Conquer Club

Iliad wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
You take one instance of anecdotal evidence instead of HER VOTING RECORD? Seriously? Never mind the fact that most of those who were refusing to sit with her ALSO probably weren't familiar with her voting record (as I, a member of the military, was not).

Nice way to spin it. No I showed you what the military actually thinks of her and any poll of military voters that has come out has been very unfavorable. Why is that? Because you can take her token votes and refer to the fact that she has politicized the wars in which they are risking their very lives. Also if you want to talk of voting records how about you actually give me some Hillary vs. high profile Republican contrast and then perhaps you might be on to something.

Woodruff wrote:I'm not PRETENDING anything...I'm talking about HER VOTING RECORD. It has nothing to do with "politicizing" ANYTHING...it's how she CONSISTENTLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED.

So you've picked out ONE VOTE rather than looking at her entire VOTING RECORD? Could you be any more dishonest? The FACT of the matter is that during the last primaries, the vast majority of military retiree organizations supported Hillary Clinton (and spoke out loudly against John McCain).

You're talking about her voting record huh?

How about her non vote (no yes or no) in 2008 on Defense appropriations bill to get the military 688 billion? This was as she was losing the primaries and she desperately tried to distance herself from the wars at the troops expense. Don't give me your shit about being dishonest. I know a person that politicizes war when I see one.

So she hates the military because of one denial of a proposal, which to me seems ridiculous. 688 billion to the military in 2008, at the height of the GFC? Are you fucking kidding me? How can you even attack the Democrats for waste spending and hold less taxes, less spending as your economic thesis and not even bat an eyelash at the military demanding 688 billion?

Yea let's just f'ing put military spending on hold when we're in the middle of two f'ing wars. Brilliant Einstein. Clinton decides that half a buck stops there and I'm supposed to say ahh it's no big deal. And if you knew _______ about it, you'd know that she was just trying to distance herself from the war instead of giving the soldiers what they needed. She could have very easily made any objections known about any specific unneeded expenditures but she did not do that. She just wanted to appeased single minded idiots like yourself and get your vote. Timing, not principle dictates her votes and I will NEVER knowingly put someone like that into office. NEVER.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
You take one instance of anecdotal evidence instead of HER VOTING RECORD? Seriously? Never mind the fact that most of those who were refusing to sit with her ALSO probably weren't familiar with her voting record (as I, a member of the military, was not).

Nice way to spin it. No I showed you what the military actually thinks of her and any poll of military voters that has come out has been very unfavorable. Why is that?

Likely because, just like you, they are conservative-leaning and don't know squat about her voting record.

ViperOverLord wrote:Because you can take her token votes and refer to the fact that she has politicized the wars in which they are risking their very lives.

Token votes? Do you have any understanding of how our government makes laws?

ViperOverLord wrote:Also if you want to talk of voting records how about you actually give me some Hillary vs. high profile Republican contrast and then perhaps you might be on to something.

I've already discussed one - John McCain, whose voting record on military issues is excruciatingly poor, particularly given his own military service.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I'm not PRETENDING anything...I'm talking about HER VOTING RECORD. It has nothing to do with "politicizing" ANYTHING...it's how she CONSISTENTLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED.
So you've picked out ONE VOTE rather than looking at her entire VOTING RECORD? Could you be any more dishonest? The FACT of the matter is that during the last primaries, the vast majority of military retiree organizations supported Hillary Clinton (and spoke out loudly against John McCain).

You're talking about her voting record huh?
How about her non vote (no yes or no) in 2008 on Defense appropriations bill to get the military 688 billion? This was as she was losing the primaries and she desperately tried to distance herself from the wars at the troops expense. Don't give me your shit about being dishonest. I know a person that politicizes war when I see one.

Really? Because that's not what "Project Vote Smart" says...it says she voted YES on that 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill on the 17th of September of 2008, as you can see here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

By the way...if you'll bother to look, you'll see that JOHN MCCAIN DID NOT VOTE on the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. There's your damn "Republican contrast".

As I said, almost every military retiree organization supported Hillary over all of the other candidates that year, which included one of their own in John McCain - do you honestly believe that most military retiree organizations are going to be particularly liberal-leaning or easily swayed by "token votes"? These people don't care what party the candidates belong to, but they do make it their job to watch over politicians to see who is actually voting in ways that supoprt the military and military retirees.

Woodruff wrote:
Really? Because that's not what "Project Vote Smart" says...it says she voted YES on that 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill on the 17th of September of 2008, as you can see here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

By the way...if you'll bother to look, you'll see that JOHN MCCAIN DID NOT VOTE on the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. There's your damn "Republican contrast".

As I said, almost every military retiree organization supported Hillary over all of the other candidates that year, which included one of their own in John McCain - do you honestly believe that most military retiree organizations are going to be particularly liberal-leaning or easily swayed by "token votes"? These people don't care what party the candidates belong to, but they do make it their job to watch over politicians to see who is actually voting in ways that supoprt the military and military retirees.

You are referencing the $603 B defense authorization bill of 09/17/08 that she voted yes for and it passed 88-8.

I referenced the $668 B bill of 01/22/08 that she did not vote for and it passed 91-3. http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=16857&can_id=55463

Isn't it interesting that she was a no vote when she was in a heat with Obama in the left leaning democrat primaries and then after its over on 09/17/08 she votes yes when the war is even less popular and so that she pull the wool over the eyes of people like yourself. That is what I'm talking about with her politicizing military issues. I will not in good conciousness put someone like that into power. Obviously you can.

Also you came to her defense for voting yes on a military spending bill but besides that no vote you conveniently overlook her no's? Yea. Pretty f'in convenient.

05/22/08 - Funding Iraq/Af. Operations - NO on a 165 B ammendment sponsored by ulta lib Harry Reid. Passed 70-26. But Clinton was too busy having an anti-war contest with Obama to give an f about the troops at that point. They were just collateral damage to her. (Noteworthy that she also voted no on the substitute ammendment of this bill that failed).

12/18/07 - The vote to leave Iraq. She didn't even have the 'cojones' to vote. She just wanted to play the fence on that one.

12/18/07 - Funding bill - Again a non vote while our nation is at war.

11/16/07 - A NO vote for $70 B for Emergency Supplemental App for Dep. of Defense

How about compromising the safety of the troops and the effectiveness of the war:

In 07, Yes on troop reduction, Yes on time between troop deployments and at a time when the generals were requesting more troops.

NO WOODRUFF. YOU SAT THERE AND TRIED TO REWRITE HISTORY ABOUT HOW GOOD HC WAS FOR THE MILITARY AND I'VE SHOWN YOU THAT YOU ARE FULL OF BUNK.

Also: Woodruff, I will respectfully end my HC debate here. I spent a lot of time researching your fallacious claims and I wish to allocate no more time to your red herrings. And next time you pursue a matter that requires research time for emprical evidence I will have to consider the source. I knew what HC was and you should have too. You need to call a spade a spade rather than sit there and waste people's time and call a spade a diamond.

ViperOverLord wrote:Also you came to her defense for voting yes on a military spending bill but besides that no vote you conveniently overlook her no's? Yea. Pretty f'in convenient.

I didn't overlook anything...I went specifically to the bill that you referenced, as that was the subject of contention for you, allegedly.

ViperOverLord wrote:NO WOODRUFF. YOU SAT THERE AND TRIED TO REWRITE HISTORY ABOUT HOW GOOD HC WAS FOR THE MILITARY AND I'VE SHOWN YOU THAT YOU ARE FULL OF BUNK.

You have done no such thing. You talk about these bills as if you understand what was in them in full, but I suspect you do not. There are parts of those bills that unfortunately either have nothing at all to do with the military or are not good ideas (and I say this as a military man through and through).

And let me ask you this...have you compared her voting record to those you seem to favor so highly? My guess is that you have not, since you don't seem too interested in bringing them up. My statement stands that she has voted in favor of the military and military retirees more often than her opponents.

As I said, almost every military retiree organization supported Hillary over all of the other candidates that year, which included one of their own in John McCain - do you honestly believe that most military retiree organizations are going to be particularly liberal-leaning or easily swayed by "token votes"? These people don't care what party the candidates belong to, but they do make it their job to watch over politicians to see who is actually voting in ways that supoprt the military and military retirees. How do you rationalize that, ViperOverLord?

I will give you this...at least you've done some research here, which is a very nice change from your usual debating methods.

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Also you came to her defense for voting yes on a military spending bill but besides that no vote you conveniently overlook her no's? Yea. Pretty f'in convenient.

I didn't overlook anything...I went specifically to the bill that you referenced, as that was the subject of contention for you, allegedly.

ViperOverLord wrote:NO WOODRUFF. YOU SAT THERE AND TRIED TO REWRITE HISTORY ABOUT HOW GOOD HC WAS FOR THE MILITARY AND I'VE SHOWN YOU THAT YOU ARE FULL OF BUNK.

You have done no such thing. You these bills as if you talk about understand what was in them in full, but I suspect you do not. There are parts of those bills that unfortunately either have nothing at all to do with the military or are not good ideas (and I say this as a military man through and through).

And let me ask you this...have you compared her voting record to those you seem to favor so highly? My guess is that you have not, since you don't seem too interested in bringing them up. My statement stands that she has voted in favor of the military and military retirees more often than her opponents.

As I said, almost every military retiree organization supported Hillary over all of the other candidates that year, which included one of their own in John McCain - do you honestly believe that most military retiree organizations are going to be particularly liberal-leaning or easily swayed by "token votes"? These people don't care what party the candidates belong to, but they do make it their job to watch over politicians to see who is actually voting in ways that supoprt the military and military retirees. How do you rationalize that, ViperOverLord?

I will give you this...at least you've done some research here, which is a very nice change from your usual debating methods.

When you play cards like this: 'You have done no such thing. You these bills as if you talk about understand what was in them in full' - It just shows how weak your ability to debate really is. I could very easily say that you don't understand the bills in full based on the fact that you don't have the time to read the minute details of every bill that gets voted on. I'm not even going to debate your point further. I'm just going to rebuke you for coming at me with such an inept rebuttal. I understand the political gravity of these matters and your worthless points are not going to discount that.

If someone can fog a mirror I want them to beat Obama in 2012!

I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.

And don't even get me started on Biden...spend our way out of bankruptcy? Spend our way out of bankruptcy? This idiot would try to dig his way out of a hole. My fucking shoe is smarter than he is. Most people I know could go on a fucking four day bender where their BAC never drops below .3%, be puking bile with the DT's and not come up with a statement that stupid. How does this idiot even understand how to eat...but that's a basic instinct that doesn't require thought or this Neanderthal would starve to death.

rockfist wrote:If someone can fog a mirror I want them to beat Obama in 2012!

I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.

And don't even get me started on Biden...spend our way out of bankruptcy? Spend our way out of bankruptcy? This idiot would try to dig his way out of a hole. My fucking shoe is smarter than he is. Most people I know could go on a fucking four day bender where their BAC never drops below .3%, be puking bile with the DT's and not come up with a statement that stupid. How does this idiot even understand how to eat...but that's a basic instinct that doesn't require thought or this Neanderthal would starve to death.

I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President. - I disagree. I'm not a fan of red tape and bells & whistles. But I do agree that the American public did not give an f about the fact that he was not a proven leader. And we reap what we sew. Sure there are those of us that were wise and did not vote for him. But society should suffer the consequences of their ignorance all the same.

And don't even get me started on Biden...spend our way out of bankruptcy? Spend our way out of bankruptcy? This idiot would try to dig his way out of a hole. My fucking shoe is smarter than he is. - Biden will always tow the line. He did it as a Senator. He did it when he ran against Obama in the primaries calling him unqualified and yet had no problem becoming his VP. He'll always just be a cog in the machinery with no real leadership.

But blame the f'ing Dems and not Biden. They swim in ignorance. I mean the dude had to quit a presidential campaign after plagiarizing a speech but he was back after the useful idiots forgot about it.

ViperOverLord wrote:

rockfist wrote:If someone can fog a mirror I want them to beat Obama in 2012!

I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.

And don't even get me started on Biden...spend our way out of bankruptcy? Spend our way out of bankruptcy? This idiot would try to dig his way out of a hole. My fucking shoe is smarter than he is. Most people I know could go on a fucking four day bender where their BAC never drops below .3%, be puking bile with the DT's and not come up with a statement that stupid. How does this idiot even understand how to eat...but that's a basic instinct that doesn't require thought or this Neanderthal would starve to death.

I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President. - I disagree. I'm not a fan of red tape and bells & whistles.

Wow, I agree with Viper. I feel ill. I imagine, though that he at least disagrees with my reasoning, so there's something to take comfort in. The job of a businessman is to make as much money as possible. The job of a politician is to represent the people (ideally, in practice it doesn't often work out). These two things are completely unrelated. If a politician needs to know something about the economy, there are plenty of people that can advise them on it.

rockfist wrote:I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.

Oh, good lord no! A President doesn't need to be an expert on the economy. It's definitely a plus if they can be reasonably educated, but that's what the President's advisors are there for. Getting the right advisors is really the key here.

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.

Oh, good lord no! A President doesn't need to be an expert on the economy. It's definitely a plus if they can be reasonably educated, but that's what the President's advisors are there for. Getting the right advisors is really the key here.

And look at his advisors. Who does he have that's doing a good job? He has a bunch of radical czars that f things up behind the scenes if you want to count that. His chief of staff is a corrupt Chicago politician that goes around yelling at democratic congressmen while they shower if they aren't towing the party line.

First, let me state I am not convinced we need a constitutional amendment about the President needing to be in the private sector for a period of time. I made a rather outlandish statement to stimulate discussion. I do believe that someone who has never had to meet a payroll is lacking in what I believe to be an important perspective. A constitutional amendment is a bit much, but I would argue that someone who has run a business for years is more qualified than someone who has been a US Senator for two years to be President especially someone who votes "present" as many times as Obama did in his State Senatorial career. You don't get to vote present as President of the US or as a business owner, you have to make choices and live with the consequences, yes in business there is some amount of blaming the person prior to you who held the position that goes on, but it certainly does not get you through two to four years of decisions.

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.

Oh, good lord no! A President doesn't need to be an expert on the economy. It's definitely a plus if they can be reasonably educated, but that's what the President's advisors are there for. Getting the right advisors is really the key here.

A President does not need to be an expert on the economy, BUT he needs to have a decent enough base so that he can figure out the complex things he does not understand when advisors tell him its important. He also needs that base so he knows which advisors are actually worth something, someone with ZERO or close to zero knowledge on the economy could do something like pressure the federal reserve to lower interest rates to combat inflation (Jimmy Carter). I am not an expert on the economy but my base tells me you do NOT do that.

I am not an expert in real estate, I have advisors who are, but if I knew nothing about it they could tell me something like "a building built for a very specific purpose makes the property more valuable" and I would believe it because they are the "experts."

We have a President who has no clue about the economy. That is obvious to me.

I think the problem goes way beyond his not having practical experience in business. He had not even finished a term as junior Senator. He had not accomplished anything as a Senator and yet everyone jumped that train with a false hope that he would somehow change and become someone that could get the economy going.

I thought it was shameless how the media sat there and tried to say Palin had no experience when she had successfull ran a city and a state for years. He meanwhile was a 'community organiser.' Cmon man. WTF is that? A Black Panther or KKK Dragon could claim to be a community organiser.

Well we know that the Democrats will vote any ass clown into office. They just got done voting a convicted felon a US Congressman in South Carolina! Even worse, he didn't even campaign! They perpetually voted in the man slaughterer Ted Kennedy, the biotch Barbarra Boxer, Chris Dodd (who remains the head of the Senate Banking Committee despite his complicity with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac - in addition to personal ethics violations), Barnie Frank (who blocked legislation in 2003 to regulate Fanny and Freddy and got $12 million from TARP for his Boston bank despite it not complying with standards to receive funds, Jesse Jackson Jr. (Emissaries offerd Blago $1.5 M for Obama's senate seat), Nanci Pelosi (Mrs. Enviromental has used the Air Force as her own personal airline; claimed in 09 that she knew nothing about waterboarding despit 02 briefing; looked other way on Democrat scandals - Jackson, Barney, Murtha, etc.), John Murtha (Has taken over $1.7 M in campaign contributions from PMA and clients while earmarking tens of millions back and continued to seek earmarks even after the FBI raided PMA headquarters), Rangel, Waters, the list goes on and on.

But Republicans have been plenty corrupt. I believe its more pockets of corruption whereas the Democrats have a culture of corruption. But Republicans have themselves to blame for Obama. In 2000 he was beat 2 to 1 (ratio) for Congress. 2 to freaking 1 in a blue state! But then Peter Fitzgerald was in that stupid affair controversy and Obama took the vacant seat and ran with it. From there he was able to play the rock star to the dumbass American electorate.

The worst thing about the Bush administration was that people got so pissed off about him that now we have this as a direct result. So in that sense he may go down as the worst President in history because he begot Barack.

rockfist wrote:The worst thing about the Bush administration was that people got so pissed off about him that now we have this as a direct result. So in that sense he may go down as the worst President in history because he begot Barack.

I really did not like Bush, and spent about 85% of my blog posting against him. Bush is the reason the Tea Party exists. It started in 2007.

I always said, "Do not give Bush this power! sure you might think it's ok cuz he's "your guy" but the next president is going to have that same power!"

Well, here we are.

rockfist wrote:The worst thing about the Bush administration was that people got so pissed off about him that now we have this as a direct result. So in that sense he may go down as the worst President in history because he begot Barack.

Bush was pretty stalwart when he went into office. People couldn't even deny the great job he was doing before the wars and they would claim it was only because he had great advisors. He was a rock though. By 05 you could see the signs of severe frustration with dealing the gridlock and the propoganda attacks from the media and the dems. He still did a lot in Iraq in 06 but he gave up on the economy about that time. By 07 you could see that he had phoned it in. It was kind of sad to see. He stopped responding to any attacks. He just let people roll over him, he caved to the corruption more and more because otherwise the nuts would just shout impeach and bla bla so he did his best to just start flying under the radar. It was pretty sad to see. But I think its an unlearned lesson for the media to be more fair if they want an effective president.

ViperOverLord wrote:

rockfist wrote:The worst thing about the Bush administration was that people got so pissed off about him that now we have this as a direct result. So in that sense he may go down as the worst President in history because he begot Barack.

Bush was pretty stalwart when he went into office. People couldn't even deny the great job he was doing before the wars and they would claim it was only because he had great advisors. He was a rock though. By 05 you could see the signs of severe frustration with dealing the gridlock and the propoganda attacks from the media and the dems. He still did a lot in Iraq in 06 but he gave up on the economy about that time. By 07 you could see that he had phoned it in. It was kind of sad to see. He stopped responding to any attacks. He just let people roll over him, he caved to the corruption more and more because otherwise the nuts would just shout impeach and bla bla so he did his best to just start flying under the radar. It was pretty sad to see. But I think its an unlearned lesson for the media to be more fair if they want an effective president.

Congress has the power to raise and spend money, not the president. Democratic Congress took over that power in 2006. Every year since 2006 has been worse than the preceding year. Not a very good track record for Congress, who's approval rating is 7-11% currently. It's amazing how much people hate congress, but still seem to worship Obama because he signs into law what Congress passes...I never got that.

I supported Bush in 2000 simply because I did not want a Democrat. In retrospect we may have been better off with four years of Gore followed by a true small government Republican...but I could not see that in 2000.

And Bush versus Kerry was not a pleasant choice for a small government guy. I thought Kerry would lock us into more long term spending and into being more of a nanny state, which he would've, but not to the extent Barack has.

Phatscotty wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

rockfist wrote:The worst thing about the Bush administration was that people got so pissed off about him that now we have this as a direct result. So in that sense he may go down as the worst President in history because he begot Barack.

Bush was pretty stalwart when he went into office. People couldn't even deny the great job he was doing before the wars and they would claim it was only because he had great advisors. He was a rock though. By 05 you could see the signs of severe frustration with dealing the gridlock and the propoganda attacks from the media and the dems. He still did a lot in Iraq in 06 but he gave up on the economy about that time. By 07 you could see that he had phoned it in. It was kind of sad to see. He stopped responding to any attacks. He just let people roll over him, he caved to the corruption more and more because otherwise the nuts would just shout impeach and bla bla so he did his best to just start flying under the radar. It was pretty sad to see. But I think its an unlearned lesson for the media to be more fair if they want an effective president.

Congress has the power to raise and spend money, not the president. Democratic Congress took over that power in 2006. Every year since 2006 has been worse than the first.

I am not saying Republicans are good, but we MUST NEVER elect another Democrat.

rockfist wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

rockfist wrote:The worst thing about the Bush administration was that people got so pissed off about him that now we have this as a direct result. So in that sense he may go down as the worst President in history because he begot Barack.

Bush was pretty stalwart when he went into office. People couldn't even deny the great job he was doing before the wars and they would claim it was only because he had great advisors. He was a rock though. By 05 you could see the signs of severe frustration with dealing the gridlock and the propoganda attacks from the media and the dems. He still did a lot in Iraq in 06 but he gave up on the economy about that time. By 07 you could see that he had phoned it in. It was kind of sad to see. He stopped responding to any attacks. He just let people roll over him, he caved to the corruption more and more because otherwise the nuts would just shout impeach and bla bla so he did his best to just start flying under the radar. It was pretty sad to see. But I think its an unlearned lesson for the media to be more fair if they want an effective president.

Congress has the power to raise and spend money, not the president. Democratic Congress took over that power in 2006. Every year since 2006 has been worse than the first.

I am not saying Republicans are good, but we MUST NEVER elect another Democrat.

I said over and over again, they dropped the ball. I always said to my republican friends, EXACTLY what liberals are saying about Obama now. "Bush had both houses of Congress, and he didnt get shit done. That was my first realization that I was not a Republican. I did not know what I was yet (cmon I was 19!) I voted For Bush the first time, and then Nader (He was the only one who I believed would actually bring the troops home)

Remember, Democrats won in 2006 mainly and hugely because "Bush was staying the course in Iraq" Glad to see that course has changed in name only. That Is when I realized we have real problems and Parties don't matter. That is when we made our own party.

Phatscotty wrote:

rockfist wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

rockfist wrote:The worst thing about the Bush administration was that people got so pissed off about him that now we have this as a direct result. So in that sense he may go down as the worst President in history because he begot Barack.

Bush was pretty stalwart when he went into office. People couldn't even deny the great job he was doing before the wars and they would claim it was only because he had great advisors. He was a rock though. By 05 you could see the signs of severe frustration with dealing the gridlock and the propoganda attacks from the media and the dems. He still did a lot in Iraq in 06 but he gave up on the economy about that time. By 07 you could see that he had phoned it in. It was kind of sad to see. He stopped responding to any attacks. He just let people roll over him, he caved to the corruption more and more because otherwise the nuts would just shout impeach and bla bla so he did his best to just start flying under the radar. It was pretty sad to see. But I think its an unlearned lesson for the media to be more fair if they want an effective president.

Congress has the power to raise and spend money, not the president. Democratic Congress took over that power in 2006. Every year since 2006 has been worse than the first.

I am not saying Republicans are good, but we MUST NEVER elect another Democrat.

I said over and over again, they dropped the ball. I always said to my republican friends, EXACTLY what liberals are saying about Obama now. "Bush had both houses of Congress, and he didnt get shit done. That was my first realization that I was not a Republican. I did not know what I was yet (cmon I was 19!) I voted For Bush the first time, and then Nader (He was the only one who I believed would actually bring the troops home)

Remember, Democrats won in 2006 mainly and hugely because "Bush was staying the course in Iraq" Glad to see that course has changed in name only. That Is when I realized we have real problems and Parties don't matter. That is when we made our own party.

I think Bush and Obama both got "shit done" as you would say.

Bush:

- Bush enacted two major wars and dethroned a dictator
- Passed major prescription drug regulation
- Passed No Child Left Behind
- Established Homeland Security
- Passed The Patriot Act
- Fought terrorists (froze millions in accounts of organizations that funded terrorism)
- Placed sanctions on Iran
- He also dedicated a full year plus to passing social security reform and the democrats showed that they truly are the socialist party and blocked it across the board
- Bank bailouts

Obama:

- Passed socialized health care
- Through the courts has fought for the rights of illegal immigrants to come to our country while decreasing state soveirnty.
- Passed huge stimulus bills
- Even bigger bailouts (with few checks built into them because after all that worked for Fanny/Freddy in the first place)
- Fired the CEO of GM
- Got a $20 billion slush fund from BP
- In less than twenty months, he has increased the deficit as a percentage of GDP from 40.8 percent to 60.1 percent. The dude can increase it 1 percent a month. That is impressive! Remember Dems belittling Bush for his 'gross spending' despite being the ones that requested it all. His Percent of def. to GDP only went from 35.1 percent to 40.8 percent.

Yea I mean I don't agree with a lot of that stuff - But you can't say they haven't got shit done lol.

You are right. What I meant was, Bush did not do what he said he would. #1 reason I voted for Bush in 2000, he said he was against nation building...

Phatscotty wrote:You are right. What I meant was, Bush did not do what he said he would. #1 reason I voted for Bush in 2000, he said he was against nation building...

I'm not sure I agree with your context. 'Nation building' was a pretty big buzz term for dems. Then again so was 'quagmire' but the dems can't pull their heads out of their asses fast enough on that one. I would imagine Bush denied the charge, but Bush also said he believed in the spread of democracy. I think he accomplished that in Iraq and Afghanistan. The situation is still tenuous in Afghanistan but I still give him credit. If there was no validity to what he was doing, don't you think Obama would have gotten out of there? I mean Obama doesn't want that war on his record. But he knows things will go to hell in a hand basket if he gets out.

rockfist wrote:I am not saying Republicans are good, but we MUST NEVER elect another Democrat.

That you believe there's much of a difference is cute. They're just different flavors of the same poison.

fur sure!

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:I am not saying Republicans are good, but we MUST NEVER elect another Democrat.

That you believe there's much of a difference is cute. They're just different flavors of the same poison.

Nah. They're not the same poison. One poison might make you sick. The other poison is fatal.