTUALLY willing to read the background research on this case. Seriously, it would be one thing if we were talking about a private citizen who was trying to protect his records because along the way he committed a crime and changed his name, so now the certificate would out his real identity or something. I mean, I could understand a story like that -- but even THEN that person would eventually run out of money (and thus the case would implode since the legal fees could no longer be covered) OR the person would just admit what he was trying to cover up OR he would just move on, realizing he could no longer hide the truth.

But we're not talking about a normal, everyday, average citizen here.
We're talking about the friggin' President of the United States.

And, for the record, McCain conceding on election night has nothing to do with this issue AT ALL. As I noted above, McCain produced MORE than enough documentation about his birth and his natural born status along the way, when the DNC tried to dodge the Obama birth certificate issue by pointing the finger at McCain and his birth in Panama. But therein lies the true crock of this -- when the DNC challenged McCain, when they tried the age-old diversion tactic of trying to turn the tables on him, he gladly produced his records. As I said before, BOOM...issue settled. But when the same challenge was made to Obama, he instantly lawyered up.

Seriously, if you can't see that SOMETHING is incredibly fucked up about someone lawyering up to such a massive degree and then spending a million dollars to BLOCK their birth certificate being seen or examined, then common sense really IS DEAD. Again, ask yourself the most common sense question of all. Who the fuck spends a million dollars -- think about that A MILLION DOLLARS -- to HIDE their birth certificate as opposed to simply saying "Oh, you nuts are driving me crazy! HERE! Here it is! Are you happy now?" just to make this story go away once and for all?

After all, wouldn't THAT be the most common sense thing to do?

Actually, that's NOT true at all. A consortium of newspapers DID get together several months after the election and DID stage a recount, just to see once and for all who had actually gotten the most votes in Florida.

The result -- while it was still a semi-close election in the state, Bush's margin of victory over Gore actually INCREASED. So, Bush would have won REGARDLESS of whether or not Katherine Harris had extended the deadlines for recounts (which again, Jen, she was NOT authorized to do by Florida law).

just saying hi
 

hehy guys just wanted to say hello to all

how's everybody doing?

WELL EXCUSS ME HAIL BUSH just keep repeteing that lie Rush BUSH did not win it was fixed from the start by his shit brother and bitch Harris, Funny how they never had voting problems in FL till 2000 when the shit f :censored: govnors scum bag bother happens to be running for president and that happens to be the year FL's voting machines take a dump yeah rite keep tell your lies that Bush won the truth is he didn't :no: Jennifer

You got a source for that?

Well he was ok, but let's not get carried away.

Yes it was the Charlotte SUN TIMES or SUN HAROLD i forget which now but it was a locale paper in SW FL that did the recount :yes: Jennifer

The issue of obama's citizenship was raised by a Democrat lawyer (Phil Berg) from Philadelphia, PA. There is, apparently, some discrepancy between accounts of obama's birthplace. His mother's side of his family say he was born in Honolulu, HA, while his father's family claims that he was born in Kenya. The Philadelphia lawyer requested to see obama's birth certificate to solve the issue over his place of birth. The obama campaign (this started before the election) refused to provide the document. The lawyer filed a suit to obtain the birth certificate. The obama gave him a document, but it could not be recognized as a legal copy of a birth certificate. This case is still an ongoing matter and has yet to be resolved(they keep appealing it up the Judicial ladder).

All that being said; obama is just as much as an American citizen as Clinton, Bush, Limbaugh, McCain, or even Charles Manson. It doesn't matter that obama's father wasn't an American, it doesn't even matter where he was born. His mother was an American, therefore he is an American by blood. The Fourteenth Amendment says so.

For all your trying to distance from him earlier I figured your true colors would show.

Again, a temporary story that was later proven to be wrong. In the heat of things, several local Florida papers -- whose Editorial boards clearly leaned Left -- tried to claim that Gore had more votes in order to keep the issue alive. But then Gore conceded and they had no leg to stand on. But as I pointed out above, AFTER the election was over and AFTER the dust had settled, several national newspapers went back and staged a full recount to settle the issue once and for all. The result? Read for yourself...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...loridamain.htm


Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes - more than triple his official 537-vote margin - if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and the Knight-Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties. The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots...

The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead...

The newspapers' study took three months to complete and cost more than $500,000. It involved 27 accountants who examined and categorized ballots as they were held up by county election officials.

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana

Forget the claims by Creative Mind, Bush did not win in 2000 he stole the election and was appointed president 5/4 by the unsupreme court and 04 there have been questions about Ohio plus Weasel Bush ran on fear after9/11 claiming only he could protect us from the terrorist :eek: Jennifer

Try to remember something, Diana: Americans don't see things the same way the rest of the world does. I mean, I know that's a pretty obvious statement, but frankly Europeans and other countries around the world just... don't... get... that... no matter...how many times...we say it. It's funny, but the same way that Europeans or other foreigners look as us and say "Why don't you just do this?", we look back at the rest of you with an incredulous look and say "Why the hell would ANYONE want to do that?"

Bottom line: We're Americans, and we have our own ideals and views of how things should be done.

That said, keep in mind two things. When George Bush ran against John Kerry, America was still feeling the effects of 9/11 on our psyche. We still wanted a President that we felt would keep us safe, and we had already begun the Iraq War and many Americans didn't feel it was wise to change Commander-in-Chiefs in the middle of things. Not to mention, as an opponent for the office, John Kerry did a piss poor job of convincing anyone he was anything but a two-faced liar.

In fact, if you want to know WHY Bush won a second term, here's all you need to know and it plays off that last point. The night that the election was held in 2004, an exti poll was taken. And the two questions that the poll asked was very simple and very insightful and ultimately revealed why Bush won.

The first question was: "Who do you think is more likely to say whatever they need to say in order to get elected?" In other words, who was more likely to be a typical politician that would lie out of both sides of their mouth -- say one thing, one day, to one group of people, on one side of the country, but then say a different thing, the next day, to another group of people, on the other side of the country.

The result: 75% said Kerry would say whatever it took to get elected...but only 25% said Bush.

The poll then asked a second parallel question. It asked "Who do you think is more likely to tell you what they REALLY think -- regardless of whether or not you will agree with them?" In other words, if you ran into Bush or Kerry in a bar or while you were out shopping and said "Look, no bullshit and all kidding aside, just lay it on the line for me. Tell me what you REALLY think about abortion...tell me what you REALLY think about gay marriage...etc, etc, etc."

The result: It literally flipped. 75% felt Bush was more likely to tell you what he REALLY thought, whether you agreed with him or not...while only 25% felt Kerry would tell you what he REALLY felt in his heart.

And lastly, your one statement is a bit deceptive when you say he was the worst president ever and even the "experts" agree with that. That's a very disingenuous statement since you're NOT actually naming any of these so-called "experts" -- and let's be totally honest. So many people who do different things call themselves "experts" with the thinnest of qualifications, thus making their opinions either valueless or just another opinion that's no better than the next person's.

Case in point: back in the fall as the new election was held, 40 prominent Presidential scholars and biographers and researchers were asked to rank all of the Presidents through history, and Bush did NOT land in the last spot -- in fact, he didn't even make the bottom 10. Most agreed that it was too early for history to judge him, especially if the war in Iraq turned around (which it seems to have done) and a democracy (of sorts) was actually established there.

Another example of that: those same scholars noted that for years and years, Dwight Eisenhower was always considered "average" as a Presidentat best, but now looking back with the passage of time...and looking back on his two terms as President and looking at the economy he oversaw, his dealings with foreign matters, etc...he suddenly leaped into the Top 10 and is now regarded of as one of the most successful and best Presidents ever.

Shall we make the lieing weasel Bush a saint now or shall we just make him GOD? Most eveybody hated the weasel GEORGE W BUSH the man never told the truth a day in his life and has never been held accountable a day in his life be it drunk driving drug use not paying taxs on stock options being AWOL from the air national guard lieing about WMDS and the countless other crimes he committed , plus he F:censored: up the econemy big time and ran up record debts, But the weasel did give hope to the retarted by showing even a retart can be president if he has family in high enough places to steel an election :eek: Jennifer

LMAO! Jen, I love you. You are always so nice overall on the boards.

But, yeah, just "forget the claims by Creative Mind" -- you know, my mad scientist claims -- BWA-HA-HA-HA (insert maniacal laughter here). You know, the claim that I could back up with an actual news link, which again cited an actual recount that cost over half a million dollars, that was conducted by a reputable accounting firm and which was sponsored by a consortium of nationally recognized newspapers. A recount, by the way, that was held and conducted to the very same standards that GORE wanted. And the end result? Bush still won.

But, hey, I'm sure THEY were all on the take, TOO, right? :p

Look, no one is saying it wasn't a close election, but you people on the Left have GOT to get over "Bush derangement syndrome" and just accept that he won the Florida race. Seriously, get on with your lives. And when it came to his 2004 re-election, he not only won the Electoral College, but he won the POPULAR vote by a wide margin of OVER 3 MILLION VOTES. Which is what cracks me up. When Bush won a tight election...he stole it. He didn't have the numbers to make you happy. But then when he turns right around and DOES win by a wide margin and with large numbers...you still can't change your tune. Somehow he stole THAT election too.

And yet you people on the Left are ALSO the same ones who refuse to acknowledge the lies and fraudulent votes that a group like Acorn got away with in the Obama election. And let the record show that's NOT just me making a baseless accusation. For fuck's sake, they're now under FEDERAL INDICTMENT in 14 states for voter fraud.

What makes this so laughable to me is that those on the Left...who apparently toss and turn in their sleep and just can't accept Democrats lost the Florida election and who continue...to this day...to still bitch about it and play their broken record...

...Are the SAME people who are now insisting that Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate race, even though the numbers in that election are SMALLER and TIGHTER than they were in the Bush/Gore race.

Funny how that works, isn't it? :eek:

When it was Bush, it was a stolen election.
Or not every vote was counted.
Or they weren't counted right.
Or the margin wasn't wide enough to declare him winner.

But when it comes to Al Franken and AFTER the election is over and the votes are tallied and Norm Coleman wins, suddenly... gasp!... something like 300 votes are "accidentally" discovered in a box in the back seat of a car that... gasp!... "someone" conveniently forgot to turn in which... gasp!... just HAPPENS (>wink, wink<) to be JUST enough to tip the election. At which point that IS good enough for those on the Left to say "Franken won! I don't care if it was only by one vote! He won! That's good enough for me! No need to count or recount any further! We're done here! Move along! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN STANDING BEHIND THE CURTAIN OVER THERE!"

First...no one is calling for Bush to be a Saint or god. For crying out loud, Jen, if you really read what many of us have been posting and saying here -- instead of having just a knee-jerk reaction to simply outright hating Bush -- you'd clearly see that many of us on the Right WERE MAD AT BUSH for many of his mistakes, such as spending too much. And WE'VE CRITCIZED HIM AND SAID IT HERE IN THIS THREAD REPEATEDLY.

Which brings me to addressing your second point.
Tell you what, let's have a show of hands over this one...

In the long run, as each and every American is FINALLY going to have to pay the piper for all the debt that our government has racked up, to reduce the national debt, who are you REALLY going to be MORE mad at? And who do you REALLY think your children or grandkids, your young nieces and nephews, are REALLY going to be pissed at as they grow up themselves and inherit tomorrow's financial world as all these bills come due?

George Bush, who left you with a $900 Billion dollar debt, which frankly was too large and should be held against him.

OR...

Barack Obama, who in only his first 100 days in office, has spent more money than EVERY PRESIDENT since George Washington COMBINED. And whose budget for this year could actually exceed TWO TRILLION-PLUS DOLLARS -- and still counting and going upwards since he's not even done spending yet, since NOW he wants to tack on Healthcare reform this year TOO. Which means in just ONE YEAR ALONE he's already managed to TRIPLE the Bush debt. Not to mention his economic plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office (which is a non-partisan group and simply runs the numbers to an accurate degree) has ALSO already calculated that Obama's plan is going to run a ONE TRILLION DEFICIT PER YEAR -- per year!!! -- FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS AS WELL.

So, let's have a show of hands. Who did worse?
Bush leaving you with $900 Billion in debt...
...Or Obama leaving you THIRTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in the hole?

Come on, I know everyone took basic math.
This one isn't THAT tough to answer. :cool:

What I said was 'It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever'.

It appears you are twisting things around a bit. Perhaps a habit you picked up from George Bush.;)

The 900 billon is not counting the wars KING GEORGE always left the funding for them out of the budget and every other month was running to congress for more funds for the troops, As far as Obamas buliding apon the debt is due to his idea on how to restart the econemy, His plan is to create jobs by rebuliding roads dams and other projects, Will it work? IN the short term i think it will help but the jobs created are only tempery at best as sadly KING GEORGE was on the lets outsource all the US jobs express, Oh if you and Rush are so worried about the debt level then stop crying we need more tax cuts for the rich only and by the way the 13 trillon debt figure is counting KING GEORGES WARS :eek: Jennifer

It's funny I read this over and over on political discussion boards, and I have for the past year and a half. You know when it was politically prudent for Cons to distance themselves from Bush. Suddenly he went from being a poor guy who wasn't given a chance by whining liberals to "spending like a drunk sailor". Funny how those behaviors were hardly invisible during the previous 7 years, but rank-n-file Cons were so willing to overlook that as long as Georgie stopped funding foreign aid that supported abortion and/or birth control, threatened a Constitutional amendment to define marriage, and gave tax money to churches to fund their programs rather than secular bodies.

Now when you all are being called out you are trying to play it off like "yeah he made some mistakes, and he wasn't a real Scotsman..urm Conservative". Better yet distancing yourselves from the social right wing that kept getting your stuff elected because middle America is starting to be wary of that agenda.

You all may have been spending the past 8 years ranting into the wind, and I have no doubt that you honestly feel what you are saying. However, I have been seeing the same stuff on different sites posted by people who couldn't stop blaming (whining, divisive, communist, petulant, etc.) liberals/Democrats for 6+ years of the trouble with Bush/Cheney/Rove.

Secular Humanist, possibly Marxist
 

I think the dumbass GOP fell into a trap with the Muslim school thing. The real story is that Obama is obviously a friggin secular guy posing as a Christian, when so much of what he says contradicts claiming to be religious. The Muslim thing was a red herring. It sounded so far fetched and silly, thus making anyone who went on to make other inquiries about Obama look silly. The citizenship flap was the coup de gras.


The press played their part for Obama however, by not investigating Obama's Church. WTF was he doing in a liberation theology "church?" Anyone interested please google up liberation theology and black liberation theology, anyone with some reasoning will realize that adherants to this faith can't actually believe in the supernatural. If instructions say to put marxist principles above a supposedly omnipotent diety, you have a problem.

Where was the press in 2000? Why was W left untouched why was nothing said about his drinking and drug useage and why wasn't he asked about being AWOL from the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and why no questions asked about how he got in instead of going to nam? :eek: Jennifer

Myopia
 

Yes Jen, the Reflubs are adept at throwing stones at the other guy (i.e. Clinton's blow job) but looked the other way while their buddies raped the whole country. Now they are nit picking Obama instead of banding together to help Obama save our way of life.

FLUSH RUSH! CHAIN CHENEY!

That was touched on. I got news of it and I was in Marine Corps Boot Camp!

Well are we so sure we can trust Obama? That's what a lot of people are saying. First he goes out of his way to say the U.S. is not a Christian nation, it's a secular one (which can be taken either way) than bends statistics to say that the U.S. is one of the largest Muslims nations.


The truth is this guy is a Chameleon. I would have been happier with Hillary, I knew what she stands for. There's a lot of Democrats I would have been happier with. When Obama acts like he is an outsider but he's been plucked from obscurity by some of the most powerful Democratic party insiders, that makes me wonder. When he constantly changes his tune to fit whoever he's speaking with, that makes me wonder. When he goes out of his way to Apologize to the world for America's mistakes but says little to nothing about what the Muslim world has done and is doing to the West, I really wonder.


There are times when I like this guy, but with this trip and some other statements, I really dislike him. It's too bad the GOP didn't run somebody better than McCain. But they're still punchdrunk from 2006 and the other parties aren't large enough yet.

Of course we all know W never lied :lol: In fact when did that lieing little weasle W ever tell the truth? Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving :yes: Jennifer

LOL all of Bush's debt during his 8 years in office is 8% of that $13 trillion. Obama's debt during his first 2 months is 21%. What part of this don't you understand?

Jen you are so full of blind hate for Bush. I don't think you've ever backed up anything you've said, and consequentially no one takes you seriously. And btw, if you claim Bush lied about WMD, then you'd have to conclude that Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Edwards also lied about the same thing. Half these people "lied" about WMD before Bush ever took office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

This is the closest you've ever come to backing up any of your claims. Unfortunately it's a dead end. I can't find anything to your sources that even you don't have. What your claiming happened would have been huge news... that when all the votes were carefully counted, free of any deadlines, Gore won!? That's huge news. Give me some sources!

OH excuss me, HE only ran up a small debt which was fine becacuse it was for tax cuts for the super rich , and the little guys will get humped paying it back now you're pissing your pants over the super debt caused by the no good rotten Dems and worst of all they expect the super rich to pay there share God forbid horrors of horrors :eek: :eek: And of course you will never believe anything i say or any souce i could mention unless it from a rightwing news sourse like Rush or foxnews, To you W is GOD and you will never see him for the peice of crap he was and of course you believe he never did anything wrong and you are quick to blame the Dems for everything, And here's a source for you it's called a history book in which you will find Clinton didn't take half info and cherry pick it to twist into a form he could use to start a war with Iraq :yes: W lied Clinton wanted more postive proof. Clinton's only error was not hunting down Binladin [ i know i probly spelled his name wrong] W didn't hurt him either oh he gave speechs and sound bits but he never put any real effert in hunting him my souce is he's still out there :eek: Jennifer

Whatever humping the little guys will do will be multiplied by orders of magnitude to pay back BO's debt. And yes the little guys will pay too. It may not be through their income tax statement (or then again it might be), it will also be in fees and expenses for things like bringing their cars up to new environmental standards, or via inflation as companies operating expenses go up courtesy of BO. Prepare to bend over... we're all going to get it up the ass. :coupling:

Wrong. You provide NO source and when I point that out you make the leap in logic that I will only accept right wing sources. Explain.

Wrong. He is not god. He is not king. And if you ever pay attention on here I have pointed out several things he's done wrong.

Wrong. Not everything - like you do with Bush. Only for what they've done. Point out one unsubstantiated complaint I've had about the dems.

If you're going to use a history book as a source, at least look at a history book. This is how we use sources. Put a friken link to the source so anyone can look at it: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html And that wasn't even a right wing source now was it?

:OWNED:

Oh... that caught me off guard. From reading your posts I didn't think you were worried about spelling. I usually don't nitpick, but since you brought it up... (excuss, becacuse, souce, sourse, peice, postive, probly, effert, souce, hugh, craper, stampping) You didn't look at that youtube video I posted did you? I'll try again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
Clinton and many other democrats already had all the proof they needed that Iraq had WMD.

If I were completely ignorant about a subject I would usually avoid it and not advertise my complete ignorance about it. It would be embarrassing. Anyone with any motivation can at least find dozens of things that Bush did to try and find Bin Laden. And that's only if you casually glance over headlines throughout the years. Then there's another layer of information - if you take the time to look - that will show many other things he's done. And then there's the top secret stuff we won't know about for 50 years.

While Bush did have people on the hunt for Bin Laden, he didn't focus all his efforts there. Because while Bin Laden is hiding in some piece of shit cave in a mountain in Afghanistan or Pakistan, cut off from his organization to keep from raising red flags and getting himself caught, we're destroying Al Qaeda. All Bin Laden can do is grumble at us via video tapes.

spelling
 

Tracy,
You are obviously smart, well informed and articulate. However, that does not give you the right to try to humiliate Jen by ridiculing her spelling. Jen has a right to her opinion of Bush and you can defend him all you want. Just keep it civil. :respect:
The fact remains that Bush was the worst President in the history of the US.:censored:

First of all, let me say that although I have strong opinions on the topic of obama, I've mostly kept them to myself on this forum. I've just been having too much fun watching Jen and Tracy battle it out.
Well I think the Republicians should give obama as much support and respect as the Democrats and pMSNBC gave Bush.:yes: But, that's just my opinion.
Actually, that's true about all politicians.:yes:

So let me get this straight if the GOP was still in power no one would get humped or have to pay this debt? Oh yeah i forgot all aboutl Reganenomics just cut taxes for the top and don't worry about the debt. Those on the right are fine with the debt amount only as long as the REP'S are in power but the minute a Dem get in power they start with they standard BS about the debt level being way to high, It happend with Clinton when good old Newt who could careless about it when Regan and Bush [the father of W] where in power but when Clinton took over all of a sudden it became his top concern. And with W it appears the GOP is fine with deffecit spending but only when they are in charge. You are defending W by claiming his spending was not as bad because it was a smaller amount. Sorry but it's the same thing no matter the amount it is still spending over what you have and you are just trying to muddie up the water and protecting W. And it appears you are also fuzzy on the level W ran up as it looks like you are not putting the WALL STREET bailout amounts to his account, And yes i know Obama voted yes but it was W and his lap dog who made the case for it and it was W who demanded not rules be attached for what the money can and can't be used for there fore Obama made a stupid error but voting yes and giving W's pals a blank check , But it was still W screwing the US people like he has done for his whole 8 years :eek: Jennifer

That's not what I said is it? The debt generated over the last 40 years, 8% of which you could say is Bush's (and the congress') would have to be paid if government continued like it has under Bush. With Obama, now 21% more debt will have to be paid. Hopefully his next 3 years won't be so traumatic, but I'm not holding my breath. Criticize what I'm saying, not the words you're sticking in my mouth.

No, I am including the Wall Street Bailout. I still don't think you are clear on how unprecedented this is.

Look at this chart on our monetary base over the last 100 years:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...ax_630_378.png

You can see how much money BO artificially put into the economy. That is all debt. We are in deep shit territory.

Debt?
 

Tracy,
Is it all really debt? It seems a lot of it is investment in company stock and the TARP money apparently is temporary loans to banks. If the economy recovers, I would like to think that this massive "debt" will diminish before we are eaten up by inflation. :broken:
Lots of ifs ands, buts, maybes and hopefuls :eek:

It's like if you graduated high school. You don't have many prospects for work so you get a college loan and go to college. Yes, it's debt. You hope that once you finish college you can get a job and pay back your college loan. It will be difficult and take many years, but many people do it successfully.

Only the US is not like a newbie right out of highschool. We have an advanced industrial base and an ok educational system, but because of some bad decisions that let companies go abroad and other bad policies that allowed our lending infrastructure to fail we are in a precarious position. Obama's US is more like a 30-something yuppie who is already in debt that got laid off and wants to put himself further into debt for an education loan to go get a graduate degree. Yes, it's also debt in this case too. Whatever job he gets as a result of the graduate degree will probably be too little, too late.

Where has he invested this money he printed or borrowed from the Chinese? In short term jobs (when their job is done they will be right back out on the street), in government jobs (which only adds to the size of the government as well as the budget which is already too high), and in more very expensive entitlements like nationalized health care (which will either provide everyone with substandard health care or will be spending more money we don't have forever). And also on a buttload of pork.

What else does BO do while we are financially strapped? Implement environmental policies that will further stress everyone.

BO: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them."

These costs don't stop at producers of energy. They will be passed on down to everyone who uses energy. Do you know of anyone who doesn't? Do you know of anyone who doesn't buy products that take energy to produce? So forget the financial mess he's already put us in by creating all this debt. The environmental and healthcare policies alone will be enough to put us into bigtime inflation.

I'm not for raising taxes on the rich, or lowering taxes on the rich. It's fine the way it is. What needs to be done is to slash government down so it stops devouring our tax dollars.

The other week Obama made news (and certainly raised eyebrows in the Pentagon as well as foreign policy circles) when he made the statement "Iran has a right to nuclear power." Now, only an utter idiot wouldn't realize at this point that Iran is racing the clock to construct its first nuclear warheads -- in fact, they just upped the number of centrifuges they've got online to enrich their uranium yet again, raising the number now to a whopping 5,000. I mean, come on, at this point everyone knows what their up to.

That said, tonight on TV someone had a great comment that made me laugh out loud when they basically noted: "So, let me get this straight. Now Obama thinks Iran has a right to nuclear power, and he thinks Americans have a right to crappy glass solar power panels. Good thinking there, Mr. President!!!" :lol:

Just another funny thought that occurred to me, as I was posting a moment ago...

We recently passed the 100 day mark for Obama in office. That means there's about 1,200 or so more days before the next Presidential election. And yet in only 100 days, this Obama thread has already become 12 pages long. So, extending that average out for those next 1,200 or so days that means by the time we get TO that election this thread could be 144 pages long.

It just struck me as funny that the longest thread here at the forum could ultimately NOT be about anything Trans related! :p

Over 12 pages of back and forth and pretty much accomplishing nothing, Those of you who tend to vote REP will never like anything he does and say's and pretty much no matter what anyone says or does will change that, So until 2012 you just have to grumble and curse but rember the world will not end after all the world surrived 8 yrs of W and no one could be worse then him well maybe Palin or Jeb but the sun will raise tommorow :yes: Jennifer

:-) good point ! The right-wing Americans will keep their glorified attitude to the world and their socalled love of "God and country", their insistance on every man's right to own an M16 (to kill the liberals), and their deeply rooted hate of every thing that isn't white, hetero and speaks English...

Israel needs to quit listening to the US and do what they need to do to protect themselves. Iran has made no secret of what their goal is.

LOL... yup. BO has shown many times that he doesn't think things through.

Oh my god!
 

Did any of you see Bill Mowers interview with Jeremy Cahill?
http://rebelreports.com/
It left me deeply depressed. If he is correct, Obama is following Bushes policies in the Middle East. More private mercenaries, a big embassy (fortress) in Pakistan and more killing of civilians.:no:
Obama's rhetoric in Egypt sounds good but if we continue killing Muslims, its just hot air.:censored:

Yeah lets go carpet bomb the continent of Africa with nukes!!!! Yeah baby. You and your deep rooted hate for anything that's white, hetero and speaks English... How can you stand to see that white english speaking face of yours in the mirror?

Well hopefully it has dispelled some myths and some people have learned from it. There have been 577 replies on this thread and 6433 views. It's obviously not just the few of us reading it. I believe we will survive. We have survived the New Deal which lengthened the depression and diverted a large percentage of our income into inefficient social security from then till who knows how far into the future. It's not the kind of cancer that can just be turned off. We have survived Johnson's civil rights policies which went beyond merely making races equal and started programs like Affirmative Action which replaced one type of racism with another. We survived Carter's double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, and his Community Reinvestment Act - another cancer. Each liberal democratic president adds more burdensome baggage that future generations will have to bear. But yes, socialist countries do survive. It's just not my kind of country.

Well if any president understands Muslims, it's Obama. Before becoming president he was against a lot of what we were doing in the mideast. He has probably since learned that even though Muslims are mostly peace loving people, there are extremists out there and that there are very good reasons for what we're doing out there. His timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq has gone from April 2010 to the end of 2011. Bush wanted to get the troops out too, but there are realities that the commander in chief faces that Obama is learning about.

He was going to release photos of alleged torture in Iraq and other places. He changed his mind on that after realizing that would only be counterproductive.

He promised in January that his policies would limit unemployment to 8% in February. It's June now. Unemployment is at 9.4% and still rising.

He thought bailing out GM would work. That was a wasted effort and GM filed for bankruptcy anyway. He has changed his mind on a number of his policies. And check this out: I commend Obama on correcting bad policies once he realizes they will not work. It says a lot when someone can admit to mistakes rather than to insist on going down a path they should realize is wrong.

Mistakes
 

"I commend Obama on correcting bad policies once he realizes they will not work. It says a lot when someone can admit to mistakes rather than to insist on going down a path they should realize is wrong." Tracy

Yes Tracy this is encouraging, and a great improvement over the Bush years. Lets hope he finds the right path before its too late. Of course, he is not omnipotent, he has to deal with Congress who are a bunch of money grubbing assholes for sale to the highest bidder. Can anything positive get done in this country full of corrupt politicians, Dem. and Repub. alike? It doesn't look good. :censored:

And what myth's were dispelled? All i have seen so far is that the Bush lovers hate Obama and DEMS period and anything Bush and his party did was great and wonderful and the DEMS do every wrong and screw everything up, I knew that mindset before i ever came here and it appears you will never be happy unless the GOP control everything for life and like W everything is your way or the highway. So what has really changed? W divide this country to those on the right vs those on the left and Obama will not be able to undivide the country and i dout any one man or woman can fix it. At the rate we are going another civil war will break out and those on the left will live in the north and those on the right will live in the south. :eek: Jennifer

Hank my friend that is not completely true W and the GOP love Latino's as they see them as cheap labor and a way to bring down the pay scale for every worker hence more profit for big bussness the rich get richer and everyone else get's the shit :eek: Jennifer

That is all you will ever see. I was talking about the other readers of this thread.

That might be a good solution, except that the parties are not even self consistent. So once you divide the US up to North & South the dems will be bickering amongst themselves and gop will be bickering amongst themselves. I don't like much of the south anyway. Too many rednecks and bible thumpers.

I hope it nevers happens but the way thing are going i can see it happening in the future, And i only said the left will live in the north and the right in the south because of the 04, 06,08 election maps showing how each state voted in those three years the GOP won in the south and the DEMS did very well in the north, I'm refering to the maps i saw on CNN during election night. In the end it would work for a short time but truth be told the GOP needs DEMS to blame for any miss fire and the DEMS need GOP to blame for miss fires :eek: Jennifer

Well, given US policy in Africa we don't actually need to bomb them. Years of supporting destabilizing rebels, removing funding for HIV/AIDS education if it mentions condoms, and on and on...

The "reverse racism" crap is so played. First, a group that was systematically kept from any sort of self-determination, power, or equal access to redress their concerns cannot magically become equal with the stroke of a pen.

As much as you may like to think we live in a post-racist or post-sexist society, we absolutely do not. White guys have had generations of looking out for the other. For example:

Great great grandpa arrived a poor immigrant from Germany. He knew some Germans who gave him a job and his family did ok. Great Grandpa did better because he got a decent inheritance and was able to get through school. Grandpa got to go to college because his dad donated money to Ohio State - he even had a wing of the hospital named after him. Grandpa started a business and did very well. Dad has a degree and continues the family business and will retire early.

American Blacks my grandfather's age started where great great grandfather did as far as social and economic power. That's 80+ years to play catch-up. More so since, you know, none of my family had to fear lynching.

For the Record
 

The bank and business bailouts are purely Capitalist policies NOT Socialist - not even close.

Capitalist?
 

Yes, true enough, but what bugs me is that we are bailing out the bastards that created this mess through blatant irresponsible greed. These guys are no better than Madoff yet we are letting them continue to run the economy. Why is Obama going along with this? :frown:

This was W paying back his cohorets, It was passed and signed before Obama was in office so there is little he can do, The question is why the senate believe W when he was caliming the sky was falling and if wallstreet wasn't bailed out the econemy would be ruined and everything would be lost and sadly the senate believed him and passed the bailout the way Wwanted it and W did what he has done to the american people what he has done his entire 8 yrs in office in other words the american people got :coupling: big time :frown: Jennifer

No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

Do you know what a lame duck is? A president in his last 2 years of his 2nd term is pretty much considered a lame duck. You're saying Bush in his last three months forced congress to pass a bail out his way and only his way? Oh yeah... that's right. EVERYTHING is Bush's fault.

And of course you think nothing was ever his fault, Who was demanding it be passed? It was W and the guy who replaced Greenspan and both said it had to be done right away rember? Yes i know you and the others royalists are still trying to rewrite everything so W is not heald accountable for anything. 9/11 was Clinton's fault the millions of lost jobs from 01 thru now was also Clinton's fault the wallstreet collaspe was also Clinton's fault as is the debt W ran up. W wasn't at fault for anything, Everyone is just bashing poor George and history will declare him the second greatest president just under Regan :lol: Jennifer

Bailouts?
 

Conservatives are highly critical of the bailouts. Since you seem to be an expert on this issue, what do you think the consequences would if there was no bailout by the government? What would happen to the economy, jobs, medical care, education, food supply, energy supply, a place to live? What would happen to credit, loans, financing food production, construction, infrastructure?
Just wondering ;)

It would be hard for sure. We would have to make some tough decisions and reform to actually fix the problem. No where have you heard anyone say how we fix this so it doesn't happen again. Go back to the gold standard. Balance the budget. If the government does anything it should make America a profitable place for companies to produce again. Then we can start to export and work down our debt. Then we could take care of the economy buy back our country and lower taxes. People will again have more money for medical care, education, food, energy and houses.

The worst thing that we can do is continue bad policies that put us in this mess in the first place. You can't solve the problem of inflation, which is the creation of money and credit out of thin air, by more money and credit out of thin air, and not changing policy. We need to get back to free-market capitalism. Americans need to save more and not buy everything on credit. If lending companies were forced to make realistic loans by the market, then Americans would save more.

The Chinese work hard and save, and they're buying up the world. But we borrow and spend and consume, and now it's caught up to us and it's undermining our whole system.

It would be painful, but it wouldn't last as long as what BO is doing. BO is propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer. He's doing exactly what we did in the depression.

BO is trying to prop up home prices. You want the price structure to adjust and let the price of houses to go down. Price fixing does not work.

It would be a bad year, but BO's way will be a bad decade... at least.

Before you pin the blame on Bush, you should know a little more history...

** 2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore...should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America... Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August - up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month - the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs - and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by ... helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that - and Congress is making progress on this - is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress finally heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Gee thanks congress for that timely action.

Confused
 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1416...ticle_sb_picks

The economic articles at Seeking Alpha are very scary. Stock market collapse, depression, soaring inflation all coming down the pipe in spite of the massive bailout. Well, maybe gold is not a bad idea. :(

A very nice little fairy tale but hard to swallow from a president who only believe goverment should not be involved and let the lenders take care of it this is the son of a man who like Reagen believed in dereguration , And since most of the dates you list are when he had all three branchs in his pocket if he did ask it was BS for he know full well the REPs would never put regulations in place so the lieing weasel could lie and say i tried and it's not my fault :no: Jennifer

credit given for what W accomplished
 

before i get accused of not giving credit to what W accomplished in his 8 yrs, I'll will give him credit for what he did and he deserves credit and should not be cheated. W spent more time on vaction then any other president and yet he still manged to screw up everything way to go W. He lost more jobs then he created agian way to go W. He lied to congress about WMDS and started a BS war causing over 4000 brave troops their lives for his lies agian why to go W. He was warned about Binladin and he didn't pay attention to the warning as he was more conserned with tax cuts and making plans to invade Iraq agian way to go W. On 9/11 he was safely in FL reading my pet goat to 1st graders and when his aid told him what happend he just went back to reading the book no schook no anger nothing perhaps because he know ahead of time about the planed attack and wanted to use it as his excuss to invade Iraq after all Rove and Newt always said another Peark Harbor is what the GOP needed for support say way to go W. W fast tracks more free trade aggreements causing even more job loses by allowing more US companies to pack up and leave to find cheap labor and lies about how we should be thankful for all the job these aggrements will create but he forgets the jobs created will not be here so way to go W. Just some of the credit that W is due and if the secert stuff he did ever become public there should be more credit given him and hopefully when the war crimes trails start he will receve all the credit he deserves :yes: Jennifer

Nice spin. Well I guess evidence and reality don't rank too high with you.

I knew you were brainwashed, but OMG. I'm going to avoid violating the rule about arguments in Dilbert's Rules of Order. Enjoy your fairy tale.

Bush warning
 

Re: Tracy's post Bush warnings
The repeated requests by Bush to do something is not surprising. If Bush could get congress, to do something and we got a recession then Bush could blame Congress. Also, Congress did not want to do anything for the same reason. The Bush sequence of warnings shows that the Bush administration was aware that things were going wrong for years and did nothing. Bush did not need Congress to do something, the Treasury and the Fed could have done something to calm down the financial system. Greenspan could have simply raised interest rates to calm things down. The extremely low rates produced and excess of liquidity that the financial markets had to deal with, which resulted in the abuses that led to the meltdown. The booming housing market and stock market were good for Bush and helped compensate for the bad news from Iraq and his low ratings. :frown:

Congress (mostly dems) repeatedly said that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were financially sound. I have posted videos of this. You can see it from their own lips. We now know this to be completely false. Bush had been warning congress about it throughout his 2 terms. He had been asking congress to regulate the financial institutions, which we now know they needed. Leave the spin out and let's just deal with the facts. Otherwise we'll be saying "Is too" "Is not" "Is too" "Is not" for all eternity.

This is why they didn't want to do anything about Freddie & Fannie:
These are total contributions made from 1989-2008. Interesting isn't it how Obama worked his way up to the number 3 spot (Hilary's up there too) on Freddie and Fannie campaign contributions after, what 2 years in congress? Near where others have been in office for 20+ years. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

What can Bush do? He can only ask congress to act.

With what money? Doesn't that come from congress?

Yes, Greenspan could have raised interest rates. He liked to make his presidents look good and did so for both Clinton and Bush. Even with higher interest rates, the CRA required Freddie and Fannie to make loans available to minorities who couldn't afford them. But yes, it might have at least caused these people requesting loans to rethink if that was wise.

Why not show a list of top donors to W? showing the drug companies, investment banks insurence companies credit card companies the oil industry, W raised more funds from special intrest that anyone could have from there wildest dreams agian you are quick to point the blame over to the DEMS and over look at what THE LIEING WEASEL W did :eek: Jennifer