Smart Kid

[Vested_Interest]

http://www.mainandcentral.org/archives/bush-holding-baby.jpg

...seems to be a pretty good judge of character already!

[tpilews]

photo chop

[Vested_Interest]

The point is this: Bush Jr. stands among the worst natural disasters to hit the United States of America, bar none!

If any of you right-leaning r'tards can muster the nerve to refute that claim, you'd better come prepared with statistics, because I've got the numbers to support it.

[bluefan]

The point is this: Bush Jr. stands among the worst natural disasters to hit the United States of America, bar none!

If any of you right-leaning r'tards can muster the nerve to refute that claim, you'd better come prepared with statistics, because I've got the numbers to support it.

Oooooh! The big, bad dumbfukc dumbocrat's got numbers!
Nobody's arguing that Bush was far from great. Us normal, patriotic, smart Americans just laugh that you dipsh!t, whiny-ass lefties couldn't come up with a better option in two tries. Get bent, you terrorist hugging communist.

[Vested_Interest]

Speaking of dumbfux...


...Nobody's arguing that Bush was far from great.[...]

Did you mean to say nobody's arguing that Bush wasn't far from great? Think about it.

In any case, Gore and Kerry, both, were far "better options" than Dumbya; they simply lacked the 'star power' to overcome the GOP's knack for manipulating mindless religious nuts and other low-brow righties ...like yourself.

Hey, how'd that work out for y'all, anyway? I mean, here we are eight years later, and our country's no less vulnerable to terrorist attacks (in fact, in light of our depleted resources and the growing anti-American sentiment worldwide, we're probably in more danger now than ever before); abortion's no less legal; the 'sanctity of marriage' ...no safer; and to top it all off, we're in the midst of the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression.

Are you smelling the coffee yet, Bluefin? Feeling a little used, or maybe a bit betrayed? You should be.

[BlueSpread]

Feeling abused or betrayed by Obama and his proposed $1 Trillion dollar FDR style BS public works programs, plans to scrap the shuttle replacement, and absolutely no clue on how to proceed on an issue NOT related to global warming?

Bush has his faults. As a libertarian, spending $40 billion on senior perscriptions was a boondoogle of epic proportions. This financial crisis has been perpetrated by Democrats and Republicans, equally. To even suggest otherwise is a sign of blatant partisanship.

Your argument vis-a-vis terrorism is quite flawed. Bill clinton was president in 1993; at the time of the first WTC bombing. A few years later, he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter by the Yemenis and turned him down. 8 months after Clinton left office, the WTC fell. The people who piloted the planes were training here while he was President.

Since 9/11 there have been no terrorist bombings or plane hiijackings on U.S. soil. I surmise there will not be for some time. I also surmise that Obama will take the credit. Bush's foreign policy may not be popular or efficient, but it has worked. At least he took action when our nation was attacked instead of lobbing a few tomahawks.

I assume you will declare the Iraq war illegal. I will proactively state that no peace treaty was ever signed with Iraq after 1991. A state of war has existed with Iraq since 1991. Furthermore, Hussein refused to acceede to the demands of 1441, attempted to assisnate a former U.S. president, and continued to fire upon U.N. designated air missions to enforce the no-fly zone. The former are bona-fide acts of war under international law.

I will conclude my opinion on the war in Iraq by stating that anyone claiming the war in Iraq is illegal is likely guilty of treason in a literal sense. I'd never prosecute someone for believing differently than me, but I'll definitely assign an academic judgement. By arguing against a legal war, using patent falsehoods, you are in effect giving aid and comfort to an enemy. Think about that one.

I look forward to your response.

[tpilews]

and to top it all off, we're in the midst of the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression.


If people were a little more responsible for themselves, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Vested_Interest]

BS (I hope you don’t mind the abbreviation there. :D ),

But without further ado...


Feeling abused or betrayed by Obama and his proposed $1 Trillion dollar FDR style BS public works programs, plans to scrap the shuttle replacement, and absolutely no clue on how to proceed on an issue NOT related to global warming?

First of all, as far as many socially-conscientious people are concerned, the similarities drawn between some of Obama’s plans and those of FDR (one of the greatest Presidents ever) are certainly no cause for feelings of abuse or betrayal. In fact, many are comforted by the comparison, particularly as the reign of Bush (a shoe-in as a leading candidate for the worst President ever) nears its end.

As for the speculation surrounding Obama’s plans for the shuttle replacement program, it has arisen primarily in the wake of due diligence on the part of the incoming Administration. Granted, the transition team’s questionnaire does include a specific request for a cost/savings analysis involving the cancellation of the Ares 1 rocket and the scaling back of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle next year, but it’s still too early to draw any firm conclusions WRT Obama’s intentions there. Furthermore, since such an inquiry should really be expected from the incoming steward of all federal agencies, until Obama acts on the inquiry's findings, such conclusions as your's are not only premature; they're irresponsible. I mean, let's at least wait 'til he's actually done something, before criticizing him for doing it.

Now, since you’ve tied the shuttle speculation to feelings of abuse or betrayal, I suspect that you’re alluding to Obama’s campaign pledge to provide NASA with an additional two billion dollars -- a promise aimed, in part, at narrowing the gap between the shuttle's retirement and the introduction of its successor. If so, it bears mentioning here, that while the bigwigs at NASA are confident that Ares and Orion fit the bill in that regard, Obama was diplomatic enough to endorse neither system by name during his campaign. Therefore, even if the relevant speculation turns out to be true, the charge that Obama betrayed us would only have merit in the absence of his support for a counterproposal to fill the ‘gap-narrowing’ role. Again I say, let's wait and see what turns out to be the case.

As for the notion that Obama is “clueless” on how to proceed on issues not related to global warming (as if the assertion even warrants a serious response), the man has surrounded himself with a knowledgeable and experienced team. And say what you will about the many links to the Clinton Administration, because, after all, the contrast between Clinton and both of the Bush Administrations favors the Democrats by a long shot! Besides, unlike the national embarrassment who currently occupies the Oval Office, Obama’s intelligence is beyond reproach. Where history provides him with no clues as to “how to proceed”, I’m confident that he’s smart enough to proceed cautiously.


…As a libertarian, spending $40 billion on senior perscriptions was a boondoogle of epic proportions.[…]

And as a socially-conscientious person, I agree with you; if not in principle, certainly where the dirty details on that specific allocation were concerned.

Still, our government’s failures to separate the special interests of pharmaceutical giants from the legitimate needs of many of its citizens should be examined in the interest of doing away with corruption. Then, maybe, $40 billion would actually make a dent in the problem.


…This financial crisis has been perpetrated by Democrats and Republicans, equally. To even suggest otherwise is a sign of blatant partisanship.[…]

Oh, I realize there’s plenty of blame to go around; from Republicans to Democrats, home buyers to Wall Street, from banks to the unapologetic partisanship of Alan Greenspan, ETC. However, it should be noted that the complicity where leading Democrats are concerned (including Clinton, Cf. Gramm’s deregulatory legislation in ‘99/‘00) has been in acquiescence to an undeniably conservative philosophy, namely government deregulation. And when Democratic legislators have signed-off on the always Republican-sponsored, deregulatory bills, they’ve invariably been praised by moderates and conservatives alike for their willingness to “reach across party lines”.

What this country needs right now is a drastic shift to the purist Democratic ideologies that have been shunned for far too long.


…Your argument vis-a-vis terrorism is quite flawed.[…]

What “argument” would that be, BlueSpread?

I made a claim involving the probability of the notion that certain factors, specifically our country’s “depleted resources” (and this encompasses substantial cuts to the budgets of emergency service responders and law enforcement agencies, especially on the state and local levels) and the “growing anti-American sentiment worldwide” (not just among Muslims), lend themselves to greater (not lesser) vulnerability to attack. This doesn’t amount to an “argument”; it’s simply a statement of fact.

That aside, I’m not as concerned about the myriad of questions surrounding the legality of the war in Iraq …so much as astonished that anyone would try to defend it as a legitimate response to the attacks of 9/11. Not only did Dumbya link AQ directly to Saddam (in a very misleading way), he then lied to the American people about them thar “dubya em dees”. But hey, at least he succeeded in carrying out a personal vendetta (Saddam did swing, after all). So what, if it cost the lives of a few soldiers and the odd Iraqi citizen, right? I won’t proclaim that Junior’s war was illegal; but I will shout from the rooftops that it was unjustified, unnecessary, and immoral!

[Vested_Interest]

TP,


If people were a little more responsible for themselves, we wouldn't be in this mess.

And I would say, that if more people recognized their respective responsibilities to each other (and that's intended to cover the entire socio/economic spectrum), we wouldn't be in this mess.

[BlueSpread]

BS (I hope you don’t mind the abbreviation there. :D ),

But without further ado...

Subtle digs won't work on me, nice try though. You get 2/10 on originality.


First of all, as far as many socially-conscientious people are concerned, the similarities drawn between some of Obama’s plans and those of FDR (one of the greatest Presidents ever) are certainly no cause for feelings of abuse or betrayal. In fact, many are comforted by the comparison, particularly as the reign of Bush (a shoe-in as a leading candidate for the worst President ever) nears its end.

Classifying FDR as one of the greatest President's ever is laughable. Would he even been elected had he been legitimate (i.e. not lied about) his disabillities? He personally led us into World War 2 when the country wasn't against it, using beligerent programs like lend/lease. Sound familiar to anyone? I for one am not comforted by the similarity to the guy who single handedly invented American debt and led our country to a war when he realized it didn't work. Hey, we needed to be in WW2, but to suggest that FDR didn't lie, cheat, and steal our way into it is rediculous. FDR was a flat out liar in every sense of the way


As for the speculation surrounding Obama’s plans for the shuttle replacement program, it has arisen primarily in the wake of due diligence on the part of the incoming Administration. Granted, the transition team’s questionnaire does include a specific request for a cost/savings analysis involving the cancellation of the Ares 1 rocket and the scaling back of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle next year, but it’s still too early to draw any firm conclusions WRT Obama’s intentions there. Furthermore, since such an inquiry should really be expected from the incoming steward of all federal agencies, until Obama acts on the inquiry's findings, such conclusions as your's are not only premature; they're irresponsible. I mean, let's at least wait 'til he's actually done something, before criticizing him for doing it.

Irresponsible? In what way? Asking NASA what it would cost to build a vehicle to put on top of French and Russian rockets is a pretty leading question and lends itself well to interpretation in any number of ways. This is nowhere near as irresponsible as claiming Bush is bought and paid for by the Oil Industry/Saudi's/<insert left wing propaganda here> and exponentially less damning.


Now, since you’ve tied the shuttle speculation to feelings of abuse or betrayal, I suspect that you’re alluding to Obama’s campaign pledge to provide NASA with an additional two billion dollars -- a promise aimed, in part, at narrowing the gap between the shuttle's retirement and the introduction of its successor. If so, it bears mentioning here, that while the bigwigs at NASA are confident that Ares and Orion fit the bill in that regard, Obama was diplomatic enough to endorse neither system by name during his campaign. Therefore, even if the relevant speculation turns out to be true, the charge that Obama betrayed us would only have merit in the absence of his support for a counterproposal to fill the ‘gap-narrowing’ role. Again I say, let's wait and see what turns out to be the case.

I was alluding to the abuse and betrayal those who voted for him should be feeling, not mine. I certianly didn't vote for him so he can't betray me. The money will be spent on environmental satellites. I'm going to pause and go hug a tree before I continue.


As for the notion that Obama is “clueless” on how to proceed on issues not related to global warming (as if the assertion even warrants a serious response), the man has surrounded himself with a knowledgeable and experienced team. And say what you will about the many links to the Clinton Administration, because, after all, the contrast between Clinton and both of the Bush Administrations favors the Democrats by a long shot! Besides, unlike the national embarrassment who currently occupies the Oval Office, Obama’s intelligence is beyond reproach. Where history provides him with no clues as to “how to proceed”, I’m confident that he’s smart enough to proceed cautiously.

Your retort proves my point, thanks. He illustrates his cluelessness by appointing the same obtuse buffoons that led us to these circumstances. He promised us "change we could believe in." Clinton was as moderate to right wing Democrat at best. To claim that an amazing contrast on anything but social issues between Clinton and Bush shows an amazing ability to stuff one's head into the sand. Obama's intellect as "beyond reproach" is likely the only reasonable argument you've made thus far. But to suggest Bush isn't equally as intelligent is a falsehood, I'm sure neither of us are Yale material so it's quite ignorant for either of us to argue against the man's intelligence.

As for national embarassments, we've elected one. Based on charisma and celebrity. That's not a fault on Obama, it's a fault on us. He is what he is. Whe fell for it, shame on us. No substance. No character. Not that Bush had much, either.

But Bush had experience... what has Obama done? Not even a full term as a U.S. senator. What he do there? Some state legislative experience. Tried some reform language and we just see how well that worked out, don't we? Absolutely no executive experience whatsoever. We need a leader right now, and as laughable and disgusting as it is, Sarah fucking Palin was more qualified to run this nation than either of the people on the main ticket.

We had plenty of governors on both sides to chose from. Romney would've been an ideal choice in hindsight, at least economically. Richardson wouldn't have been bad. Instead we got two Senators, each as unfit for the job as the other.


Still, our government’s failures to separate the special interests of pharmaceutical giants from the legitimate needs of many of its citizens should be examined in the interest of doing away with corruption. Then, maybe, $40 billion would actually make a dent in the problem.

Or MAYBE intead of taxing the "rich" in our country and spending on entitlements, we slap a nice, big excise tax on all these drugs. Foreign governments regulate the price of these drugs. In effect, we are subsidizing their bastard socialized medicine.


Oh, I realize there’s plenty of blame to go around; from Republicans to Democrats, home buyers to Wall Street, from banks to the unapologetic partisanship of Alan Greenspan, ETC. However, it should be noted that the complicity where leading Democrats are concerned (including Clinton, Cf. Gramm’s deregulatory legislation in ‘99/‘00) has been in acquiescence to an undeniably conservative philosophy, namely government deregulation. And when Democratic legislators have signed-off on the always Republican-sponsored, deregulatory bills, they’ve invariably been praised by moderates and conservatives alike for their willingness to “reach across party lines”.

But didn't Obama just nominate a bunch of people who are shouldering this blame? *blinks* Read above. But because he's Obama their just gonna hope for change this time, right? Are you aware that Rahmbo was a chairman of of one of the Macs? Are you Aware that the Clintonites are the ones who started shoving irresonsible loans on the Macs? And Bush helped, too? You partisan idealogues never cease to amaze.


What this country needs right now is a drastic shift to the purist Democratic ideologies that have been shunned for far too long.

And Obama isn't going to do that, like we even need it anyway. He's business as usual. Remove the word Democratic from your phrase and add Constitutional. We don't worhsip Democracy. We chose a Federalist Republic framed by a Constitution. We need to shift Constitutional idealogies. We need to take our government back from the Democrats and Republicans.


What “argument” would that be, BlueSpread?

I made a claim involving the probability of the notion that certain factors, specifically our country’s “depleted resources” (and this encompasses substantial cuts to the budgets of emergency service responders and law enforcement agencies, especially on the state and local levels) and the “growing anti-American sentiment worldwide” (not just among Muslims), lend themselves to greater (not lesser) vulnerability to attack. This doesn’t amount to an “argument”; it’s simply a statement of fact.

It's an argument, not a fact. What "depleted resources?" The cuts to the intelligence budgets made by Clinton? You don't need emergency services and LEO to stop or respond to attacks that won't happen. "anti-American" sentiment has existed since, well, forever.


That aside, I’m not as concerned about the myriad of questions surrounding the legality of the war in Iraq

Because you can't argue what against the position I asserted.

[BlueSpread]

…so much as astonished that anyone would try to defend it as a legitimate response to the attacks of 9/11. Not only did Dumbya link AQ directly to Saddam (in a very misleading way), he then lied to the American people about them thar “dubya em dees”.

Being wrong is not a lie. If that's the case, Clinton lied. So did Tony Blair and the ENTIRE world's intelligence community did. Clinton, Blair, EVERYONE thought they were there. The war was legitimate on just the basis of what I posted previously. The only President I'm aware of to ever be caught lying, under oath, is Bill Clinton. Did the question matter? No, but does it change the fact that he lied under oath? Something you or I would go to jail for.


But hey, at least he succeeded in carrying out a personal vendetta (Saddam did swing, after all). So what, if it cost the lives of a few soldiers and the odd Iraqi citizen, right? I won’t proclaim that Junior’s war was illegal; but I will shout from the rooftops that it was unjustified, unnecessary, and immoral!

So you just let Saddam continue to attempt to assasinate former Presidents, disregard U.N. regulations, attack legal enforcers of the no-fly zone, and attempt to rebuild his military and acquire WMD in a post-9/11 environment. Thank God you're not in charge.

Please, try some more.

10,000 character limit for the win.

[BlueSpread]

TP,



And I would say, that if more people recognized their respective responsibilities to each other (and that's intended to cover the entire socio/economic spectrum), we wouldn't be in this mess.

That only works if everyone at least attempts some form of personal responsibility. Otherwise it will likely lead to socialism.

[Vested_Interest]

BS,

I’m just a bit pressed for time this morning, but quickly…


Classifying FDR as one of the greatest President's ever is laughable.[…]

…what’s “laughable” is your complete disregard for the many scholarly surveys and polls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents#Ge neral_findings) that have consistently ranked FDR near the top of their lists.

Some excerpts:


General findings
George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists.[…]

Notable scholar surveys [some of the more recent ones, anyway]
…The Siena Research Institute of Siena College conducted surveys in 1982, 1990, 1994, and 2002. The 1994 survey placed only two Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points […]
The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership was a 1999 survey of academic historians (with self-selected responders). It found that historians consider Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt the three best presidents by a wide margin […]
A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at #8. Franklin Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.[…]
Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[6] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three[…] *bracketed commentary VI’s*

And setting aside the considered opinions of many scholars (conservatives and liberals alike), the overwhelming consensus among mainstream Americans is that FDR stands among the best Presidents ever (with none of the article’s polls ranking him lower than fifth).

Clearly, BlueSpread, there’s a disconnect between your assessment of FDR and both the specialized and general consensuses; and I can’t help but wonder if it betrays a deeper disconnect from reality.

Anyhoo, time permitting, I’ll respond in reference to the balance of your mumble jumble later this evening.

Have a nice day.

[BlueSpread]

BS,

I’m just a bit pressed for time this morning, but quickly…



…what’s “laughable” is your complete disregard for the many scholarly surveys and polls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents#Ge neral_findings) that have consistently ranked FDR near the top of their lists.

Some excerpts:



And setting aside the considered opinions of many scholars (conservatives and liberals alike), the overwhelming consensus among mainstream Americans is that FDR stands among the best Presidents ever (with none of the article’s polls ranking him lower than fifth).

Clearly, BlueSpread, there’s a disconnect between your assessment of FDR and both the specialized and general consensuses; and I can’t help but wonder if it betrays a deeper disconnect from reality.

Anyhoo, time permitting, I’ll respond in reference to the balance of your mumble jumble later this evening.

Have a nice day.


I'm glad to think for myself, I don't need scholars and "mainstream America" to do that for me. The vast majority of them seem to have steered themsleves into bankruptcy, joblessness, vice, and away from the Constitution. But you seem to need to find someone else to think for you in regard to the points I made about FDR. Thinking for yourself isn't a Republican/Democart strong suite.

[byebyelloyd]

The point is this: Bush Jr. stands among the worst natural disasters to hit the United States of America, bar none!

If any of you right-leaning r'tards can muster the nerve to refute that claim, you'd better come prepared with statistics, because I've got the numbers to support it.

heres the only one you need dipshit, democratic controlled congress.

[byebyelloyd]

Speaking of dumbfux...



Did you mean to say nobody's arguing that Bush wasn't far from great? Think about it.

In any case, Gore and Kerry, both, were far "better options" than Dumbya; they simply lacked the 'star power' to overcome the GOP's knack for manipulating mindless religious nuts and other low-brow righties ...like yourself.

Hey, how'd that work out for y'all, anyway? I mean, here we are eight years later, and our country's no less vulnerable to terrorist attacks (in fact, in light of our depleted resources and the growing anti-American sentiment worldwide, we're probably in more danger now than ever before); abortion's no less legal; the 'sanctity of marriage' ...no safer; and to top it all off, we're in the midst of the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression.

Are you smelling the coffee yet, Bluefin? Feeling a little used, or maybe a bit betrayed? You should be.

wow, a financial crisis started in 1994, the clinton administration,democrats in control, NAFTA, free trade with china, the base of american manufacturing sold out from under us, no less than 4 MAJOR attacks on us, an administration that refused to share info. on terrorists which led to the single worst attack in history. get your facts straight, clinton was the most harmful president we've had since, hhhhmmmmmmm, oh yeah, the last democrat, carter, so sorry to make you out to be the dipshit you are, but as usual, you left wing hippie pussy socialist buckeye bitches bring it upon yourselves.

[byebyelloyd]

BS (I hope you don’t mind the abbreviation there. :D ),

But without further ado...



First of all, as far as many socially-conscientious people are concerned, the similarities drawn between some of Obama’s plans and those of FDR (one of the greatest Presidents ever) are certainly no cause for feelings of abuse or betrayal. In fact, many are comforted by the comparison, particularly as the reign of Bush (a shoe-in as a leading candidate for the worst President ever) nears its end.

As for the speculation surrounding Obama’s plans for the shuttle replacement program, it has arisen primarily in the wake of due diligence on the part of the incoming Administration. Granted, the transition team’s questionnaire does include a specific request for a cost/savings analysis involving the cancellation of the Ares 1 rocket and the scaling back of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle next year, but it’s still too early to draw any firm conclusions WRT Obama’s intentions there. Furthermore, since such an inquiry should really be expected from the incoming steward of all federal agencies, until Obama acts on the inquiry's findings, such conclusions as your's are not only premature; they're irresponsible. I mean, let's at least wait 'til he's actually done something, before criticizing him for doing it.

Now, since you’ve tied the shuttle speculation to feelings of abuse or betrayal, I suspect that you’re alluding to Obama’s campaign pledge to provide NASA with an additional two billion dollars -- a promise aimed, in part, at narrowing the gap between the shuttle's retirement and the introduction of its successor. If so, it bears mentioning here, that while the bigwigs at NASA are confident that Ares and Orion fit the bill in that regard, Obama was diplomatic enough to endorse neither system by name during his campaign. Therefore, even if the relevant speculation turns out to be true, the charge that Obama betrayed us would only have merit in the absence of his support for a counterproposal to fill the ‘gap-narrowing’ role. Again I say, let's wait and see what turns out to be the case.

As for the notion that Obama is “clueless” on how to proceed on issues not related to global warming (as if the assertion even warrants a serious response), the man has surrounded himself with a knowledgeable and experienced team. And say what you will about the many links to the Clinton Administration, because, after all, the contrast between Clinton and both of the Bush Administrations favors the Democrats by a long shot! Besides, unlike the national embarrassment who currently occupies the Oval Office, Obama’s intelligence is beyond reproach. Where history provides him with no clues as to “how to proceed”, I’m confident that he’s smart enough to proceed cautiously.



And as a socially-conscientious person, I agree with you; if not in principle, certainly where the dirty details on that specific allocation were concerned.

Still, our government’s failures to separate the special interests of pharmaceutical giants from the legitimate needs of many of its citizens should be examined in the interest of doing away with corruption. Then, maybe, $40 billion would actually make a dent in the problem.



Oh, I realize there’s plenty of blame to go around; from Republicans to Democrats, home buyers to Wall Street, from banks to the unapologetic partisanship of Alan Greenspan, ETC. However, it should be noted that the complicity where leading Democrats are concerned (including Clinton, Cf. Gramm’s deregulatory legislation in ‘99/‘00) has been in acquiescence to an undeniably conservative philosophy, namely government deregulation. And when Democratic legislators have signed-off on the always Republican-sponsored, deregulatory bills, they’ve invariably been praised by moderates and conservatives alike for their willingness to “reach across party lines”.

What this country needs right now is a drastic shift to the purist Democratic ideologies that have been shunned for far too long.



What “argument” would that be, BlueSpread?

I made a claim involving the probability of the notion that certain factors, specifically our country’s “depleted resources” (and this encompasses substantial cuts to the budgets of emergency service responders and law enforcement agencies, especially on the state and local levels) and the “growing anti-American sentiment worldwide” (not just among Muslims), lend themselves to greater (not lesser) vulnerability to attack. This doesn’t amount to an “argument”; it’s simply a statement of fact.

That aside, I’m not as concerned about the myriad of questions surrounding the legality of the war in Iraq …so much as astonished that anyone would try to defend it as a legitimate response to the attacks of 9/11. Not only did Dumbya link AQ directly to Saddam (in a very misleading way), he then lied to the American people about them thar “dubya em dees”. But hey, at least he succeeded in carrying out a personal vendetta (Saddam did swing, after all). So what, if it cost the lives of a few soldiers and the odd Iraqi citizen, right? I won’t proclaim that Junior’s war was illegal; but I will shout from the rooftops that it was unjustified, unnecessary, and immoral!

have you been smart enough to talk to any true american troops about the war issue, if you were actually intelligent enough to have done that you would realize the sentiment from people who matter in this situation, you do not, feel very justified in what they are doing. my brothers a marine, so yes i've talked to soldiers about it, and yes, they KNOW for a fact, we are safer because they are doing the job. you left wing hippie socialist bitches should probably stop throwing them under the bus and show a shred of decency on the issue.

[Vested_Interest]

Cont.

BS,

Due to time-constraints (my schedules are killing me, for real), I’ll have to respond in a series of posts. If that’s dissatisfactory to you, just say so …and we can simply end the discussion now.

Regarding FDR…


…Would he even been elected had he been legitimate (i.e. not lied about) his disabillities?[…]

Show me the direct quote(s) in which he “lied” to the American people about his disability.

Look, the issue, as to whether his failure to be forthcoming with the American people about his polio constituted dishonesty …or not, is extremely complicated. Unsurprisingly, opinions vary, usually in accordance with personal biases. In my opinion, which has been formed with the benefit of hindsight, his questionable silence probably served a greater good …for the nation and the world, and was therefore justified.

What’s more, and this much is both certain and uncontroversial: as FDR’s time in office played out, the pool of ignorance WRT his illness became less occupied with each passing day. So, the percentage of people in the know was larger at the time of each re-election than it had been during all of his previous bids. If this knowledge had a negative impact on the growing number of voters who were privy to it, it certainly didn’t show in the results of any of the later elections.


…He personally led us into World War 2 when the country wasn't against it, using beligerent programs like lend/lease. Sound familiar to anyone? I for one am not comforted by the similarity to the guy who single handedly invented American debt and led our country to a war when he realized it didn't work. Hey, we needed to be in WW2, but to suggest that FDR didn't lie, cheat, and steal our way into it is rediculous. FDR was a flat out liar in every sense of the way[…]

Again, show me the “lies”, BS. Specifically, how did he “cheat”; what did he “steal”; and in what way(s) are those actions responsible for America’s involvement in a war ...in which, according to you, “we needed to be” involved anyway?!

If anything, FDR should be criticized for not acting sooner and more decisively than he did, not only in terms of providing equipment to the good guys on the other side of the pond, but also in preparing our own troops for their inevitable inclusion on the battlefronts.

Having said that, however disingenuous it seems to you, Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the Allies’ eventual victory. Bear in mind, that following the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Axis Declarations of War (in late ‘41), recruiting, training, equipping and transporting U.S. troops to the war zones were daunting and time-consuming tasks. Through all of ‘42 and a substantial chunk of ‘43, the other Allies continued to bear the brunt of Hitler’s fury on the frontlines. The added military equipment and supplies provided under Lend-Lease were integral to their success and promoted far more favorable circumstances on the ground (than what might’ve otherwise been the case) for the late-arriving American boots. In short, Lend-Lease was a good move on the part of the U.S. President, in that it ultimately benefited American soldiers.

More later…

[Vested_Interest]

BS,

I’d written:


…until Obama acts on the inquiry's findings, such conclusions as your's are not only premature; they're irresponsible. I mean, let's at least wait 'til he's actually done something, before criticizing him for doing it.

You respond:


Irresponsible? In what way? Asking NASA what it would cost to build a vehicle to put on top of French and Russian rockets is a pretty leading question and lends itself well to interpretation in any number of ways. […]

True, but your interpretation (that Obama “plans to scrap the shuttle replacement”) was offered as grounds for feelings of betrayal. Furthermore, the claim was misleadingly presented as a matter of fact, as it makes no allowance for the very real prospect that Obama “plans” to do no such thing. In those ways …the conclusion in question is quintessentially "irresponsible".


…This is nowhere near as irresponsible as claiming Bush is bought and paid for by the Oil Industry/Saudi's/<insert left wing propaganda here> and exponentially less damning.

Actually, at least in one sense, it may be worse. I mean, as far as I know, Bush never explicitly ‘pledged’ that he wouldn’t whore himself out to Big Oil; so any charges of that sort of prostitution wouldn’t necessarily entail that he’s a liar to boot. Obama, on the other hand, did pledge additional funds to NASA, in part, for the expressed purpose of “narrowing the gap between the shuttle’s retirement and the introduction of its successor”; so the unqualified charge, that he now “plans to scrap the shuttle replacement” (entirely?), would imply that he’s a boldfaced liar!


…I was alluding to the abuse and betrayal those who voted for him should be feeling, not mine. I certianly didn't vote for him so he can't betray me.[…]

And I've shown that your allusion is partially based on a premature and downright irresponsible conclusion. *grins*

Gotta hit the sack.

[The Michigan Man]

If there was no link between terrorism and Hussein, what was Al Zarqowi doing receiving treatment in a Baghdad hospital at the time of the US invasion in 2003? How come Iraqi funds were traced to the families of Hamas suicide bombers? What exactly happened to the Kurds in the late 1980s that made them shrivel up like dead cockroaches that were sprayed with D-Con? Those with sympathy for the toppling of the Hussein regime are warped...

[amazinblue]

Great thread - I haven't read it all, but I will.

I'm not a Dubya supporter - but, I'm not a Democratic supporter either. The challenge has always been - "run to your base in the primary and to the center for the general election." Karl Rove and the Republicans did an amazing job of getting out the vote - so did Obama.

(For the record, I was a McCain supporter in 2000, and remain a McCain fan to this day.)

The one thing that has happened with the Bush administration, is that the terrorists have been engaged on THEIR soil since 9/11, not ours. And, I do believe that it's imperitive to disrupt these organizations, since - as we just saw in Mumbai, the results can be terrible and it doesn't take many to really cause a visible disruption.

For those of you who enjoy reading, see if you can find a book called "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy" by Bruce Bartlett. It touches on many points, but the key point to me is this - Republicans were traditionally fiscally conservative and advocates of smaller government with citizens being more accountable and responsible for their actions. The biggest departure Dubya had was his unwillingness to use the power of the veto, and an inability to reel in Congressional leadership - which was Republican - and their fiscally irresponsible habits.

For instance, one thing that I wished had been done in the election was that a list would have been published of every Congressman who added an earmark to the bailout for the Financial Markets. I don't believe that anyone with the audacity to do such a thing should be a federal representative.

And, though I support our troops in every endeavor, I do believe Bush / Cheney also missed a major opportunity to develop a worldwide coalition against terrorismwhen they decided to invade Iraq. I'd have no problem with the US spending $100 B a year to hunt down Osama Bin Laden, but the money spent on Iraq was misprioritized - as was, IMO, this effort. IF they would have developed a worldwide coalition, then gotten OBL - THEN they could have gone after other leaders who support, harbor, and foster terrorism. This was a case of the cart before the horse - and truly, an opportunity was lost to root out terrorism on a worldwide level.

And, for those of you who wonder whether such an effort would have been successful, just ask Muammar Khaddafi what it felt like to have some stealthy strikes by the US Armed Forces aimed at his presidential palaces / residences. I think that Reagan gets the credit for that.

[Vested_Interest]

BS,

Regarding Obama…


…Your retort proves my point, thanks. He illustrates his cluelessness by appointing the same obtuse buffoons that led us to these circumstances. He promised us "change we could believe in." Clinton was as moderate to right wing Democrat at best. To claim that an amazing contrast on anything but social issues between Clinton and Bush shows an amazing ability to stuff one's head into the sand.[…]

HA! To deny the stark contrast between Clinton and Bush where the economy, government spending, and fiscal responsibility are concerned, would be to demonstrate one’s ignorance or a penchant for lying.

Clinton took an ailing economy, a soaring unemployment rate (7.4%), and massive budget deficits from Bush Sr., and handed a healthy economy, the lowest jobless rate in thirty years (3.9%), and three years worth of budget surpluses to Bush Jr. (whose record hardly bears mentioning).


…Obama's intellect as "beyond reproach" is likely the only reasonable argument you've made thus far. But to suggest Bush isn't equally as intelligent is a falsehood, I'm sure neither of us are Yale material so it's quite ignorant for either of us to argue against the man's intelligence.

Please.

George Jr. rode into Yale on daddy’s coattails. Unfortunately for Dumbya though, his family name wasn’t quite sufficient to overcome his poor performance there, to which The University of Texas School of Law (where the post-graduate Bush applied, but wasn't accepted, in 1970) can attest. Apparently, the standards for acceptance at UT’s Law School were a little tougher than those for general admission to Yale. Either that, or at least as far as the Ivy League is concerned, there might be some truth in the trusty ol’ adage that it’s not always what ya’ know; sometimes it’s who your dad knows.

Granted, most people have to gain acceptance to the more prestigious schools the hard way -- on the wings of their own academic merit (case in point: Obama, who graduated Magna CumLaude from Harvard Law, without the benefit of any family connections), but then, the Bush Family didn't (and still doesn't) fall under the auspices of "most people".

But putting aside Bush Jr.'s dubious academic record, his many personal and business failings prior to entering into politics (again on daddy’s coattails) have been well-documented. If not for his family name, the man would've never even been considered for a position of authority ...at a burger joint.

Gotta run.

[TNTWolverine]

I like how you put that amazinblue... nice post

[byebyelloyd]

BS,

Regarding Obama…



HA! To deny the stark contrast between Clinton and Bush where the economy, government spending, and fiscal responsibility are concerned, would be to demonstrate one’s ignorance or a penchant for lying.

Clinton took an ailing economy, a soaring unemployment rate (7.4%), and massive budget deficits from Bush Sr., and handed a healthy economy, the lowest jobless rate in thirty years (3.9%), and three years worth of budget surpluses to Bush Jr. (whose record hardly bears mentioning).



Please.

George Jr. rode into Yale on daddy’s coattails. Unfortunately for Dumbya though, his family name wasn’t quite sufficient to overcome his poor performance there, to which The University of Texas School of Law (where the post-graduate Bush applied, but wasn't accepted, in 1970) can attest. Apparently, the standards for acceptance at UT’s Law School were a little tougher than those for general admission to Yale. Either that, or at least as far as the Ivy League is concerned, there might be some truth in the trusty ol’ adage that it’s not always what ya’ know; sometimes it’s who your dad knows.

Granted, most people have to gain acceptance to the more prestigious schools the hard way -- on the wings of their own academic merit (case in point: Obama, who graduated Magna CumLaude from Harvard Law, without the benefit of any family connections), but then, the Bush Family didn't (and still doesn't) fall under the auspices of "most people".

But putting aside Bush Jr.'s dubious academic record, his many personal and business failings prior to entering into politics (again on daddy’s coattails) have been well-documented. If not for his family name, the man would've never even been considered for a position of authority ...at a burger joint.

Gotta run.

yeah great post, conveniently leaving out the fact that obamas race and race alone got him into harvard, nothing more nothing less, you know the saying, call a spade a spade, literally.

[Vested_Interest]

BS,

Regarding Obama’s “character”…


As for national embarassments, we've elected one. Based on charisma and celebrity. That's not a fault on Obama, it's a fault on us. He is what he is. Whe fell for it, shame on us. No substance. No character. […]

You know, all things considered, Obama’s “character” should really be the last thing called into question. I mean, here’s a man who’s been overcoming obstacles and flying in the faces of stigmas and stereotypes for all of his life, only to land in the chair behind the desk of what is arguably the most powerful Office in the world. And unlike some of that Office’s previous occupants, it was the sheer strength of character that was fed by a stainless steel spoon (not a silver one) that put him there.

And BTW, the GOP’s strategy, to capitalize on Obama’s nefarious associations (how dare he attend a predominately black church and maintain a polite relationship with a co-worker?!), improperly attaching the radicalism of Wright (the anti-American Preacher) and Ayers (the domestic TERRORIST of the sixties) to this black man (whose name even rhymes with “Osama”!), only underscores the sort of character-building challenges faced by Barack Hussein Obama throughout his life.


…what has Obama done? Not even a full term as a U.S. senator. What he do there? Some state legislative experience. Tried some reform language and we just see how well that worked out, don't we? Absolutely no executive experience whatsoever.[…]

The funny thing about “experience” is that it can be a double-edged sword. Just ask McCain, whose more recent experience (as an avid supporter of many of the Bush Administration’s failed policies at home and abroad) essentially marked him as part of the problem …at least in the eyes of many voters.

Following eight years worth of conservative philosophies in action, the effects of which are now in full bloom for everyone to see, Washington is in dire need of a breath of fresh air and a hard shift in direction, and Obama was clearly the best option on the ballot to bring those to fruition, partially because of his lack of experience with the status quo in DC.

[amazinblue]

The funny thing about “experience” is that it can be a double-edged sword. Just ask McCain, whose more recent experience (as an avid supporter of many of the Bush Administration’s failed policies at home and abroad) essentially marked him as part of the problem …at least in the eyes of many voters.

Following eight years worth of conservative philosophies in action, the effects of which are now in full bloom for everyone to see, Washington is in dire need of a breath of fresh air and a hard shift in direction, and Obama was clearly the best option on the ballot to bring those to fruition, partially because of his lack of experience with the status quo in DC.


I like this thread, I think too often people are focused on being politically correct in all they say and the opportunity or forums for direct, candid, and agumentative debate are few and far between.

I live in Illinois, and my political thinking is much more centrist than to either the left or right. I'm a believer in responsibility - individual accountability for one's actions. And, though I'm a strong believer in being fiscally responsible (or conservative), I also believe in being socially responsible. A country as great and strong as ours should be committed to assisting those who have difficulty - and, by this, I don't mean welfare for life for those who are able to work.

Living in Illinois, I have to tell you that I didn't hear anything serious about Barack Obama until he won the Democratic senatorial primary in 2004. And, he probably won that because of split factions in the primary. His senate campaign was essentially unopposed because the Republican candidate (who won the primary) removed his name from the ballot because of some very stupid (you could call them salacious) things he did earlier in his life. Alan Keyes took up residency in Illinois, ran against Obama, and lost. And, though I greatly respect Alan Keyes oratorical skills, he's about as hard and far right as one can go.

Through the campaign, I was very concerned about one major thing - Obama's ability to work across the aisle and develop bi-partisan legislation that actually passed through Congress. Honestly, I still don't think he has the ability to do that, but Rahm Emmanuel will be his pit bull - and if Rahm's able to get Pelosi and Reid aligned with Obama's thinking and strategy, then the administration can be productive and effective. I have been relatively impressed with Obama's nominees for Cabinet positions thus far.

Following eight years worth of conservative philosophies in action, the effects of which are now in full bloom for everyone to see.

Vest, this is one thing that you've said that I disagree with strongly. Simply because I don't believe what we've seen over the last eight years has been conservative philosophies. I'll be the first to say that I was not (and have not been) impressed in the least with Dubya. He has lacked the resiliency and strength to impress upon Republican leaders in Congress the need for fiscal discipline in any way. Budget deficits are ok with me, irresponsible spending (and earmarking) is not. Bush's failure to veto legislation that was laden with additional spending to support specific congressional districts was essentially a failure to rule and exhibit his authority. So, though the administration's performance over the last eight years has been abominable - I do not believe those were "conservative philosophies." For the record, I have been a "fan" of McCain's for a very long time. I supported him in 2000, and I support him today.

Any Republican candidate running for office this past November had an albatross around their neck. It doesn't matter WHO the Republican candidate was (or would have been) - the election of a Republican candidate for President would have been nearly impossible. I have a great deal of empathy for McCain, primarily because of the 2000 campaign - his service to our country, and the fact that our political process has become far too dependent on money. If Dubya wouldn't have raised $80 M before the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, I doubt he would have won the nomination. Money talks - and money has corrupted our political system.

One thing I do give credit to Bush for is (finally) taking a stance on providing loan guarantees to GM and Chrysler. Congress quickly provided substantial assistance to the financial markets to the tune of $700+ billion, and they were reluctant (to say the least) - to provide 5% of that to what could be argued is our only remaining manufacturing industry in the country.

The other "problem" that I have with the federal assistance to the financial sector is this - the government has given financial institutions $700+ billion - and what are these institutions doing with it? Nothing. The root cause of the auto industry's problem, IMO, is lack of credit. Lenders, financial institutions, are hoarding the money they received, and as a result, people cannot get loans to purchase vehicles they would like. Home mortgage rates have dropped significantly, but what about the ability to get an auto loan?

We could certainly discuss or debate whether the US auto manufacturers product strategy and portfolio mix was "right". But, in fairness to them, Americans wanted SUV's and larger vehicles, and the US auto manufacturers (and foreign manufacturers as well) made them to satisfy the demands in the marketplace. When fuel reached $4 / gallon, a different problem arose. I wonder, if gasoline stays below $2 / gallon, will the interest in these larger vehicles increase or possibly return to prior levels? Probably not return to those levels, but - I do believe they will get close to them. Having energy alternative products - hybrids, etc. - will be an important part of the strategy. And, I believe that the US auto makers will get there. What the US auto companies really need is for the financial markets, really the credit market, to ease up a bit - stop holding onto the money the government gave them, and start lending it to people to purchase these vehicles.

[Mich97c]

Amazinblue for President 2012! Good stuff.

[byebyelloyd]

BS,

Regarding Obama’s “character”…



You know, all things considered, Obama’s “character” should really be the last thing called into question. I mean, here’s a man who’s been overcoming obstacles and flying in the faces of stigmas and stereotypes for all of his life, only to land in the chair behind the desk of what is arguably the most powerful Office in the world. And unlike some of that Office’s previous occupants, it was the sheer strength of character that was fed by a stainless steel spoon (not a silver one) that put him there.

And BTW, the GOP’s strategy, to capitalize on Obama’s nefarious associations (how dare he attend a predominately black church and maintain a polite relationship with a co-worker?!), improperly attaching the radicalism of Wright (the anti-American Preacher) and Ayers (the domestic TERRORIST of the sixties) to this black man (whose name even rhymes with “Osama”!), only underscores the sort of character-building challenges faced by Barack Hussein Obama throughout his life.



The funny thing about “experience” is that it can be a double-edged sword. Just ask McCain, whose more recent experience (as an avid supporter of many of the Bush Administration’s failed policies at home and abroad) essentially marked him as part of the problem …at least in the eyes of many voters.

Following eight years worth of conservative philosophies in action, the effects of which are now in full bloom for everyone to see, Washington is in dire need of a breath of fresh air and a hard shift in direction, and Obama was clearly the best option on the ballot to bring those to fruition, partially because of his lack of experience with the status quo in DC.

just, if at all possible, revisit this post in 4 years when he runs a bleeding economy deeper and gets slaughtered in the general election.

[TNTWolverine]

The site will have been hacked too many times by then. You should archive it.

[StevieBrownforHeisman]

i'm no republican supporter but...

its just like a democrat to bitch about bush on the internet and pretend he's actually doing something to change the political landscape in general.

*pat* *pat*

how cute. :D

[StevieBrownforHeisman]

also, just by the by, you say great things about clinton while forgetting that he was largely responsible for both America's involvement in the WTO AND NAFTA, which have really hit the lower-middle class where it hurts; just ask the auto industry (who by the way blindly supports democrats because socialism USED to benefit union workers)

Bush was a horrible president; but even if he was good you would say how much he sucked just because he was republican. in the same sense, democrats will say it was Bush's fault if Obama fails; while republicans will say it was because he was incapable and incompitent. kind of reminds you of the Bush situation, no?

Finally, if you think Obama is going to have to deal with terrorist attacks of the magnitude of 9/11; auto and financial industry crisis; and several severe natural disasters, you're insane.

i think that all people who support any candidate so faithfully are just tools who can't think for themselves and watch too much John Stewart.

personally i am starting to consider myself a conservative because of what i think about the governments fiscal responsibilities. Obama is going to spend money he doesnt have, just like Bush did. Both parties have their own agenda for expanding government and to be honest its fucking sad.