|
|
Post by Mink on Feb 3, 2009 0:16:19 GMT -5
The mere fact that the Bush administration failed the country in many ways is reflected in losing the White House & Congress, period. Bush left the country in a recession, high deficit, two wars that cost the country in many ways, unemployment almost in double digits....etc, all long before leaving office. Mink, Bush was not on the ballot - John McCain was. McCain lost beacuse he ran an inept campaign and because the house of cards called the subprime mortgage market, which had been propped up by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al, for years, came tumbling down just 2 months before the election. you could almost hear the Dems rubbing their hands in glee. To be replaced with, what? A new, more corrupt administration? How else would you explain Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, Tom Daschele,....... Rush Limbaugh has admitted his drug use, ended it, and sought treatment. You would give more consideration to that if he were on Air America, rather than the EIB. How else would you explain your party's continued support of Ted Kennedy? Kennedy's car has killed more people than my rifle. Isn't it interesting that, when the same tactics are turned on you that you have been dishing up for the past eight years, you are offended? The Republicans are doing what the opposition party is supposed to do: they are opposing the failed policies of the majority party. The spending splurge that the Democrats are trying to hustle into law before anyone has a chance to really look at it has been proven in the past to not result in the turnaround that they would like you to believe it will. Republicans are offering more tax cuts, which always work to revive the economy. The class warriors, of course, are up in arms about that. Would that include you? Wrong again, grasshopper. Rush is a spokesman. He would like to be a leader, but, instead, he is an influential voice in the Republican Party. Speaking of fat pundits, did you catch Keith Olbermann on the sidelines at the Super Bowl? Keith, buddy, either drop 30 pounds or stop trying to button up your jacket! I expected the above responses from you. The Republicans lost their majority in Congress in 2006 and as Bush's term ended, he was very close to being the most unpopular president in history with the highest deficit, high unemployment, two wars leaving the country broke with a mess on our hands, corrupt leaders hiding from justice and a country that welcomed change. Rush on the other hand is the leader of the Republican party, encouraging GOP members not to cooperate with Obama who has to fix what Bush broke. Does he actually think that they could possibly gain anything from failure.....I mean anymore failure? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 3, 2009 0:45:14 GMT -5
your links, please?
While the president of the United States is never completely on vacation, most commanders-in-chief manage to enjoy a respite from the daily grind during their stay the White House.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Feb 3, 2009 0:58:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Feb 3, 2009 1:15:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Feb 3, 2009 1:17:48 GMT -5
Excuse me for veering off topic.......
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 3, 2009 13:15:41 GMT -5
It does not exist. I read an article in a Philippine News paper about the very warnings that Mink is speaking of. Guess what, they were general warnings about a general method of attack. They had no dates or specifics on the plan. But, does that matter to them? No. Even though the very country that provided us the general intelligence says themselves they did not provide enough details to prevent 9/11, Mink will continue to roll it out because she correctly believes that most Americans are ignorant of the truth. I was fortunate to be in the Philippines just before the election, so this very issue was circulating in the papers. To bad it refuted Minks claims. The evidence, from the Phillipines and other countries, came in plans and threats, not exact dates. Because they didn't have the date or flight numbers of the planes didn't mean the US didn't have enough warning! You don't know what you're talking about. Would you like to place a bit of money on that? Yes, they knew of the threats, but they did not uncover specific plans. You are beefing up the truth to fit your needs. Like I said, this was a major topic while I was in the Philippines, nothing you have said jives exactly with what their Government has said. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 3, 2009 13:41:27 GMT -5
Well, since I watched the entire interview in full, I can honestly say you are mischaracterizing the entire conversation. What Rush said is that if the Bush tax cuts were left in place, he would consider that a success. But, he hopes the liberal policies of Obama fails, because that too would be a success for America. Rush laid out specifics, you did not. In fact, all you did was post a video and some insults. Is that what you call a valid debate? Insult someone and post a video? Not true. Bush's tax cuts did not help America get out of an economic crisis. In fact, it made the crisis worse. The Republicans had a chance to prove that their policies work and they failed by almost every measure. Even Bush resorted to Socialism (buying up banks) because it was what America needed at the time. Rush doesn't care what is actually best for America. He simply wants to see the policies he believes in succeed and everyone else's policies fail. That is the definition of a pigheaded person. Perhaps in the future the Republicans can pull their heads out of their asses long enough to get one of their own elected, but that will be a long, long time from now. Let me give you a little lesson in economics, since you obviously did not pay attention during class. Economics is based on the money in peoples pockets, money they are able to spend. That is the driving force behind the economic engine, not the government. Since this is the indisputable truth, then it follows a logical and scientific path. Though the science of economics is not as straight forward as other sciences, it is a science none the less. I personally lose more then $4,000 a year from my paycheck. That is money I can not spend to stimulate the economy every year. I can not buy tires from my local dealer, taking money out of his pocket, in addition to the taxes that come out of his pocket. Do you understand that part of the equation? Basically, you have a supply of money that is set by the government. That money can be used in investments, purchases and savings, all of which puts money into our economy. Investments put the money into circulation to help companies grow. Purchase put money into circulation to help you and the person you purchased from by putting products in your home while enriching the seller. Savings put money into circulation by allowing the bank to have assets to loan money against. All of these things drive our economy. Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes and Medicare Taxes damage our economy. As do any social program that is run by a federal agency in which money is drawn straight from a persons check. All of that money is immediately removed from circulation, which slows the economy down. You now have a smaller pool of funds available for the economy to rely on, which gives you the results of a slower economy. In every instance of history in this nation, the fastest recoveries have occurred when we took one primary action, cut federal expenses. There are no exceptions to that rule, now, in the past or in the future. The other action could only be implemented after 1913, and that was a cut in payroll taxes. Both of these have happened in this nation prior to 1929 and both were successful. The opposite was tried. In fact, some foolish people still believe in that course of action, in spite of the evidence. The depression lasted until 1941 for this country, then WWII distorted employment figures because of the draft which put 16 million people to work executing the war. Those are false employment numbers because they were for a specific purpose which skewed the numbers, the true test of the economy was after the war. In spite of the war, FDR had unemployment figures as high as 19.8% in 1938 and 1939, evidence his course of action was not the right one. Those figures are always hidden when his presidency is discussed, with people jumping to 1940, when we were gearing up to enter the war. It was not until FDR passed away and Harry S Truman took office that the tax rate was lowered and expenses were cut. Harry S Truman was also more friendly to business, as FDR came up with some crazy schemes to punish business, since his lack of understanding of economics had him blaming business men for the economy. He even went as far as attempting to tax undistributed profits, which shows his lack of understanding not only of economics, but business as well. Thank God Harry S Truman was much wiser then FDR. Nope, tax cuts and cuts in Federal expenditures have always saved this nation. Only a person who is not versed in economics would believe otherwise. And I guess that means you. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 3, 2009 13:43:42 GMT -5
The evidence, from the Phillipines and other countries, came in plans and threats, not exact dates. Because they didn't have the date or flight numbers of the planes didn't mean the US didn't have enough warning! You don't know what you're talking about.
You don't have to dig up any Fillipino news - it's right there in the 9/11 Commission's report. You have a copy of that, don't you? The Commission said that the report was too vague and lacking in any specifics to take action on. Did you read that part? You have earned an assist on that goal. ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 3, 2009 13:45:20 GMT -5
You don't have to dig up any Fillipino news - it's right there in the 9/11 Commission's report. You have a copy of that, don't you? The Commission said that the report was too vague and lacking in any specifics to take action on. Did you read that part? Yes, however vague, it was still a very real threat that could have been avoided. Besides, I've already dug it up months ago and it's here somewhere on the forum. No precautions were taken and Bush was the most vacationing president prior to the horrific act. That may be your assessment, but people way smarter then you and I have come to a different conclusion. Deal with it and stop the propaganda peddling that makes you look unintelligent. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 3, 2009 13:47:17 GMT -5
Mink, Bush was not on the ballot - John McCain was. McCain lost beacuse he ran an inept campaign and because the house of cards called the subprime mortgage market, which had been propped up by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al, for years, came tumbling down just 2 months before the election. you could almost hear the Dems rubbing their hands in glee. To be replaced with, what? A new, more corrupt administration? How else would you explain Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, Tom Daschele,....... Rush Limbaugh has admitted his drug use, ended it, and sought treatment. You would give more consideration to that if he were on Air America, rather than the EIB. How else would you explain your party's continued support of Ted Kennedy? Kennedy's car has killed more people than my rifle. Isn't it interesting that, when the same tactics are turned on you that you have been dishing up for the past eight years, you are offended? The Republicans are doing what the opposition party is supposed to do: they are opposing the failed policies of the majority party. The spending splurge that the Democrats are trying to hustle into law before anyone has a chance to really look at it has been proven in the past to not result in the turnaround that they would like you to believe it will. Republicans are offering more tax cuts, which always work to revive the economy. The class warriors, of course, are up in arms about that. Would that include you? Wrong again, grasshopper. Rush is a spokesman. He would like to be a leader, but, instead, he is an influential voice in the Republican Party. Speaking of fat pundits, did you catch Keith Olbermann on the sidelines at the Super Bowl? Keith, buddy, either drop 30 pounds or stop trying to button up your jacket! I expected the above responses from you. The Republicans lost their majority in Congress in 2006 and as Bush's term ended, he was very close to being the most unpopular president in history with the highest deficit, high unemployment, two wars leaving the country broke with a mess on our hands, corrupt leaders hiding from justice and a country that welcomed change. Rush on the other hand is the leader of the Republican party, encouraging GOP members not to cooperate with Obama who has to fix what Bush broke. Does he actually think that they could possibly gain anything from failure.....I mean anymore failure? I have warned you about making this assertion. The Democrat controlled congress of that time was the most unpopular in the history of this nation, until 2008, when it earned a 10% or less approval rating. The lowest ever. |
|
|
|
Post by barneyfife on Feb 3, 2009 14:11:02 GMT -5
Not true. Bush's tax cuts did not help America get out of an economic crisis. In fact, it made the crisis worse. The Republicans had a chance to prove that their policies work and they failed by almost every measure. Even Bush resorted to Socialism (buying up banks) because it was what America needed at the time. Rush doesn't care what is actually best for America. He simply wants to see the policies he believes in succeed and everyone else's policies fail. That is the definition of a pigheaded person. Perhaps in the future the Republicans can pull their heads out of their asses long enough to get one of their own elected, but that will be a long, long time from now. So does America "OWN" these banks of which you speak..can you show me a link to GOVERNMENT OWNED BANKS? Or are you exaggerating (read as LYING) and they merely bought some NON-VOTING SHARES OF STOCK...in said banks....same shares you or I could easily purchase? Except we can purchase voting shares too.... Typical lefty lies |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Feb 3, 2009 15:57:20 GMT -5
I expected the above responses from you. I'm always glad when I live up to peoples' expectations.Exceeded only by the low approval ratings for the Democrat Congress.Shame on you, Mink. How many times have you been told that only Congress can spend money?Lemme see: Six and one half years of record low unemployment, followed by a surge in the last year in office. Yeah, I guess a partisan liberal could make that into a trend.Have you noticed recently how reluctant President Obama is to live up to his campaign promises to end the war now? I guess a dose of reality has affected his views. Not yours, though.Would that be William Jefferson (D-La)? Or, Charlie Rangel? Or Chris "Friend of Angelo" Dodd? Or? Or?See my post in the Politics section about "Explaining The Election", then come back here and tell me what you think.Wishing won't make it so. In fact, the Republican Party just had an election - where no recount shenanigans were needed! - and Michael Steele got elected to be the leader.Your homework assignment is to compare and contrast this with what MoveOn and DailyKos did for the past eight years.Speaking of failure, have you looked at the history of big government spending increases in the 20th Century? Which one(s) do you deem successful? |
|
