NationStates Jolt Archive

Today is Election Day, and after a rediculously long and grueling campaign, we will find out who the next President-Elect will be.
However, before we do, I think I would like to take a moment to thank our good friend and Commander in Chief, President George W. Bush, for his 8 years of dedication and leadership.

Thank you Mr President, for having not the American People interests at heart, but rather, a small group of wealthy individuals whom you've made exhorbitantly richer.

Thank you also, for bringing the nation to the brink of financial ruin, by continuing bad economic policies that have failed ultimately since Reagan initiated them.

Thank you for waging a war, no wait, make that two wars, that you didnt finish, and mishandled to the point of insanity, making you look like the worst wartime President in American History.

Thank you for believing that those who think as you do, and believe in your God, are the only "true" Americans there are. Thats super!

Thank you for showing the world and especially your own country, that you believe yourself to be not only above the Law, and the very Constitution you swore an Oath to uphold, but beyond reason and good judgement in your poor decison making resolve.

Thank your for illegally wire tapping innocent citizens, as though you will never have to answer to them.

Thank you for making the rest of the world hate us.

Thank you for appointing Cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices who make critical decisons that affect millions, based not on actual qualifications, but rather, based solely upon thier loyalty to you, and your failed policies.

Thank you for stealing the election that gave you the job, and possibly even the one that let you keep it.

Thank you for spitting in the face of good, decent people that disagreed with you, and portaying them as "Un-American", thereby dividing the nation in half for 8 years.

But most of all...

Thank you for angering so many people, for so long, that today, will mark a historic election that may have the future of our nation hanging in the balance.
Yes, Mr Bush, thank you for being the biggest contributing factor in handing this election to the hands of Barack Obama.

May he, and all of us, learn from your countless mistakes.

Good riddance to crappy Presidents.

The sad part is, Bush has driven us so far into the hole that even Obama may not be able to get us out in time.:(

Do you expect him to read this? Or who are you writing to?

Anyways, I don't want to hijack, so I'll just quickly flag my disagreement with the whole "failed economic policies" thing. Bush had little if anything to do with the financial crisis, and though it is of course politically expedient for the Obama campaign to link the two (I don't blame them), once the election is over I think a case can be made for enlightening the population about the truth of the matter.

The rest of the post I agree with.

I'm beginning to think that you don't like Bush.

Good riddance to crappy Presidents.

The sad part is, Bush has driven us so far into the hole that even Obama may not be able to get us out in time.:(

Obama's first four years, if he has a second four, will probably consist of major repair work on the domestic front. There's a lot of stuff to fix.

Meh, I got some laughs out of Bush and his inability to English.

Do you expect him to read this? Or who are you writing to?

Anyways, I don't want to hijack, so I'll just quickly flag my disagreement with the whole "failed economic policies" thing. Bush had little if anything to do with the financial crisis, and though it is of course politically expedient for the Obama campaign to link the two (I don't blame them), once the election is over I think a case can be made for enlightening the population about the truth of the matter.

The rest of the post I agree with.

How about Bush': 'Lower taxes, Spent MORE Money', economic policy ?

Oh, and Georgieboy, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Hurrah!

Honestly, I think all you seppos are just playing scapegoat with him.

What would have you done if he had have just sat by idly after 9/11? Did you not want justice for your friends/family/nationals?

Plus, the world hated America way before Bush. The main reason the world hates America is because you are rich! You are successful! Through good economic policies, your leaders over the past 50 years have crafted you into the most powerful nation. Considering you are only a few hundred years old, and only have a population a 6th of the size of China or India, that is a very good effort!

Sure, you could pick apart some of his policies, but what do you think you would have been saying today, if the person who was in Bush's place had taken you from being a global leader in basically everything, to a post cold war Russia?

I totally disagree, but will never be able to bring you into step.

Meh, I got some laughs out of Bush and his inability to English.

Lol.
Must be irony :P
good show.


Good riddance to Bush, may he rott in pieces

Honestly, I think all you seppos are just playing scapegoat with him.

What would have you done if he had have just sat by idly after 9/11? Did you not want justice for your friends/family/nationals?

Plus, the world hated America way before Bush. The main reason the world hates America is because you are rich! You are successful! Through good economic policies, your leaders over the past 50 years have crafted you into the most powerful nation. Considering you are only a few hundred years old, and only have a population a 6th of the size of China or India, that is a very good effort!

Sure, you could pick apart some of his policies, but what do you think you would have been saying today, if the person who was in Bush's place had taken you from being a global leader in basically everything, to a post cold war Russia?

Contrary to your belief, a huge part of the world had nothing against the US under the Clinton administration. Look at the polls and compare. The world doesnt hate the US because it is rich, but because the leadership has proven itself arrogant.

I believe the Afghan war was justified and I think many agree with that. The rest of Bush's reign has been a series of lies, disasters and utter failures.

Could you explain what you mean by your very last sentence, about the post cold-war statement. Dont understand what you mean

Honestly, I think all you seppos are just playing scapegoat with him.

What would have you done if he had have just sat by idly after 9/11? Did you not want justice for your friends/family/nationals?

Plus, the world hated America way before Bush. The main reason the world hates America is because you are rich! You are successful! Through good economic policies, your leaders over the past 50 years have crafted you into the most powerful nation. Considering you are only a few hundred years old, and only have a population a 6th of the size of China or India, that is a very good effort!

Sure, you could pick apart some of his policies, but what do you think you would have been saying today, if the person who was in Bush's place had taken you from being a global leader in basically everything, to a post cold war Russia?

One would like to hope that, had Gore rightfully won in 2000, there would have been an effort to capture Osama and co. and bring them to justice, without needlessly going to war with Iraq. Moreover, one would also like to think that, had Kerry won in 2004, he would have ended the war in Iraq as quickly as possible, and gone after Osama - the real bad guy. Remember, Kerry actually served in the military, Bush ran away.

Honestly, I think all you seppos are just playing scapegoat with him.

What would have you done if he had have just sat by idly after 9/11? Did you not want justice for your friends/family/nationals?Hence support for Afghanistan and lack thereof for Iraq.
Plus, the world hated America way before Bush. The main reason the world hates America is because you are rich! You are successful! Through good economic policies, your leaders over the past 50 years have crafted you into the most powerful nation. Considering you are only a few hundred years old, and only have a population a 6th of the size of China or India, that is a very good effort!Not as much. He managed to alienate allies all over the world.
Sure, you could pick apart some of his policies, but what do you think you would have been saying today, if the person who was in Bush's place had taken you from being a global leader in basically everything, to a post cold war Russia?What would people be saying if Hitler had died the day of the Austrian Anschluss? Why would it matter?

Good Bye Bush...

So Long And Thanks For All The Fish :p

Speaking as an outsider, the goodwill towards America after 9/11 was widespread. Had Bush chosen more wisely the world would possibly have followed him. But, he cocked up his response totally.

Somebody should shoot Bush on his way out
And Cheny too

I'm pretty sure advocating illegal activities is a rules violation on this forum, Zainzibar.

Oh, and Georgieboy, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You mean he learned how to open doors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXmOJRiPdUs)!?

I'd gladly sign my name! For now, I'll just "Sign" as Sans Amour!

Anyhow, I won't be missin' ya Dubya! Just do me a favor... Please keep Cheney with you. We're fine without him in Wyoming! ^^v

Except he'll still be president for 2 months after today.

Do I detect a the slightest sliver of passive-aggressive anger?

Do I detect a the slightest sliver of passive-aggressive anger?
Passive?

Sounds pretty straightforward and open to me -- not passive-aggressive. Just like my anger. Bush and Cheney can both go fuck themselves. I can't wait to see the backs of those bastards.

Passive?

Sounds pretty straightforward and open to me -- not passive-aggressive. Just like my anger. Bush and Cheney can both go fuck themselves. I can't wait to see the backs of those bastards.

Ive come to the conclusion that Bush was a plant. He was kidnapped as a child from his home and brainwashed, taught to respond in a certian manner to a series of code words ala Manchurian Candidate. It was sponsered and carried out by the Democratic party.

Their goal was to get him into office under the most unfavorable conditions (they orchestrated the whole Florida fiasco) and ensure that he was such a woefully incompetent and unpopular president that when they ran against him after eight years they would not only win big, but utterly destroy the Republican party.


It is the only logical reason I can think of for such an awful, awful, president. Its genius really.

[snipped]
you forgot one.

Thank you President Bush for showing the people what happens when the majority of this nation's citizenry don't vote.

Ive come to the conclusion that Bush was a plant.


Obviously.

Ive come to the conclusion that Bush was a plant. He was kidnapped as a child from his home and brainwashed, taught to respond in a certian manner to a series of code words ala Manchurian Candidate. It was sponsered and carried out by the Democratic party.

Their goal was to get him into office under the most unfavorable conditions (they orchestrated the whole Florida fiasco) and ensure that he was such a woefully incompetent and unpopular president that when they ran against him after eight years they would not only win big, but utterly destroy the Republican party.


It is the only logical reason I can think of for such an awful, awful, president. Its genius really.
When you say he's a plant, why do I immediately think of something with leaves?

I'm going to reject your theory because if it were so, then the Dems would have killed a hell of a lot of people to get their way. I like to think that there are relatively few people as evil as Dick Cheney running around loose at any given time.

That theory does seem to be the only thing that can explain the breathtaking conga-line of disasters that is the McCain campaign, but no, I think Bush was a foreseeable effect of a society that, for several decades, was willing to tolerate increasing levels of secret government, back-room dealing, and politicial corruption, a kind of "you citizens don't need to worry about that; hey check out that stock market; why don't you go make some money instead of interfering with the man behind the curtain?" attitude.

When you say he's a plant, why do I immediately think of something with leaves?

I'm going to reject your theory because if it were so, then the Dems would have killed a hell of a lot of people to get their way. I like to think that there are relatively few people as evil as Dick Cheney running around loose at any given time.

That theory does seem to be the only thing that can explain the breathtaking conga-line of disasters that is the McCain campaign, but no, I think Bush was a foreseeable effect of a society that, for several decades, was willing to tolerate increasing levels of secret government, back-room dealing, and politicial corruption, a kind of "you citizens don't need to worry about that; hey check out that stock market; why don't you go make some money instead of interfering with the man behind the curtain?" attitude.




Awwww Mur took my tinfoil hat...

Awwww Mur took my tinfoil hat...
Sorry. Here, play with this used piece of gum that I found.

Sorry. Here, play with this used piece of gum that I found.

Awesome.

Somebody should shoot Bush on his way out
And Cheny too

But.. Cheney shoots first!

I hear he did some good stuff in Africa, drug benefits for seniors and such

I refuse to be grumpy!

I hear he did some good stuff in Africa, drug benefits for seniors and such

I refuse to be grumpy!
That's the spirit! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHd5mVghhgo) All this bitterness and rage only makes one's heart explode even before the bomb planted in their chest at birth is supposed to go off.

I shall save my anger and bile for when the door to the White House hits him in the ass.

How about Bush': 'Lower taxes, Spent MORE Money', economic policy ?
You can disagree with the implications of that for the budget, and most people do. But it didn't cause the financial crisis.

There are too many slightly self-righteous people running around right now pretending that the crisis now is the result of economic policies they didn't like and have been arguing against for years. There have been plenty of threads here of people trying to link the two (hell, some people even tried to link it to Clinton), but ultimately the few legislative factors that would have made a difference were too technical and specific to really fall under the "ideology" category, while the rules that allowed people to be bombarded with loans they'd have trouble paying back were a bipartisan effort sustained over a decade or more.

He let me hate America in peace. *sigh*

You can disagree with the implications of that for the budget, and most people do. But it didn't cause the financial crisis.

There are too many slightly self-righteous people running around right now pretending that the crisis now is the result of economic policies they didn't like and have been arguing against for years. There have been plenty of threads here of people trying to link the two (hell, some people even tried to link it to Clinton), but ultimately the few legislative factors that would have made a difference were too technical and specific to really fall under the "ideology" category, while the rules that allowed people to be bombarded with loans they'd have trouble paying back were a bipartisan effort sustained over a decade or more.

your right his tax policies did not (necessarily) ruin the economy . . .there's a correlation there but it might not be direct. what DID ruin your economy was the deregulation of business practices (a typical conservative/republican policy) basically just crossing of the fingers and hoping the business would do the right thing. What it lead to was poor decisions by upper echelon executives that went un attended too as the laws that would have prevented them from occurring had been nullified. . . during Bush's presidency.

Bush: 'Can I Stop Being President Now?' (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_can_i_stop_being_president)
WASHINGTON — 4 November, 2008

In a press conference held this morning on the White House lawn, President Bush formally asked the assembled press corps and members of his own administration if, in light of today's election, he could stop being the president now. "So it's over, right? Can I stop being president now?" Bush said after striding to the podium in a Texas Rangers cap and flannel shirt, carrying a fully packed suitcase. "Let's just say I'm done as of now. Presidency over."

When informed by Washington Post reporter David Broder that his presidency would continue through early January, Bush stared at him quizzically, sighed, and shuffled silently back into the White House.

Bush: 'Can I Stop Being President Now?' (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_can_i_stop_being_president)
WASHINGTON — 4 November, 2008

In a press conference held this morning on the White House lawn, President Bush formally asked the assembled press corps and members of his own administration if, in light of today's election, he could stop being the president now. "So it's over, right? Can I stop being president now?" Bush said after striding to the podium in a Texas Rangers cap and flannel shirt, carrying a fully packed suitcase. "Let's just say I'm done as of now. Presidency over."

When informed by Washington Post reporter David Broder that his presidency would continue through early January, Bush stared at him quizzically, sighed, and shuffled silently back into the White House.

lol, that's funny.

*sigh* looks like I will have to take down my bushisms poster now
*shuffles off to find replacement*

Dear President Bush, once you leave - Cindy Sheehan would like to have lunch with you in a New Orleans trailer that you so generously provided.

Dear President Bush, once you leave - Cindy Sheehan would like to have lunch with you in a New Orleans trailer that you so generously provided.

Wow, I haven't heard about Cindy Sheehan in a long time....

what DID ruin your economy was the deregulation of business practices (a typical conservative/republican policy) basically just crossing of the fingers and hoping the business would do the right thing. What it lead to was poor decisions by upper echelon executives that went un attended too as the laws that would have prevented them from occurring had been nullified. . . during Bush's presidency.
Since shit hit the fan I've been asking for people to provide proof that deregulation caused this mess, by mentioning the specific laws that were in place and would have prevented it but were then eliminated.

There are none. The few laws that were changed to allow more freedom for financial firms weren't the product of the White House deciding it, but purely technical decisions within the SEC, FDIC and so on - usually in response to EU relaxation of such rules. And most of them didn't turn out to make a big difference here.

Bush didn't deregulate finance to any significant extent, and the crisis ultimately came from areas that weren't covered by proper regulation to start with. So at very best you can blame a lack of regulation rather than a reduction of it, and have to say that this mistake was made by everyone across the ideological spectrum. The only ones who had a better system I can think of were the Spanish.

So there we go: Financial crisis = not Bush's fault. As I said, I fully understand Obama's attempts to link the two and then link McCain to that. That's politics, and he's a pretty ruthless politician. But surely there is room somewhere in there for facts as well, isn't there?

Since shit hit the fan I've been asking for people to provide proof that deregulation caused this mess, by mentioning the specific laws that were in place and would have prevented it but were then eliminated.

There are none. <snip>
So, is this going to be the new "thing" that we have to listen to for the next 4 years? Is "you can't prove deregulation caused the mess" going to be the new fad to replace "Clinton did it"?

Gravlen posted an article somewhere else today that reminded me of something I had long forgotten but that really sums up the Bush presidency perfectly. In 2002, the magazine Der Spiegel ran this cover in 2002 making fun of the gung-ho Bush cabinet (it reads "The Bush Warriors - America's Crusade Against Evil")* -

http://skimble.blogspot.com/images/0,1020,247710,00.jpg

- and the US embassy in Berlin ordered 33 copies of the original artwork as posters for the White House. Yeah...



*They made a new one (http://www.nerdcore.de/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/spiegelcover.jpg) last week.

So, is this going to be the new "thing" that we have to listen to for the next 4 years? Is "you can't prove deregulation caused the mess" going to be the new fad to replace "Clinton did it"?

No, the new thing will be "because I inherited Bush's failed policies" as the excuse for breaking campaign promises--whether McCain or Obama wins.

I must thank Backwoods, you made me laugh my arse off with this.:fluffle:

Honestly, I think all you seppos are just playing scapegoat with him.
What would have you done if he had have just sat by idly after 9/11? Did you not want justice for your friends/family/nationals?
Justice, vengeance and misdirected vengeance are different things. Bush did the last.

And by waging wars harming innocents for the acts of terrorists, we ourselves prove that we're no better than them, just more powerful - modern terrorism itself is acts of vengeance.

Ah, good old lulz. :D

Bush has problems trying to communificate.

That's all I have to say.

Justice, vengeance and misdirected vengeance are different things. Bush did the last.

And by waging wars harming innocents for the acts of terrorists, we ourselves prove that we're no better than them, just more powerful - modern terrorism itself is acts of vengeance.

Quite so.
It is far better to leave the Taliban & Al Qaeda at large, free to attack whatever they choose...
It would be far better if Saddam Hussein was still dictator of Iraq, including regular mass killings and other human rights violations.

I am not saying that Bush was right. He did screw up. He went in with no long term plan - leaving the country even more unstable than it already was. That is what you should be complaining about.

Quite so.
It is far better to leave the Taliban & Al Qaeda at large, free to attack whatever they choose...
You mean like they are now?

Quite so.
It is far better to leave the Taliban & Al Qaeda at large, free to attack whatever they choose...
It is better to actually attack them, and not whoever is convenient.

It would be far better if Saddam Hussein was still dictator of Iraq, including regular mass killings and other human rights violations.
Yes, actually, it would, because all that changed is who's doing the killings and rights violations, and how they are done. US is not world police, not liking a government is no grounds for intervention.

And then if that was the purpose, governments can be changed through a coup d'etat or other covert means. Of course, the purpose was to have a war, if there was no Iraq, there would be someone else.

I don't really think President Bush was that bad. I mean he wasn't great, but he could have done worse imo.

I don't really think President Bush was that bad. I mean he wasn't great, but he could have done worse imo.

It only seems that way because in the last year and a half he's been hobbled.

I remember you complaining as loud as anypne else a couple years back ;)

And soon the trials can begin.

And soon the trials can begin.

That, sir, is the last thing I would want to see. Best to let Bush and friends just fade off into the shadows, than to turn him into a martyr, re-energize his causes, and give us 2010 a very Republican Congress.

Also, Dragontide, you might want to pull that Chalmers Johnson quote from your sig--it is in no way even remotely accurate.

Also, Dragontide, you might want to pull that Chalmers Johnson quote from your sig--it is in no way even remotely accurate.

I guess you could look at it that way if you believe what Bush & Cheney say.

So, is this going to be the new "thing" that we have to listen to for the next 4 years? Is "you can't prove deregulation caused the mess" going to be the new fad to replace "Clinton did it"?
It's not a matter of "haha, you can't prove", it's a matter of "you're making a claim, do you have a basis for it".

Look, I have been doing more research in this than most. I'm also affected more directly than many. I accept that there were bad regulations and, more importantly, bad regulatory agencies. But to claim that ideology had a significant impact on what happened is just grabbed out of such thin air that if people want to say that, they'll have to provide some backup.

I know they won't, and I know most people won't ask for it. But it is developing into a pet peeve for me, just because of the thought process behind the claim.

Since shit hit the fan I've been asking for people to provide proof that deregulation caused this mess, by mentioning the specific laws that were in place and would have prevented it but were then eliminated.

The CFTC exempting credit derivatives from federal oversight (and therefore margin/reserve requirements) probably contributed quite significantly. But that happened in 1993.

And, I would say the change in the leverage ratio calculation in 2004.

Both of those things made it worse.

But I don't think there was any one cause. It is after all a global problem. Trade deficits were just as much a part of the problem in all likelihood.

Except he'll still be president for 2 months after today.

lame ducks don't count

I guess you could look at it that way if you believe what Bush & Cheney say.

This has nothing to do with what Bush and Cheney say.

It's quite simple that the US defense budget is nowhere near 3 or 4 trillion dollars. It's roughly 500 billion, even including Iraq.

This has nothing to do with what Bush and Cheney say.

It's quite simple that the US defense budget is nowhere near 3 or 4 trillion dollars. It's roughly 500 billion, even including Iraq.

So how did they have 2.3$ trillion to 'lose?' (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml)

Honestly, I think all you seppos are just playing scapegoat with him.

But if they didn't it wouldn't be the cool thing to do. Of course that goes more to Non-Americans than Americans.

Ive come to the conclusion that Bush was a plant. He was kidnapped as a child from his home and brainwashed, taught to respond in a certian manner to a series of code words ala Manchurian Candidate. It was sponsered and carried out by the Democratic party.

Their goal was to get him into office under the most unfavorable conditions (they orchestrated the whole Florida fiasco) and ensure that he was such a woefully incompetent and unpopular president that when they ran against him after eight years they would not only win big, but utterly destroy the Republican party.

It is the only logical reason I can think of for such an awful, awful, president. Its genius really.

Well everyone knows that it was the dirty liberals that started 9/11.

Hmm... anyone want to speculate or pundit on how Dear Leader can take the last two months of his term to dump shit on Obama's lap?

The only thing lower than Bush's rating is the Democratic Congress' that let him pass all of the stuff you hate. Even before they had a majority they didn't bother.

lame ducks don't countSpeaking of ducks, don't you have some butter to spread?

I think that what I will forever blame to Bush is the waste he did with Irak...

After 9/11 the whole world was beind the United States:
Iran was ready to negociate and to give up lots of concessions...Bush turned them down arrogantly until his own mess in Irak makes them stronger than ever...

Ourselves, French, were the very first to go to war in Afghanistan with you...the only reward we get was economical sanctions and lots of bashing that are still waging today, just for being right about Irak !
We were saying that such an attack, based on LIES would alienate world support, that making war on false reasons, in a country you didn't understand and can't handle would just end as a colonial war...

During those few precious years, you Americans were given an opportunity to really change the world, being the ultimate unchallenged power.
You didn't, because of this administration who have stolen your democratic rights !

Turning down Kyoto protocol, keeping pressure on the world to keep stupid ultra-liberal policies until the predictate collapse occured...

I didn't speak of all this tremendous corruption in your military structure, the rising of private armies funded by your public money using the soldiers trained and equipped by public money...

Yeah...so much to say about W. Bush junior...

And I don't think that now your politics have understood that a regular army is absolutly not efficient against terrorism.
It's just a way to waste money and give them free publicity.

Terrorists are criminals, not "soldiers".

Fuck Patriot Act...

Oh I really hope for the sake of the world that NOW some things would change.

At least a little. Just a bit in the good way. It would be new.

Do you expect him to read this? Or who are you writing to?

Anyways, I don't want to hijack, so I'll just quickly flag my disagreement with the whole "failed economic policies" thing. Bush had little if anything to do with the financial crisis,

I think favoring large tax breaks to already wealthy people and companies, in the "trickle down economics" fashion contributed its fair share. He may not be the precise reason the banks arent lending, but he certainly continued a failing policy

Honestly, I think all you seppos are just playing scapegoat with him.

What would have you done if he had have just sat by idly after 9/11? Did you not want justice for your friends/family/nationals?

I have never criticized Bush's reasoning for attacking Afghanistan.
Rather its the failure to accomplish anything in that country, and the lack of attention it deserves, as more important.

Iraq, however, is a different story.
Everything from the reasons why we went there, and the "information" we possessed, to the handling, up to this very day, has been one continuous fuck up since it began.

you forgot one.

Thank you President Bush for showing the people what happens when the majority of this nation's citizenry don't vote.

Thats an excellent one.

However, with record turnout today at the polls, Im pleased.

I must thank Backwoods, you made me laugh my arse off with this.:fluffle:

I do what I can.

I think that what I will forever blame to Bush is the waste he did with Irak...

After 9/11 the whole world was beind the United States:
Iran was ready to negociate and to give up lots of concessions...Bush turned them down arrogantly until his own mess in Irak makes them stronger than ever...

Ourselves, French, were the very first to go to war in Afghanistan with you...the only reward we get was economical sanctions and lots of bashing that are still waging today, just for being right about Irak !
We were saying that such an attack, based on LIES would alienate world support, that making war on false reasons, in a country you didn't understand and can't handle would just end as a colonial war....

Wow. Good Point.

I had forgotten the whole "Freedon Fries", thing.

I better add it.

Thank you Mr Bush, for making the average gullible American yokel, or "Joe Six-Pack" if you will, start hating the French, becuase they were right all along, and you wouldnt listen to them, or anyone else.
Thats right, the French.The country that without thier direct military involvement, America would never have become the nation it is today. General Lafeyette ring a bell, George?

Yes, one of our staunchest allies since the Revolutionary War.

Even to the rediculous point of renaming food items that have the word "French" in them.

I hope someone stabs you in the eye with a "Freedom Tickler", Mr President.

That, sir, is the last thing I would want to see. Best to let Bush and friends just fade off into the shadows, than to turn him into a martyr, re-energize his causes, and give us 2010 a very Republican Congress.


Not me.

War Crimes.

Illegal Wiretapping.

Blowing the cover of a Federal Agent.

His administration is guilty of all of em.

NO ONE is, or should be, above the law. The President should be susceptable to the very same system of justice the rest of us are.

The only thing lower than Bush's rating is the Democratic Congress' that let him pass all of the stuff you hate. Even before they had a majority they didn't bother.

The last 2 years, yes much of that is true.

The Republicans held House and Senate for 6/8 years.

Since shit hit the fan I've been asking for people to provide proof that deregulation caused this mess, by mentioning the specific laws that were in place and would have prevented it but were then eliminated.

There are none. The few laws that were changed to allow more freedom for financial firms weren't the product of the White House deciding it, but purely technical decisions within the SEC, FDIC and so on - usually in response to EU relaxation of such rules. And most of them didn't turn out to make a big difference here.

Bush didn't deregulate finance to any significant extent, and the crisis ultimately came from areas that weren't covered by proper regulation to start with. So at very best you can blame a lack of regulation rather than a reduction of it, and have to say that this mistake was made by everyone across the ideological spectrum. The only ones who had a better system I can think of were the Spanish.

So there we go: Financial crisis = not Bush's fault. As I said, I fully understand Obama's attempts to link the two and then link McCain to that. That's politics, and he's a pretty ruthless politician. But surely there is room somewhere in there for facts as well, isn't there?

I support this point of view. Tax cut is generally a good idea to ease up an recession.

That being said, I would like to know more about the current inflation rate. Would the Bush Administration be held responsible for this at least? Does the increase rate of which our government print money today really has no effect on the economy at all?

The last 2 years, yes much of that is true.

The Republicans held House and Senate for 6/8 years.And the approval rating had already gotten near that level without so much democratic help, iirc.

I think favoring large tax breaks to already wealthy people and companies, in the "trickle down economics" fashion contributed its fair share. He may not be the precise reason the banks arent lending, but he certainly continued a failing policy
That depends on what your goals are, doesn't it? The US performed far better on the unemployment- and growth fronts over his term than Europe did.

And don't you think it sorta matters whether it is the precise reason for the crisis, when you're claiming that his policies were to a large extent responsible? I mean, doesn't it count for anything that you had the same banking collapses in such a large variety of countries with such a variety of economic philosophies? How can you just ignore things like that?

That being said, I would like to know more about the current inflation rate. Would the Bush Administration be held responsible for this at least? Does the increase rate of which our government print money today really has no effect on the economy at all?
Printing money and inflation are linked more in the long term. Things like hyperinflation only happen because the government prints too much money. But in the short term, within the business cycle when production capacity can't simply adjust immediately to changes in demand, price levels can also form an adjustment mechanism.

The typical inflation scenario is this:
1. Some supply shock causes prices to rise. For example, oil or other inputs could become much more expensive, some legislative change could push up the cost of doing business and so on. That is called "cost-push" inflation, and by itself it usually goes away after a while with price growth coming back down, though at a higher price level.
2. In response to the higher prices, workers demand higher wages to restore the real position they were in. When businesses agree, their costs go up and prices will rise/they produce less.
3. In response to that GDP falls below its normal growth rate, so the central bank would cut interest rates. That's associated with higher prices once again.
4. Once again, workers can only respond by demanding higher wages.
5. Repeat ad nauseum.

So it takes a few things: an initial inflationary shock, usually a supply shock these days, back when the old-Keynesians were in charge it was also occasionally the belief that trend GDP growth was higher than it really was, leading the central bank to cut rates even when the economy was already in a sustainable position. Then it takes employers able to demand higher wages easily, so strong union representation or strong protections against dismissal. And finally (and perhaps most importantly) it takes a central bank that is being overly accommodating in its monetary policy.

Was the latter the case? Well, maybe, though the growth of people's wealth in assets was probably a bigger growth factor of consumer income the past few years than just wage growth. But that's yesterday's issue. Now we're at a point where Fed chiefs have to assure people that we're not heading into a deflationary spiral (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-1-Feds-Fisher-US-inflation-risks-have-vapor-L2T73?OpenDocument&src=srch), at the moment with limited credibility. Rates are already very low, and when they hit zero things get a lot more complicated. That's the point at which you really want the Fed to just print as much as it can, otherwise you end up like Japan.

If you think he is the worst president ever, you are a dumbass

Hmm... anyone want to speculate or pundit on how Dear Leader can take the last two months of his term to dump shit on Obama's lap?

I can't help but think back to poor Jimmy Carter and his hostage rescue mission on Inauguration Day, Tuesday, January 20, 1981. Minutes after Reagan was sworn in as President, the 444 hostages left Iranian airspace. Carter did the hard part, Reagan got the credit. This was particularly galling to Carter, as the hostages probably played a large role in his failure to get reelected.

I wonder what January surprise Bush has in store. Camp David meetings between Hammas and Israel? Taking over Georgia (no, the other one) and making it the 51st state? He's got 11 weeks to come up with something silly.

If you think he is the worst president ever, you are a dumbassGosh ... one fell swoop like that, articulate and provocative, and it's all in proper perspective.

If you think he is the worst president ever, you are a dumbass

Name ONE thats been worse.
Im betting you cant provide a legitimate, well thought out answer.

Camp David meetings between Hammas and Israel? He's got 11 weeks to come up with something silly.

What's silly about that?

It's not a matter of "haha, you can't prove", it's a matter of "you're making a claim, do you have a basis for it".

Look, I have been doing more research in this than most. I'm also affected more directly than many. I accept that there were bad regulations and, more importantly, bad regulatory agencies. But to claim that ideology had a significant impact on what happened is just grabbed out of such thin air that if people want to say that, they'll have to provide some backup.

I know they won't, and I know most people won't ask for it. But it is developing into a pet peeve for me, just because of the thought process behind the claim.

An integral part of Reagan Republican ideology was that the free market should be unimpeded, and that therefore all regulation was bad. They didn't consider that the regulations might actually be necessary for the market to function properly. Of course, the Democrats are also complicit. Clinton signed some very bad deregulatory legislation. But the main people pushing it were the Republicans. I don't think it necessarily represents a failure of economic conservatism. I do think it represents a failure to recognize that economic conservatism does not require human sacrifices on the altar of the free market.

I've been reading Paul Krugman for a while now. He's been saying for years that the excessive deregulation was ultimately going to cause an economic meltdown. And for years conservatives were saying that the economy was fine, anyone who said otherwise just hated Bush. Guess who turned out to be right.

I can't help but think back to poor Jimmy Carter and his hostage rescue mission on Inauguration Day, Tuesday, January 20, 1981. Minutes after Reagan was sworn in as President, the 444 hostages left Iranian airspace. Carter did the hard part, Reagan got the credit. This was particularly galling to Carter, as the hostages probably played a large role in his failure to get reelected.Actually, Reagan's aides were responsible for getting the hostages released when they did. They made a deal with the Mullahs, promising them weapons sales in exchange for delaying the freeing of the hostages after the election.

I've been reading Paul Krugman for a while now. He's been saying for years that the excessive deregulation was ultimately going to cause an economic meltdown. And for years conservatives were saying that the economy was fine, anyone who said otherwise just hated Bush. Guess who turned out to be right.
Look, nothing against Krugman, but you need to keep his good part (his academic stuff) and his bad part (the columns and commentaries) apart.

Really the point I'm making is that "deregulation" isn't some sort of catch-all phrase that's seperate from the specific laws and processes involved. There are good regulations, and there are bad ones. When bad ones are removed, that's not a bad thing. And most regulations are bad, given that governments have done preciously little to demonstrate the opposite. So most of the time, deregulation is a good thing.

Some regulations are however necessary, and removing them would be bad. But those are few and far between. People like Krugman operate under the assumption that governments create good regulations, because he might know how one could do it. But politicians don't know it, and they don't care to find out. It makes no difference to them whether a law is good or not, or does what it's supposed to or not. The only thing important to them is what the headlines say. So I can understand people like Krugman, Stiglitz or Sen encouraging governments taking more control when they see market failures. But I don't think they're right. They're being idealistic to the point where they'd do more damage than good.

At any rate, the specific issue surrounding the financial crisis was more one of there not having been decent rules in place in the first place, as opposed to good rules being there and then being abandoned by governments with a deregulation fetish. And if you really think you want to blame it all on regulations (which would be far too simplistic), then you should be looking at the BIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements), not at the Bush administration.

Name ONE thats been worse.
Im betting you cant provide a legitimate, well thought out answer.Andrew Jackson came closer to dismantling the separation of powers than George W. Bush did. And he liked genocide.

Is there a reason behind the US practice that the newly elected President doesn't take over immediately? Is this common in other countries? Seems odd to me coming from the UK where the newly elected Prime Minister takes over immediately before the outgoing one can do too much mischief.

Farewell Mr. Bush. Now go and earn money on the speaking circuit and never bother anyone again.

Not me.

War Crimes.

Illegal Wiretapping.

Blowing the cover of a Federal Agent.

His administration is guilty of all of em.

NO ONE is, or should be, above the law. The President should be susceptable to the very same system of justice the rest of us are.

Of all of those, the only one that a legitimate case could be made on is wiretapping, and even then it would be sketchy.

War crimes, well you're just fucked on that, because it isn't going to happen.

Plame also not going to happen. If no one else was dragged down previously, then they're not going to be dragged down now.

So how did they have 2.3$ trillion to 'lose?' (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml)

They can't. Rumsfeld is a dumbass and has no idea what he's talking about.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0206/p02s02-usmi.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4odwoTuhsZU&refer=home

Hell, the entire federal budget for 2007 is 2.8 Trillion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget

DoD does not have 2.3 trillion to lose, because they don't have 2.3 anywhere near that amount. The entire government barely has that amount.

Look, nothing against Krugman, but you need to keep his good part (his academic stuff) and his bad part (the columns and commentaries) apart.

Really the point I'm making is that "deregulation" isn't some sort of catch-all phrase that's seperate from the specific laws and processes involved. There are good regulations, and there are bad ones. When bad ones are removed, that's not a bad thing. And most regulations are bad, given that governments have done preciously little to demonstrate the opposite. So most of the time, deregulation is a good thing.

Some regulations are however necessary, and removing them would be bad. But those are few and far between. People like Krugman operate under the assumption that governments create good regulations, because he might know how one could do it. But politicians don't know it, and they don't care to find out. It makes no difference to them whether a law is good or not, or does what it's supposed to or not. The only thing important to them is what the headlines say. So I can understand people like Krugman, Stiglitz or Sen encouraging governments taking more control when they see market failures. But I don't think they're right. They're being idealistic to the point where they'd do more damage than good.


What the financial crisis has demonstrated is that some regulation is necessary, and what regulation previously existed was not enough. Even Alan Greenspan has said as much. That's my point. The prevailing assumption by the Republicans was that we should aim for as little regulation as possible. The core of their ideology was the belief in a perfect market, and that government simply distorts that market. That is the idealistic belief that has done the damage here.

Government has a necessary role in the economy. Trying get rid of it just because it's imperfect doesn't work. We agree that a degree of regulation is necessary, and that is a repudiation of part of the Republican ideology.

Not me.

War Crimes.

Illegal Wiretapping.

Blowing the cover of a Federal Agent.

His administration is guilty of all of em.

NO ONE is, or should be, above the law. The President should be susceptable to the very same system of justice the rest of us are.

"should be".

The President should be susceptable to the very same system of justice the rest of us are.
We have a new system of justice now, thanks to W, and shouldn't he be susceptible to it too? Forget filing charges against him: just declare him an "enemy combatant" and send him to Guantanamo indefinitely.

On behalf of all comedy writers and satirists everywhere, I'm sorry to see Bush go.

On behalf of all comedy writers and satirists everywhere, I'm sorry to see Bush go.

Clowns however will see improvements in business as Bush stops giving away clowning for free.

Well I have to thank something.

Thank you for killing the Neo-Conservative movement. As well as revealing the "Religious Right" for the Neo-Fascists they are.

I've been reading several Republican blogs and comments on many sites saying that they want their party to dump the two groups above and become "Small Government" again.

What the financial crisis has demonstrated is that some regulation is necessary, and what regulation previously existed was not enough. Even Alan Greenspan has said as much. That's my point.
Alan Greenspan was wrong. There was a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570076) here a few days ago about that issue, and we came to the conclusion that he's basically using this claim as an excuse to prevent having to admit to himself that his own actions were to a large extent responsible as well. Much easier then to blame it on some abstract philosophy. Particularly look at Lacadaemon's posts.

The prevailing assumption by the Republicans was that we should aim for as little regulation as possible. The core of their ideology was the belief in a perfect market, and that government simply distorts that market. That is the idealistic belief that has done the damage here.
The only people who think this absolutely, without some qualifications, are anarcho-capitalists, and the Republican party hosts remarkably few of those.

But even that is irrelevant if it turns out that, regardless of belief, the actions of the administration didn't actually do anything particular to really deregulate the financial system. And that's what I'm saying - the one act of deregulation that the Bush administration did when it relaxed the rules on leverage wasn't thought up in the White House, but by boffins working on technical calculations in the relevant regulatory agency. The reasons they relaxed those rules wasn't that they thought they were distorting the market, but that new risk management models had been developed which they believed allowed them to keep better track of what was going on, such that the extra security of less leverage wasn't necessary. And the idea was put into their heads not by Washington, but by the EU, which introduced these new rules first. You're welcome to accuse the EU of being all ultra-capitalist, but I'm not sure you could back up such a claim.

Government has a necessary role in the economy. Trying get rid of it just because it's imperfect doesn't work. We agree that a degree of regulation is necessary, and that is a repudiation of part of the Republican ideology.
Not really. The party is quite happy to regulate all sorts of things. Ideologies can't just be random collections of rants and opinions, they need to have a thought-out core reasoning. Social conservatism and economic liberalism for example can't possibly go together. You can't on one hand say that people know better than the state where to spend money to maximise welfare, and on the other say they can't use their bodies for the same purpose and in the same way. I couldn't tell you what Republican ideology actually is, because American parties are just random collections of people who have no business being politically affiliated with each other. I can tell you that one of its main tenets is political expediency: they do what gets them votes. If it turns out that not regulating the shit out of everything is suddenly not popular, they won't do it anymore.

But all that says is that a reliance on free markets is not popular with the voters, nothing more. If you think the idea of free markets itself has suffered any substantial damage, you have to demonstrate it. Over the past few weeks a few here have tried, but no one really hit the mark. And part of the reason is that financial crises aren't a matter of regulation. In my signature there's a link at the bottom you may want to read. Long before there was capitalism, there were financial crises. They occured in medieval England and Spain, in social-democratic countries in Scandinavia, in "government decides all" countries like the Asian Tiger economies - the only system that didn't suffer a financial crisis was the Soviet one, and that was simply because people weren't allowed to do anything with their money but put it into a bank. I think we can agree that the negatives on that front outweighed the positives.

It's always easy to sit there with hindsight and point to everything that went wrong. But if it had been so easy to see things coming, regulatory agencies, and indeed the banks themselves, should have been the ones making sure it wasn't going to blow up. They weren't able to do that, hence the idea that you can make preemptive regulations that cover everything is on shaky grounds. That's not to say there isn't anything anyone can do - everytime it happens we learn more about the dynamics of how these crises develop and we can improve resolution mechanisms and provide regulations that can interrupt the shock travelling through the system. The Spanish managed to keep their banks relatively strong because of a smart way of calculating capital requirements, which is certainly a thing other countries will be looking at adopting, for example.

But that's where we eventually get back to governments actually having to be effective. Despite knowing all we know, in the US the government response was a mess - not because of Bush, but because of the difficulty of the task combined with the inadequacy of the people whose job it suddenly was to deal with it. Worse, you had people putting in place things that were no doubt popular but which everyone with half a brain knew wasn't going to help whatsoever (like the ban on short selling). So just knowing what to do is only half the battle.

Honestly, I think all you seppos are just playing scapegoat with him.

What would have you done if he had have just sat by idly after 9/11? Did you not want justice for your friends/family/nationals?

Plus, the world hated America way before Bush. The main reason the world hates America is because you are rich! You are successful! Through good economic policies, your leaders over the past 50 years have crafted you into the most powerful nation. Considering you are only a few hundred years old, and only have a population a 6th of the size of China or India, that is a very good effort!

Sure, you could pick apart some of his policies, but what do you think you would have been saying today, if the person who was in Bush's place had taken you from being a global leader in basically everything, to a post cold war Russia?
Bullshit.

America is hated for its foreign policy. When a country supports dictators in some countries, then invades others claiming to be doing so to protect freedom, I doubt a terrorist's reason for killing themselves just to attack America would be "they're rich"; there's other nations that are fairly wealthy to and aren't NEAR as much of a terrorist target as the United States.

For what it's worth, maybe Bush isn't as bad a leader as he's often made out to be, but the notion that America is hated for its prosperity and not its foreign policy is completely ridiculous. Do you really think they'd care enough how Americans lived their lives to kill themselves to attack the US if not for how US foreign policy affected them? Of course America was hated before Bush; bad foreign policy goes back long before him, and though I don't know very much about the details, I doubt his is even the worst. But you'd have to have your head buried pretty deep in the sand to think that's a sign that America isn't hated for its foreign policy.

Of course America was hated before Bush; bad foreign policy goes back long before him, and though I don't know very much about the details, I doubt his is even the worst. But you'd have to have your head buried pretty deep in the sand to think that's a sign that America isn't hated for its foreign policy.

The biggest blunders were from Mr.Reagan and his propping up of right wing Dictatorships everywhere. As well as the aiding terrorists, and some things we will never find out about.

But.... But... Reagan was a God.... Faux News said so.....

But.... But... Reagan was a God.... Faux News said so.....

Reagan hasn't been President for nearly twenty years. What does he have to do with anything?

The biggest blunders were from Mr.Reagan and his propping up of right wing Dictatorships everywhere.
That started in a big way with Eisenhower.

Reagan hasn't been President for nearly twenty years. What does he have to do with anything?
I think TLA was simply using his foreign policy as a specific example of my "I doubt Bush's was the worst" side-comment.

I think TLA was simply using his foreign policy as a specific example of my "I doubt Bush's was the worst" side-comment.

Ah, now I understand. Although, Reagan probably supported fewer right-wing dictatorships than any of his predecessors, save Carter. ROK went democratic when he was in office, the Greek, Spanish and Chilean juntas were out befrore he came to power, Iran was Ayatollah-ruled, South Vietnam was gone, Nicaragua was Sandinista.

And, as far as the others that remained, you can't just toss off all of your allies in the real world.

And for years conservatives were saying that the economy was fine, anyone who said otherwise just hated Bush.

If your talking about conservatives such as Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Nanci Pelosi, then yeah, they were saying that the economy was in a boom.

Name ONE thats been worse.
Im betting you cant provide a legitimate, well thought out answer.

Harrison....he died a month in office...:p

The biggest blunders were from Mr.Reagan and his propping up of right wing Dictatorships everywhere. As well as the aiding terrorists, and some things we will never find out about.

What about taking down the USSR? "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall..." doesn't that ring a bell?

anyone who said otherwise just hated Bush. Guess who turned out to be right.Of course, i suspect you already know that there's not anything wrong with both knowing that *and* hating Bush ....

Nice nation name, btw. :)

Is there a reason behind the US practice that the newly elected President doesn't take over immediately?
Pardons, payola, and perniciousness ... probably.

On behalf of all comedy writers and satirists everywhere, I'm sorry to see Bush go.Argh, NOSTALGIA?! Well, it'd be kinda cool to see him on a tin lunchbox.
*sobs*

You argue that Bush is the problem while you laugh at him when he falls, but neglect to mention it was the democrats that tripped him and stopped him from doing what needed to be done. You must not have researched what happened and are going off of what the media says only... By the way, the media is biased. Research law and how our government works before saying something so ignorant.

You argue that Bush is the problem while you laugh at him when he falls, but neglect to mention it was the democrats that tripped him and stopped him from doing what needed to be done. You must not have researched what happened and are going off of what the media says only... By the way, the media is biased. Research law and how our government works before saying something so ignorant.

Yes, Bush was hobbled by only controlling three branches of government (four if you count Dick Cheney) for six years. And if only the media had spent less time questioning his claims about WMD in Iraq, we would have been greeted as liberators.

You argue that Bush is the problem while you laugh at him when he falls, but neglect to mention it was the democrats that tripped him and stopped him from doing what needed to be done.WTF is this? Substance, or desire?
You're the one neglecting here.

Obama's first four years, if he has a second four, will probably consist of major repair work on the domestic front. There's a lot of stuff to fix.

I doubt Obama will make it 4 years. His agenda will be left of Lenin and he will piss off the democrats. He will be tested by a major power and fail. He is not ready for the big shoes.

He will probably be impeached. Or maybe he will follow his playbook and run for emperor after 10 days in office.

However it is a serious question if he is actually natural born. This will need to be addressed before he measures the drapes. His photoshop job of a birth certificate whose serial number in the image belonged to his sister just won't pass muster. That and the fact that he claimed Indonesian citizenship and rejected US citizenship.

So time will tell.

Of all of those, the only one that a legitimate case could be made on is wiretapping, and even then it would be sketchy.

War crimes, well you're just fucked on that, because it isn't going to happen.

Plame also not going to happen. If no one else was dragged down previously, then they're not going to be dragged down now.

Plame. Manufactured crappola.

Reagan hasn't been President for nearly twenty years. What does he have to do with anything?

He lowered taxes and created economic propsperity until Bush Sr started the avalanche and Clinton willfully helped us down the road. Bush Jr staved it off but in the end, the democrats screwed us hard...again.

In 4 years when the democrats will lose their asses...again.. because if they control both houses and the presidency, no one left to blame for their mistakes.

I doubt Obama will make it 4 years. His agenda will be left of Lenin and he will piss off the democrats. He will be tested by a major power and fail. He is not ready for the big shoes.

He will probably be impeached. Or maybe he will follow his playbook and run for emperor after 10 days in office.

However it is a serious question if he is actually natural born. This will need to be addressed before he measures the drapes. His photoshop job of a birth certificate whose serial number in the image belonged to his sister just won't pass muster. That and the fact that he claimed Indonesian citizenship and rejected US citizenship.

Still enjoying that tasty Kool Aid? Does Fox News ship it direct to your house, or do you have to visit the local RNC office to get your latest talking points?

Seriously, it's time to move on. The election is over, and he won. Nobody rational took those claims seriously before, and nobody rational does now.

Still enjoying that tasty Kool Aid? Does Fox News ship it direct to your house, or do you have to visit the local RNC office to get your latest talking points?

Seriously, it's time to move on. The election is over, and he won. Nobody rational took those claims seriously before, and nobody rational does now.

I do not drink the stuff.

If you were rational, you would see that this is a serious question that needs to be resolved.

As to your talking points, you do seem to get them from CNN and the DNC. It doesn't mean the same on the other sides.

First of all, I am not a republican, so the RNC would be of little use as a source.

Have you been drinking your own kool aid?

I see the Nuaghty has returned... Anyone remember the infamous "Kennedy and Johnson were pacifists" comment? And all around BS of course.

He lowered taxes and created economic propsperity until Bush Sr started the avalanche and Clinton willfully helped us down the road. Bush Jr staved it off but in the end, the democrats screwed us hard...again.

In 4 years when the democrats will lose their asses...again.. because if they control both houses and the presidency, no one left to blame for their mistakes.

*cough* DEFICIT SPENDING *cough*

Nice try.

I guess that economic prosperity during the Clinton years and the current financial crisis is in our heads, right?

I guess that economic prosperity during the Clinton years and the current financial crisis is in our heads, right?

And the budget surplus, and the job creation...yup all in your head. Washed away because the Prez got a blowjob from an intern. What this country chooses to get upset about, sometimes it's really aggravating.

And the budget surplus, and the job creation...yup all in your head. Washed away because the Prez got a blowjob from an intern. What this country chooses to get upset about, sometimes it's really aggravating.

I've always found it intriguing that Clinton is demonized for having a blowjob, but Ronald Reagan (You know, support for brutal right wing dictators, Iran-Contra?) has a airport and a carrier named after him.

I've always found it intriguing that Clinton is demonized for having a blowjob, but Ronald Reagan (You know, support for brutal right wing dictators, Iran-Contra?) has a airport and a carrier named after him.

Like I said, my country is...odd that way.

Never mind that many of the people after Clinton's hide for Lewinsky were harboring mistresses of their own, and not always female, as we discovered (gender of lovers is irrelevant until you also note that some of those same moral paragons are also dead against homosexuals in every way -- ah, denial).

Like I said, my country is...odd that way.

Never mind that many of the people after Clinton's hide for Lewinsky were harboring mistresses of their own, and not always female, as we discovered (gender of lovers is irrelevant until you also note that some of those same moral paragons are also dead against homosexuals in every way -- ah, denial).

Sssh. You'll make the ickle Republicans cry.

And the budget surplus, and the job creation...yup all in your head. Washed away because the Prez got a blowjob from an intern. What this country chooses to get upset about, sometimes it's really aggravating.

If you do not count medicare ans social security, we have always had a surplus. Reporting should be consistent, not just convenient.

Clinton perjured himself and obstructed justice. Hence he was impeached but never removed from office.

I hope every president gets a blow job in the oval office.

I've always found it intriguing that Clinton is demonized for having a blowjob, but Ronald Reagan (You know, support for brutal right wing dictators, Iran-Contra?) has a airport and a carrier named after him.

I always find it laughable when confronted with evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice, lock step libs fall back to blowjobs.

Sssh. You'll make the ickle Republicans cry.

Santorum and Dobson. I hope they do cry. they are useless people.

I always find it laughable when confronted with evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice, lock step libs fall back to blowjobs.

Yeah, because if it hadn't been for the blowjobs, the charges you mention would never have been filed. What's worse, lying about an affair or lying that gets soldiers killed? There's Murder One and other degrees, right? I think lying to drag a nation into irretrievable debt and loss of soldiers lives is Lying One, and saying you didn't get freaky when you did is Lying 12.

If you do not count medicare ans social security, we have always had a surplus. Reporting should be consistent, not just convenient.

Clinton perjured himself and obstructed justice. Hence he was impeached but never removed from office.

I hope every president gets a blow job in the oval office.

If you do not count medicare and social security, you're full of shit.

One would like to hope that, had Gore rightfully won in 2000, there would have been an effort to capture Osama and co. and bring them to justice, without needlessly going to war with Iraq. Moreover, one would also like to think that, had Kerry won in 2004, he would have ended the war in Iraq as quickly as possible, and gone after Osama - the real bad guy. Remember, Kerry actually served in the military, Bush ran away.
All Kerry did was chase down some young man who was wounded and kill him! That's Kerry's war story. That's what he was commended for.

If you do not count medicare and social security, you're full of shit.

You are addressing the person who was convinced Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy were pacifists. As for the economy: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Enough said.

All Kerry did was chase down some young man who was wounded and kill him! That's Kerry's war story. That's what he was commended for.

Better than McCains story , He was sub par pilot and was known to be reckless and he got shot down and tortured , not really an exemplary example similar story to a lot of pilots except a lot of them were better.

Yeah, because if it hadn't been for the blowjobs, the charges you mention would never have been filed. What's worse, lying about an affair or lying that gets soldiers killed? There's Murder One and other degrees, right? I think lying to drag a nation into irretrievable debt and loss of soldiers lives is Lying One, and saying you didn't get freaky when you did is Lying 12.

You must have slept through the clinton 'administration'

Better than McCains story , He was sub par pilot and was known to be reckless and he got shot down and tortured , not really an exemplary example similar story to a lot of pilots except a lot of them were better.

Kerry was wreckless and stupid in his war behavior. As to McCain, he was tortured while serving this country. I cannot actually believe you are denegrating him for that. You can claim he was a bad pilot, sure, but his service is clean.

*cough* DEFICIT SPENDING *cough*

Nice try.

No try at all, simple facts.

Now we need to cut spending dramatically. Start with social security, medicare, and every social program we have. It is not the governments job to be a 'safety net'. The raw deal started the snowball.

People need to be self reliant and not rely on government. These bailouts are just a waste of time, effort, and money. It does nothing but make people line up for a handout. Welfare just causes dependency.

Eliminate welfare in all forms. Reduce government to the bare minimums, military, police, fire, roads, sanitation. The rest is poppycock.

Nuff said.

No try at all, simple facts.


Not really.

Now we need to cut spending dramatically. Start with social security, medicare, and every social program we have. It is not the governments job to be a 'safety net'. The raw deal started the snowball.

People need to be self reliant and not rely on government. These bailouts are just a waste of time, effort, and money. It does nothing but make people line up for a handout. Welfare just causes dependency.

Eliminate welfare in all forms. Reduce government to the bare minimums, military, police, fire, roads, sanitation. The rest is poppycock.

Nuff said.


Luckily most of America disagrees with you.

You must have slept through the clinton 'administration'

No, but I can tell you clearly remembered your side's absurdly-skewed talking points quite well. Kudos.

No try at all, simple facts.

Now we need to cut spending dramatically. Start with social security, medicare, and every social program we have. It is not the governments job to be a 'safety net'. The raw deal started the snowball.

People need to be self reliant and not rely on government. These bailouts are just a waste of time, effort, and money. It does nothing but make people line up for a handout. Welfare just causes dependency.

Eliminate welfare in all forms. Reduce government to the bare minimums, military, police, fire, roads, sanitation. The rest is poppycock.

Nuff said.

We needed to stop the deficit. Clinton stopped it. Now it's back. Under who? Republicans. I understand you're a partisan, but shit fire and save matches, there's reality to deal with here. I'd like to see any of these so-called welfare leeches I keep hearing about. Everyone I knew or know on welfare or unemployment are not proud to be there.

You're completely full of shit, but you stand by that. There's something to be said for lowering hay bales off the deck of the Lusitania. Just not very much.

I want a Republican to explain how this correlates to them being the party of fiscal responsibility. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

We needed to stop the deficit. Clinton stopped it. Now it's back. Under who? Republicans. I understand you're a partisan, but shit fire and save matches, there's reality to deal with here. I'd like to see any of these so-called welfare leeches I keep hearing about. Everyone I knew or know on welfare or unemployment are not proud to be there.

But welfare leeches do exist, and here are some examples:

Fanny Mae
Freddie Mac
AIG
Ford
General Motors
Chrysler

But but but, those are companies! Giving money to companies isn't a handout, no sirree! And if you say otherwise, your a stupid liberal welfare queen!

/snark.

I doubt Obama will make it 4 years. His agenda will be left of Lenin and he will piss off the democrats. He will be tested by a major power and fail. He is not ready for the big shoes.

He will probably be impeached. Or maybe he will follow his playbook and run for emperor after 10 days in office.

However it is a serious question if he is actually natural born. This will need to be addressed before he measures the drapes. His photoshop job of a birth certificate whose serial number in the image belonged to his sister just won't pass muster. That and the fact that he claimed Indonesian citizenship and rejected US citizenship.

So time will tell.

I always figured Fairbanks (http://sorethumbsonline.com/comics/st20081110.jpg) was a caricature of a republican flavored sad, delusional creature, but then I find out that he's real and he's posting on NSG.

Nice try.
Meh ... more of a C- effort. Wonder where they got that approach ...

Luckily most of America disagrees with you.Also, most of reality does as well.

I doubt Obama will make it 4 years. His agenda will be left of Lenin and he will piss off the democrats. He will be tested by a major power and fail. He is not ready for the big shoes.

He will probably be impeached. Or maybe he will follow his playbook and run for emperor after 10 days in office.

However it is a serious question if he is actually natural born. This will need to be addressed before he measures the drapes. His photoshop job of a birth certificate whose serial number in the image belonged to his sister just won't pass muster. That and the fact that he claimed Indonesian citizenship and rejected US citizenship.

So time will tell.

LOL!!! Left of Lenin? I doubt you even imagine what that means...

I also find pretty amusing the natural born clause in the constitution of a country of immigrants.

I want a Republican to explain how this correlates to them being the party of fiscal responsibility. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Thanks I need to remember this link.

It shows that the last President that even bothered to reduce the national debt was Jackson. And actually it also shows it increasing under Clinton.

Thanks I need to remember this link.

It shows that the last President that even bothered to reduce the national debt was Jackson. And actually it also shows it increasing under Clinton.

I personally rather enjoy the irony that the Republicans have been the big spending party since Johnson.

Kerry was wreckless
Whereas McCain wrecked all the time!

Whereas McCain wrecked all the time!

:tongue::tongue::tongue:

And speaking of being further to the left than Lenin...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

I think that what I will forever blame to Bush is the waste he did with Irak...

After 9/11 the whole world was beind the United States:
Iran was ready to negociate and to give up lots of concessions...Bush turned them down arrogantly until his own mess in Irak makes them stronger than ever...

Ourselves, French, were the very first to go to war in Afghanistan with you...the only reward we get was economical sanctions and lots of bashing that are still waging today, just for being right about Irak !
We were saying that such an attack, based on LIES would alienate world support, that making war on false reasons, in a country you didn't understand and can't handle would just end as a colonial war...

During those few precious years, you Americans were given an opportunity to really change the world, being the ultimate unchallenged power.
You didn't, because of this administration who have stolen your democratic rights !

Turning down Kyoto protocol, keeping pressure on the world to keep stupid ultra-liberal policies until the predictate collapse occured...

I didn't speak of all this tremendous corruption in your military structure, the rising of private armies funded by your public money using the soldiers trained and equipped by public money...

Yeah...so much to say about W. Bush junior...

And I don't think that now your politics have understood that a regular army is absolutly not efficient against terrorism.
It's just a way to waste money and give them free publicity.

Terrorists are criminals, not "soldiers".

Fuck Patriot Act...

Oh I really hope for the sake of the world that NOW some things would change.

At least a little. Just a bit in the good way. It would be new.

I know I'm a bit late in this discussion but I just had to say: THIS is why I love the French. I was applauding the French when they refused to join the U.S. in war against Iraq. A lot of stupid Americans think the French are arrogant [oh the irony!], but they are merely confusing arrogance and honesty. If you're right, you're right... and France was right. Although I am unfortunately a U.S. citizen by birth, I am proud to say that my lineage is overwhelmingly French.

As an added bonus, my boyfriend loves my accent. :rolleyes:

I am glad to say goodbye to that evil chimp of a president, who never for a moment had my support. His rather blatant promotion of homophobia was especially lovely wasn't it? Really, as long as my boyfriend and I aren't doing it on his front lawn, it should be of no concern to him.

I'm crossing my fingers that Obama will drastically improve diplomatic relations. I think/hope that other countries will be more open to changing their opinion of the U.S. with him in office.

Luckily most of America disagrees with you.


We needed to stop the deficit. Clinton stopped it. Now it's back. Under who? Republicans. I understand you're a partisan, but shit fire and save matches, there's reality to deal with here. I'd like to see any of these so-called welfare leeches I keep hearing about. Everyone I knew or know on welfare or unemployment are not proud to be there.

So many misconceptions all in one place...

It may be so, but when did it become the responsibility of the government to take care of our every need?

As to Clinton, he was the beneficiary of enormous tax revenues generated by the Reagan tax cuts...
http://www.econreview.com/events/images/inctaxpct1.png

We can see how those correspond to the budget surpluses. Clinton wouldn't have gotten there with his proposed tax hikes.


http://www.econreview.com/data/FGDEF_Max.png

Finally, 'Tangy, I appreciate your comprehensive knowledge of poor people, but unless that list of "everyone I knew or know" numbers in the millions, it's a nice anecdote, but nothing more.

So many misconceptions all in one place...

It may be so, but when did it become the responsibility of the government to take care of our every need?

As to Clinton, he was the beneficiary of enormous tax revenues generated by the Reagan tax cuts...
http://www.econreview.com/events/images/inctaxpct1.png

We can see how those correspond to the budget surpluses. Clinton wouldn't have gotten there with his proposed tax hikes.

Yep, the greatness of Clinton's presidency is all due to Reagan. :rolleyes:

[qoute]I appreciate your comprehensive knowledge of poor people, but unless that list of "everyone I knew or know" numbers in the millions, it's a nice anecdote, but nothing more.[/QUOTE]

In the same way the conservative boogeyman of "All poor people on welfare are lazy and want to be poor cuz they dont want to work!" is anecdotal evidence and nothing more.

Yep, the greatness of Clinton's presidency is all due to Reagan. :rolleyes:

Greatness and the impeached president should not really be in the same sentence.

And frankly, yes. Reagan set up the economy and Clinton made sure it nose dived. Yeah, he needs a legacy and people are still trying hard to find one for Clinton.

Greatness and the impeached president should not really be in the same sentence.

The leadership and accomplishments of a president have nothing to do with his personal character. Dont pretend lik you really give a hit about the purjury charge. You care he was gettin a BJ from an intern. I mean, thats that what started the whole episode.


And frankly, yes. Reagan set up the economy and Clinton made sure it nose dived. Yeah, he needs a legacy and people are still trying hard to find one for Clinton.


Which is why the economy is shit under Sr too, but then got strong again durin Clinton? Thats what Reaganomics does, right? Makes the economy go up, then down, then up again?

You really are this delusional?

I mean, I know a standard tactic of the right is to rewrite history to make it look like theyre all great and their ideological opponents are all awful, but really.

The leadership and accomplishments of a president have nothing to do with his personal character. Dont pretend lik you really give a hit about the purjury charge. You care he was gettin a BJ from an intern. I mean, thats that what started the whole episode.

The only one concerned about blow jobs seems to be you. I most certainly do care about his perjury and obstruction of justice, and you should be also. BTW, the lie he told about Lewinsky I could not care less. I am much more concerned by his previous action(s) of rape(s) etc, that he obstructed the investigation(s), and lied about it under oath (perjury). But again, you fall back to the 'blow job defense'.

I expect higher standards from my President. Especially a lawyer who knows better. You do not lie under oath, manipulate the system with your power, and expect no one to notice.

Go give a blow job and when you are done, realize that no one cares about Clinton's sexual trysts in the oval office, no matter how hard you want to close your eyes and recite the DNC commandments.

The only one concerned about blow jobs seems to be you. I most certainly do care about his perjury and obstruction of justice, and you should be also. BTW, the lie he told about Lewinsky I could not care less. I am much more concerned by his previous action(s) of rape(s) etc, that he obstructed the investigation(s), and lied about it under oath (perjury). But again, you fall back to the 'blow job defense'.

I expect higher standards from my President. Especially a lawyer who knows better. You do not lie under oath, manipulate the system with your power, and expect no one to notice.

Go give a blow job and when you are done, realize that no one cares about Clinton's sexual trysts in the oval office, no matter how hard you want to close your eyes and recite the DNC commandments.

I notice you utterly ignored the policy half of my post and went straight for character assassination. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Let me be clear: I dont give two shits what kind of person slick willy is. He was a good leader and got shit done, and thats all I care about.

I believe the Afghan war was justified and I think many agree with that.

I was working for the MOD at the time and I didn't meet a single member of millitary personel who would agree with you!

I was also engaged to an Afghani refugee who, although chuffed that something was being done to 'fix' his country and chuffed that he wasn't there to be in the thick of it, felt that the Afghani problem was just that, Afghani and not international.

At the end of the day if the US hadn't put Osama there to preside over Afghanistan, being daft enough to think that they would be able to control him, there wouldn't have been an Afghani problem in the first place!

I notice you utterly ignored the policy half of my post and went straight for character assassination. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Let me be clear: I dont give two shits what kind of person slick willy is. He was a good leader and got shit done, and thats all I care about.

Naughty Slave Girls: Proof that Bushevism Lives

I notice you utterly ignored the policy half of my post and went straight for character assassination. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Let me be clear: I dont give two shits what kind of person slick willy is. He was a good leader and got shit done, and thats all I care about.

You had a coherent policy argument?

Lets see:
His utter failure of foreign policy lead to WTC 1993, Somalia, Riyadh bombings, Dhahran, 9/11, Embassy bombings, USS Cole.

His utter misunderstanding of economics lead the the recession and Obama is about to finish the job by raising taxes.

He put US Troops under a UN commander...treasonist.

He stole files against all his 'enemies' so he had political fodder.

Vince Foster.

Gutted the military and intelligence budgets.

Always aided druglords in any conflict.

Positives, let's see
He did get 'don't ask don't tell' in the military. So Gays and Lesbians only have to fear being outed.

Still thinking...

Naughty Slave Girls: Proof that Bushevism Lives

Actually I am not a Bush fan. His faith based initiatives and other social policies suck. He lets his religion cloud his judgement.

You had a coherent policy argument?

Lets see:
His utter failure of foreign policy lead to WTC 1993, Somalia, Riyadh bombings, Dhahran, 9/11, Embassy bombings, USS Cole.

9/11 is hardly his fault, considering he left a warning that it might happen for Shrubs. That, and every CIA and intellegence officer has said he did great.

His utter misunderstanding of economics lead the the recession and Obama is about to finished the job by raising taxes.

See...that wasnt his fault.

He put US Troops under a UN commander...treasonist.

Nooooo.

He stole files against all his 'enemies' so he had political fodder.

Vince Foster.

Gutted the military and intelligence budgets.

Lawlz.

Always aided druglords in any conflict.


Not the first or only one to due this. Reagan did it too. But its ok when Reagan does it, right? Especially if its selling guns to terrorists (Iran Contra!)

I still want to know how Reagan is responsible for the 90s boom.

Just admit it NSGs, you arent old enough to remember anythng about Clinton's administration.

9/11 is hardly his fault, considering he left a warning that it might happen for Shrubs. That, and every CIA and intellegence officer has said he did great.



See...that wasnt his fault.



Nooooo.



Lawlz.



Not the first or only one to due this. Reagan did it too. But its ok when Reagan does it, right? Especially if its selling guns to terrorists (Iran Contra!)

I still want to know how Reagan is responsible for the 90s boom.

Just admit it NSGs, you arent old enough to remember anythng about Clinton's administration.


Chuckle. I am probably twice your age sonny.

Shrubs, lol.

Since you have no idea what you are speaking of, lets get back to this notion of a 'surplus' under Clinton.


There was never a surplus. Never. Anyone claiming it has a total and complete misunderstanding of the structure of the national debt. There are two entities that make up the debt: Public and inter-governmental holdings. In every year of the Clinton fiasco, they bought down the public debt. However, they got the money from the inter-governmental holdings at a higher rate! Plus the smoke and mirrors reporting and a willful US media, it sure looked like a surplus! Or did it?

Look at the actual numbers from 97-01:

FY1997 (9/30/97) Pub: $3.79T Gov: $1.62T Total: $5.41T
FY1998 (9/30/98) Pub: $3.73T Gov: $1.79T Total: $5.53T
FY1999 (9/30/99) Pub: $3.64T Gov: $2.02T Total: $5.65T
FY2000 (9/30/00) Pub: $3.41T Gov: $2.27T Total: $5.67T
FY2001 (9/30/01) Pub: $3.34T Gov: $2.47T Total: $5.81T

So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

So you have fallen for this lie. These numbers are from the budgets themselves, not CNN or the DNC. The books they gave you are cooked.

So whereas Clintoon (since you like names) *could* claim the public holdings decreased, he mortgaged our future with much higher increases on the government side. Worst possible way at higher interest rates, but hey, trying to look good to voters.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

So taking in more money than you spend isn't a "budget surplus"? Well, I'm lost.

So taking in more money than you spend isn't a "budget surplus"? Well, I'm lost.

Chuckle. lets put it in easier terms.

If you make $50k, and you spend $49k. You have a $1k Surplus.

Clintoon lied at another point when questioned on this and he said he re-invested the 'surplus'. First off there wasn't one, second off IF he did it would no longer be one. So in this example you went out and spent $2000 to celebrate, you have a deficit.

So if the US Government Spends less, it would be a surplus (in budget) but not towards the national debt which is of course the goal to reduce the deficit (the debt). However that is not what happened. Look at the total debt. It steadily rose every year under clintoon.

The debt/deficit rose every year. Surplus? :)

Really people, don't feed the troll.

Really people, don't feed the troll.

Ok we'll stop feeding you if you agree that facts bewilder you.

(I'll bite) Certainly. In conserva-speak, fact equals lies, and lies do confuse me when they're so blatant and unsupported as yours. (JFK and LBJ pacifists? Obama raising taxes to pre-Reagan levels? LMAO.)

(I'll bite) Certainly. In conserva-speak, fact equals lies, and lies do confuse me when they're so blatant and unsupported as yours. (JFK and LBJ pacifists? Obama raising taxes to pre-Reagan levels? LMAO.)

So the actual governmental numbers are lying now? I see.

BTW, here is some light reading for you disbelievers of Reagan policies.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120

Oh and BTW, I was in service to my country in the Reagan era. Were you even conceived then?