very good reply:thumbsup: rep given.
Obama's approval rate drops......
- Thread starter mentalman
- Start date
very good reply:thumbsup: rep given.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
nice.
ive been saying that, just give huge fed tax cut or simply no fed tax for a year and see the stimulation.
if that doesnt work nothing will.
its better than spending a few trillion we dont have and wasting half of it in the process of distribution.
the truth is there are alterior motives for that stimulus but i dont want to open any doors so i'll stop...........now.
youve got a new fan mariah
:hatsoff::hatsoff:
There's only one thing sexier than a hot babe. That's
a hot babe that can hold her own in a debate. :lovecoupl
I need you Premium Link Upgrade .
:sing: Join a winner's team. Join team google. :2 cents: :wave2:
Welcome. Thanks for posting, mind if I ask a couple of questions? By your own admission you evaluate the Bush administration as a disaster, why did you vote for him twice? There were alternatives or you could even have abstained.
At the last election the republican ticket was extremely short on fresh ideas and largely functioned as an extention of the (by your opinion) disasterous incumbent. In contrast, the was Obama - who you identify as a great speaker and who "said the right things" which I will loosely interpret as saying that he ran a great campaign. (I'm not convinced about the colour thing. Historically in American politics, to a fantastic degree, white is the colour of victory.) I digress, my point is this: wouldn't it be true to say that the favourable press recieved by Obama was as much a reflection of the reality as it was a product of the perceived bias? If Obama was the better candidate with the better campaign and the fresher ideas and - I'm sorry to say this about the aging senator from Arizona but he was just too old - more energy and vitality, shouldn't the coverage reflect this?
If you just want to answer with a blanket statement like the media are "all Libs" or "in the tank for Obama" then fair enough. It fails though to explain why the places where I get my politics (the English media) universally went for Obama. Let me underline, in England even the Murdoch owned outlets went for Obama. They would have loved nothing more than to have cheered on a conservative. They did not. Usually, at this point, my republican friends like to mumble about how being European and to a lesser extent British means that your very being is tainted by some rouge DNA that renders you socialist without knowing it. I disagree. I am of the opinion that Obama as an individual continues to garner good press because his political acumen is strong and his demeanour is well suited to the position, this alloyed to a sharp intelligence. These traits mean that even when he is making mistakes left and right, as all presidents will, he is able to personally ride them out to a greater degree.
Erm, you haven't debated. You have continually expressed how you feel without coughing up any credible reason for it whatsoever. Indeed, like others here you seem to interpret the refutaions of Farrakhan and his organization as a cover operation to conceal true motives. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Using this silliness as a yardstick, Obama has but one way of confirming his dislike for Farrakhan in your eyes: gunning him down (in camera) in cold *****. Sad to say though that some wankers on here would then probably hop onto the next conspiracy theory.
I'm sorry to have a bee in my bonnet about this but US politics has a rich history of being fucked up by idiots "who know" of un american activities and secret associations and run smear campaigns along those lines. So for the last time come up with a real association between the two men or admit that it is just a fantasy.
Premium Link Upgrade
Cutting taxes for the most part works, in the 1990's under Clinton economic growth was solid but hardly spectacular in the years immediately following the 1993 tax increase. The real economic boom occurred in the latter half of the decade, after his 1997 tax cut. Low taxes are still a key to a strong economy.
Great, solid contribution!!!! It took for you to come here before we could witness a sensible, well reasoned response from another side???? Amazing!!!
A couple of things though...The media are fans of good, compelling news and unless there is the case of some ultra-bias saps who conveniently conflate news with commentary to squeeze out a spin...you usually get the straight dope. Our media wants to embellish our leaders no matter who they are...witness the roll over and play dead they did for GWB in the **** of 9/11 and the succeeding years.
I guess some people believe no matter the circumstance, the "media" only has two modes...to ****** or be in someone's pocket. News just can't be news anymore I suppose.
But Obama is in office on his own merits..he was the one who sat and delivered consistent, coherent answers to the questions posed to him in interview after interview and debate after debate. You can't just skip that stuff you know.
But IF you are to default credit away from Obama because of the failures which preceded him, why stop at GWB if you want to be intellectually honest about it? He did have a rubber stamp congress which was in virtual lock-step with his agenda. Which include some of the very policies you cite as mechanisms for recovery. Frankly Republicans told us for years that they had all the answers and if we simply ceded power to them, everything would end up swimmingly. They just didn't tell us apparently that we would all be swimming after they rand the country up on a glacier.
Isn't the tax rate actually lower now than when Reagan cut them? Isn't the cap gains tax rate lower now than when Reagan cut them? We've had several years of the exact same policies you are citing sans the suspension of income tax...Which some would argue might not matter as much to a person without a job..
Fact of the matter is...the primary policy Reagan engaged in which positively affect his economy was defense spending.:2 cents:
This was really a great post by you though for your rational, level-headed reasoning even if we disagree on conclusions.:thumbsup:
A couple of points here.
Any job performance rating of GWB needs to factor in that he tried to appease Democrats with the No ***** Left Behind legislation that Ted Kennedy was also a proponent of. Also the ************ medication program
was something that he brought to the table as an olive branch.
My point being that conservatives or so called conservatives get into trouble by not sticking to conservative principles and catering to Democrats, GWB should have learned the lesson of his ******'s presidency when he backtracked on the no new taxes pledge to win favor with Dems.
His biggest failure IMO was not proactively heading off the housing bubble mess when he knew that it was a time bomb waiting to explode. He had to have known about this months before any action was taken and only did so when the juggernaut Obama campaign was making waves and finally decided to try and do something about it with only a few weeks of his presidency remaining. Clearly political expediency was at play here.
Overall I would give the Bush administration a score of 70 out of 100 and I absolutely believe that they made the right call in removing Saddam Hussein from power and giving the Iraqi people a chance to govern themselves.
You are spot on when you say that we need to return to Reaganomics. I may disagree with you on some points but you also made some very good ones.
It's nice to know that one of my favorite stars calls herself a Republican.
I think you just sealed my vote for Miss Freeones :thumbsup:
A couple of points here.
Any job performance rating of GWB needs to factor in that he tried to appease Democrats with the No ***** Left Behind legislation that Ted Kennedy was also a proponent of. Also the ************ medication program
was something that he brought to the table as an olive branch.
My point being that conservatives or so called conservatives get into trouble by not sticking to conservative principles and catering to Democrats, GWB should have learned the lesson of his ******'s presidency when he backtracked on the no new taxes pledge to win favor with Dems.
His biggest failure IMO was not proactively heading off the housing bubble mess when he knew that it was a time bomb waiting to explode. He had to have known about this months before any action was taken and only did so when the juggernaut Obama campaign was making waves and finally decided to try and do something about it with only a few weeks of his presidency remaining. Clearly political expediency was at play here.
Overall I would give the Bush administration a score of 70 out of 100 and I absolutely believe that they made the right call in removing Saddam Hussein from power and giving the Iraqi people a chance to govern themselves.
You are spot on when you say that we need to return to Reaganomics. I may disagree with you on some points but you also made some very good ones.
It's nice to know that one of my favorite stars calls herself a Republican.
I think you just sealed my vote for Miss Freeones :thumbsup:
:nono:GWB and his rubber stamp congress ran the country up on the rocks spending on the Iraq war and his so-called tax "rebates"...
Unbelievable!!! The past the buckery of some shills....
GWB and his rubber stamp congress ran the country up on the rocks spending the Iraq war and his so-called tax "rebates"...
Unbelievable!!! The past the buckery of some shills....
That's it? Really? History will judge on whether or not Iraq was money well spent. As for the tax rebates, they pale in comparison to the ******* sailor spending that is taking place now. It's always high hilarity when liberals complain about spending. :rofl: You seem to forget that another chamber of the legislative body was anything but a "rubber stamp" for GWB.
In your best possible scenario for claiming Iraq success, what exactly will a trillion dollars spent there reap the US.
Keeping in mind, they were NO threat to US under ANY realistic scenario, had no measurable footprint for terrorism and were already a fairly cosmopolitan society to begin with.
Now again, you explain to me and the rest of us taxpayers what a trillion dollars spent there will eventually and tangibly yield us in this history you see?
Even Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Al Gore said Saddam was a threat to US security. Only when a Republican is in office does the threat no longer exist. No measurable footprint for terrorism? Assuming that ridiculous statement was true, try and tell that to the Israelis who bore the brunt of suicide bombers that were funded by Saddam Hussein. He paid the families of those bombers. The only thing "Cosmopolitan" about Iraq under Hussein was the Palaces he built for himself and his sons. Meanwhile, the rest of the Iraqi population lived under tyranny and poverty.
As I said earlier, time will be the judge on whether or not the money spent there is worth it. But a stable even slightly democratic government in that region of the world will benefit the US as well as the neighboring countries for many years to come. We would be talking about how to stop 2 countries from obtaining nuclear weapons instead of only Iran at this present time.
Pretty much sums up how I felt about Dubya getting elected in 2000. They voted for Bush because they hated the Clintons so much - not that Dubya was the better man for the job.
Which wound up being an unfunded mandate. Passing something into law and not providing funding is worse than never passing it to begin with.
Nonsense, you mean the multi-billion dollar taypayer funded giveaway to the Pharmaceutical companies? That had everything to do with payoff and nothing to do with helping people really. People are still confused what the program does.
Just my 2 cents.
GWB and his rubber stamp congress ran the country up on the rocks spending on the Iraq war and his so-called tax "rebates"...
Unbelievable!!! The past the buckery of some shills....
No doubt. 6 years of unchecked spending by the republican run house and senate from 2000-2006, yet it's always the liberals to blame for the largest defecit runup in the history of the U.S.
This is why I have a hard time listening to Republicans on FOX talk about "fiscal responsibility" and "wreckless spending". What a load of horseshit.
You SPEND your way out of recession, and that's the way it's ALWAYS been done. It's economics 101.
Of course Big Pharma benefitted. But there is in place now another program that the seniors consider an entitlement that will always be with us. As with Social Security, the ************ **** bill is a part of the socialized fabric of this country. Having said that, I know of a few senior citizens who just love the government paying for the bulk of their prescriptions.
Um.. the senate was not controlled by Repubs for those 6 years. More revisionist history at work here.
There is NO DATA that says government deficit spending makes a recession better. NONE. Zero. Zilch. It's just their word, saying "Well, if we had done NOTHING, it would have been WORSE." It's bullshit. It may not be "popular" but sometimes doing little or nothing is better than doing something completely stupid.
Meanwhile, we've added to the debt at a pace never before seen in human history, Obama has created 50,000+ new government jobs, bailed out Wall Street, GM, and several other industries, and what has it gotten us besides farther in debt?
China is laughing their asses off right now... if we don't get responsible, we will fall the same way the USSR did... by going broke.
Correct 2001-2003 it was a 50/50 tie, but Cheny was the deciding factor on votes if it was close.
2003-2005 it was GOP controlled, but that stoped in 2006 where it is not Dem controlled.
So technically only 2 years it was a true GOP congress.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
ok its just a fantasy. you know more than me.
i'm an idiot and people like me are fucking things up.
we can beat this ***** forever.
no matter what you guys see you will deny everything shown to you.
but really with this guys associations, actions and words during his adult life does merit suspicion and concern to those who give a **** about the country.
Can that be denied?
The old saying, if it smells like it and looks like it it's probably it.
And like I said do you really think he's gonna say "yes, I know and admire Farahkan"., that would be naive.
In the words of his "mentor" Rev Wright "those jews will never let me get near him again".
You guys are big on Hating Hitler right?
Ok so if hitler endorsed a candidate, called him the Messiah and the savior, would that be a red flag?
So for me, the people who love him so much like super lib ***********, people like farakhan and politicians which i believe put personal interests ahead of the good of the country, the young and naive, and blacks who voted for him simply because he's black are big red flags and i cant be on board with them.
Time will tell.
just a fantasy of mine.
Similar threads
- Sticky
