Do you miss W like I do?

[Mojo2]

I pointed out as historians will do that IN SPITE of not only 9/11 but the recession, the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion plus 400,000 jobs and then we had the WORST hurricane SEASONS... not just one hurricane but 6 of the top ten worst hurricanes!
10 Costliest Catastrophes in the U.S. - Slide Show-Kiplinger
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...

There were deaths, $1 trillion in losses and again NOT ONE president has ever had that happen.
Coupled with 9/11 again historians will say Bush not only helped the country SURVIVE these events but we thrived!
GWB had the Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.

So with these FACTS alone and NOT your wild exaggerated GUESSES I am 100% confident Bush will be considered a GREAT President that in spite of these 4 gigantic events occurring he kept the USA stable. Kept the economy going. Kept people working and obviously all the while NOT opening his mouth ONE time in complaining about our military killing civilians as Obama has done. Or calling police stupid. Or playing golf minutes after a beheading! These are the FACTs and you can NOT refute any of them.

The problem is a president's reign doesn't mean everything they did just stops. Just because they can't take office again. Imagine there were a 5 year term of office and not 4. Bush won in 2000 and then again in 2005. He left office in 2010. All of a sudden the statistics would have changed massively.

You can't separate the economy now with Bush's reign in office. You can have parts that are influenced by Obama, parts influenced by Bush, and also parts that are just natural and have nothing much to do with either.

The same for Bush's reign. Parts were Clinton, parts were Bush and parts just natural.

However I'd say Bush had more of an impact on the economy, and it was a negative impact mostly, than Obama has had.

But just pure "these were the stats when he took office and these are the stats when he left office" don't tell me anything much.

Well, even though your bias shined through your rationality saved this post from being just another air jerk worthy comment.

Why is stating the facts BIASED?
What I did was report exactly what occurred during the ONLY administration in history to have 4 earth shaking events occur in 8 years.
I mean why is that bias to point out NO other presidency ever faced 4 events of the magnitude of these events.
Sure FDR faced depression and pearl harbor. But did he also have the worst hurricane seasons or a major collapse like the dot.com bubble? Sure Truman faced Korea as did Ike but did they have an attack on American soil as 9/11 and the anthrax attacks?
My point is not one presidency had 4 events occur in 8 years like the recession/dot.com bust/911/worst hurricanes.. nothing.
So tell me how that is biased in pointing this very large distinction about Bush?
Please correct me as to my history because outside of the depression/pearl harbor... what else did FDR face and i'll give him credit!
He did have 4 terms or nearly 14 years when he died which is nearly double what Bush had.

To try to straighten this out, I was responding to the frigidweirdo.

And you are responding to...?

 

[Mojo2]

Boilerplate from an intellectual gnat.
Sonny, you are boring.

Well, fuck you up the ass with a Star of David medallion.

And I hope you'd get the point(s)

All six of them.

There.

Still boring?

If so, I will just have to concede the matter.

You are too low for even I to go!

 

[JWBooth]

The beggar that I told no to on the way home did better than that.
You are going to have to try harder gnat.

 

[ChrisL]

Spoken like a true Jihadi!

Long live Israel.

Standard issue bullshit. Anytime anyone is not 100% in favor of blessing everything done by the Israeli government throw out that crap.
It is easier than thinking, which, clearly, is not your long suit.
Long live the US, the rest need to learn to take care of themselves.

In a global fight to resist the ever spreading tentacles of Islamism how much sense does it make for us to abandon a fellow Democratic nation?

Are we that almighty we can afford to throw our allies under the bus???

And how honorable would it be to abandon a fellow Democracy which is fighting OUR battle???

We are the Great Satan.

Israel is just the little Satan.

What good would you see from shamelessly abandoning our friend while they are fighting for their lives?

And it's not just ANY fight!

It is a fight that we can't avoid no matter what our relationship is with Israel.

Global Jihad is their game and they are playing it without any help from your racist attitude.

We will NEVER abandon Israel.

You are a racist.

Go fuck yourself.

I agree. I think it would be stupid to abandon Israel. I wonder if they think about the slaughter of the Israeli people if that were to happen? People who would do such a thing to one of our only dependable allies in the ME are obviously not thinking logically.

 

[Mojo2]

I pointed out as historians will do that IN SPITE of not only 9/11 but the recession, the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion plus 400,000 jobs and then we had the WORST hurricane SEASONS... not just one hurricane but 6 of the top ten worst hurricanes!
10 Costliest Catastrophes in the U.S. - Slide Show-Kiplinger
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...

There were deaths, $1 trillion in losses and again NOT ONE president has ever had that happen.
Coupled with 9/11 again historians will say Bush not only helped the country SURVIVE these events but we thrived!
GWB had the Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.

So with these FACTS alone and NOT your wild exaggerated GUESSES I am 100% confident Bush will be considered a GREAT President that in spite of these 4 gigantic events occurring he kept the USA stable. Kept the economy going. Kept people working and obviously all the while NOT opening his mouth ONE time in complaining about our military killing civilians as Obama has done. Or calling police stupid. Or playing golf minutes after a beheading! These are the FACTs and you can NOT refute any of them.

The problem is a president's reign doesn't mean everything they did just stops. Just because they can't take office again. Imagine there were a 5 year term of office and not 4. Bush won in 2000 and then again in 2005. He left office in 2010. All of a sudden the statistics would have changed massively.

You can't separate the economy now with Bush's reign in office. You can have parts that are influenced by Obama, parts influenced by Bush, and also parts that are just natural and have nothing much to do with either.

The same for Bush's reign. Parts were Clinton, parts were Bush and parts just natural.

However I'd say Bush had more of an impact on the economy, and it was a negative impact mostly, than Obama has had.

But just pure "these were the stats when he took office and these are the stats when he left office" don't tell me anything much.

Conservatives are freaks. They tell us Reagan's economy lasted through 1999 ... but then they tell us Bush's economy lasted only until January 20th, 2009.

Everything changes, Einstain.

You can't just overlap economic conditions from administration to administration and expect they would be identical.

Reagan didn't have to deal with subversives on the streets strong arming the S&L's into making more and more risky loans or Eboma et al would protest their institutions.

Reagan didn't have assholes like this sabotaging the country intentionally or through negligence, corruption or incompetence.

The point is .... Reagan's economy didn't last almost 20 years and Bush's didn't end the day Obama was sworn in. And as far as that Barney video ... despite being on the wrong side of that issue, he was just a member of the minority party and did not subvert any policies.
But I do like how the right took credit for the housing boom until it busted -- then it suddenly became the fault of the minority party Democrats.

What patriotic America WOULDN'T celebrate prosperity?

But credit Bush for seeing something amiss about the S&L industry and, without OVERSTEPPING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, he warned Congress about this matter which he saw as a problem just waiting to happen.

When the law dictates the boundaries of your powers and you obey the law you will have to rely on others in the other branches of government to do their jobs adequately.

The Congresspeople who castigated Bush's representative should ALL be sent packing!

Barny Frank and Chris Dodd got while the gettin was good!

Slimy but not stupid.

They left Congress one step ahead of probable indictments.

Look.

Rehashing the past is not doing anything to help us deal with the future.

Yet we always get bogged down in the liberal delight.

Liberals also seem have a poor sense of priorities. They focus on the inconsequential and the lesser urgent matters precisely when something of much greater importance or urgency needs to be dealt with.

Why the hell are you arguing this shit?

Bush is out of office 6 years.

What will we do tomorrow to extricate ourselves from the messes completely brought about by Eboma?

Focus.

Focus.

What is the most urgent thing to do?

Try to go back to the year 2008 to bash Bush some more or make sure we aren't in the same or a similar ditch tomorrow?

I know what you want to do.

What you are best at.

Inconsequential nonsense while adults need to keep you from getting US into trouble!

 

[Mojo2]

The beggar that I told no to on the way home did better than that.
You are going to have to try harder gnat.

You win the "Slimiest Bottom Dweller" award.

Congrats.

Yay for you.

 

[Mojo2]

Spoken like a true Jihadi!

Long live Israel.

Standard issue bullshit. Anytime anyone is not 100% in favor of blessing everything done by the Israeli government throw out that crap.
It is easier than thinking, which, clearly, is not your long suit.
Long live the US, the rest need to learn to take care of themselves.

In a global fight to resist the ever spreading tentacles of Islamism how much sense does it make for us to abandon a fellow Democratic nation?

Are we that almighty we can afford to throw our allies under the bus???

And how honorable would it be to abandon a fellow Democracy which is fighting OUR battle???

We are the Great Satan.

Israel is just the little Satan.

What good would you see from shamelessly abandoning our friend while they are fighting for their lives?

And it's not just ANY fight!

It is a fight that we can't avoid no matter what our relationship is with Israel.

Global Jihad is their game and they are playing it without any help from your racist attitude.

We will NEVER abandon Israel.

You are a racist.

Go fuck yourself.

I agree. I think it would be stupid to abandon Israel. I wonder if they think about the slaughter of the Israeli people if that were to happen? People who would do such a thing to one of our only dependable allies in the ME are obviously not thinking logically.

That or they are actually Jihadis.

 

[ChrisL]

Spoken like a true Jihadi!

Long live Israel.

Standard issue bullshit. Anytime anyone is not 100% in favor of blessing everything done by the Israeli government throw out that crap.
It is easier than thinking, which, clearly, is not your long suit.
Long live the US, the rest need to learn to take care of themselves.

In a global fight to resist the ever spreading tentacles of Islamism how much sense does it make for us to abandon a fellow Democratic nation?

Are we that almighty we can afford to throw our allies under the bus???

And how honorable would it be to abandon a fellow Democracy which is fighting OUR battle???

We are the Great Satan.

Israel is just the little Satan.

What good would you see from shamelessly abandoning our friend while they are fighting for their lives?

And it's not just ANY fight!

It is a fight that we can't avoid no matter what our relationship is with Israel.

Global Jihad is their game and they are playing it without any help from your racist attitude.

We will NEVER abandon Israel.

You are a racist.

Go fuck yourself.

I agree. I think it would be stupid to abandon Israel. I wonder if they think about the slaughter of the Israeli people if that were to happen? People who would do such a thing to one of our only dependable allies in the ME are obviously not thinking logically.

That or they are actually Jihadis.

Lol! I suppose you never know! Watch out that they don't brainwash you!

 

[Mojo2]

Spoken like a true Jihadi!

Long live Israel.

Standard issue bullshit. Anytime anyone is not 100% in favor of blessing everything done by the Israeli government throw out that crap.
It is easier than thinking, which, clearly, is not your long suit.
Long live the US, the rest need to learn to take care of themselves.

In a global fight to resist the ever spreading tentacles of Islamism how much sense does it make for us to abandon a fellow Democratic nation?

Are we that almighty we can afford to throw our allies under the bus???

And how honorable would it be to abandon a fellow Democracy which is fighting OUR battle???

We are the Great Satan.

Israel is just the little Satan.

What good would you see from shamelessly abandoning our friend while they are fighting for their lives?

And it's not just ANY fight!

It is a fight that we can't avoid no matter what our relationship is with Israel.

Global Jihad is their game and they are playing it without any help from your racist attitude.

We will NEVER abandon Israel.

You are a racist.

Go fuck yourself.

I agree. I think it would be stupid to abandon Israel. I wonder if they think about the slaughter of the Israeli people if that were to happen? People who would do such a thing to one of our only dependable allies in the ME are obviously not thinking logically.

That or they are actually Jihadis.

Lol! I suppose you never know! Watch out that they don't brainwash you!

That wouldn't be all bad.

My brain could stand a little soap and water.

 

[ChrisL]

Standard issue bullshit. Anytime anyone is not 100% in favor of blessing everything done by the Israeli government throw out that crap.
It is easier than thinking, which, clearly, is not your long suit.
Long live the US, the rest need to learn to take care of themselves.

In a global fight to resist the ever spreading tentacles of Islamism how much sense does it make for us to abandon a fellow Democratic nation?

Are we that almighty we can afford to throw our allies under the bus???

And how honorable would it be to abandon a fellow Democracy which is fighting OUR battle???

We are the Great Satan.

Israel is just the little Satan.

What good would you see from shamelessly abandoning our friend while they are fighting for their lives?

And it's not just ANY fight!

It is a fight that we can't avoid no matter what our relationship is with Israel.

Global Jihad is their game and they are playing it without any help from your racist attitude.

We will NEVER abandon Israel.

You are a racist.

Go fuck yourself.

I agree. I think it would be stupid to abandon Israel. I wonder if they think about the slaughter of the Israeli people if that were to happen? People who would do such a thing to one of our only dependable allies in the ME are obviously not thinking logically.

That or they are actually Jihadis.

Lol! I suppose you never know! Watch out that they don't brainwash you!

That wouldn't be all bad.

My brain could stand a little soap and water.

 

[healthmyths]

I pointed out as historians will do that IN SPITE of not only 9/11 but the recession, the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion plus 400,000 jobs and then we had the WORST hurricane SEASONS... not just one hurricane but 6 of the top ten worst hurricanes!
10 Costliest Catastrophes in the U.S. - Slide Show-Kiplinger
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...

There were deaths, $1 trillion in losses and again NOT ONE president has ever had that happen.
Coupled with 9/11 again historians will say Bush not only helped the country SURVIVE these events but we thrived!
GWB had the Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.

So with these FACTS alone and NOT your wild exaggerated GUESSES I am 100% confident Bush will be considered a GREAT President that in spite of these 4 gigantic events occurring he kept the USA stable. Kept the economy going. Kept people working and obviously all the while NOT opening his mouth ONE time in complaining about our military killing civilians as Obama has done. Or calling police stupid. Or playing golf minutes after a beheading! These are the FACTs and you can NOT refute any of them.

The problem is a president's reign doesn't mean everything they did just stops. Just because they can't take office again. Imagine there were a 5 year term of office and not 4. Bush won in 2000 and then again in 2005. He left office in 2010. All of a sudden the statistics would have changed massively.

You can't separate the economy now with Bush's reign in office. You can have parts that are influenced by Obama, parts influenced by Bush, and also parts that are just natural and have nothing much to do with either.

The same for Bush's reign. Parts were Clinton, parts were Bush and parts just natural.

However I'd say Bush had more of an impact on the economy, and it was a negative impact mostly, than Obama has had.

But just pure "these were the stats when he took office and these are the stats when he left office" don't tell me anything much.

But YOU can't ignore realities that the dot com bust came after Clinton's credit for the bubble!
YOU can't ignore the reality that 9/11 occurred after Clinton's Gorelick Memo prevented CIA from sharing with FBI the bombers in the USA!
YOU can't ignore the reality of the WORST hurricane SEASONS...not just hurricanes occurred.
Those factors Bush had to deal with in his presidency.
And IN spite of those 4 events the USA kept out of very severe depression both economically and more important the mental state.
What would the USA have been economically if Bush hadn't pushed for tax cuts that stimulated the economy after the recession?
Then Bush got hit by 9/11... again 400,000 jobs gone. $1 trillion business losses including TAX revenue!
On top of those economic losses then the hurricanes destroyed lives,businesses etc.. YET throughout it all Bush kept us all up!
Didn't complain about people bitching at him about Katrina. Kept slogging along. All the partisan snipping about Iraq.. kept going on.
As a result the statistics are realities.
After losing millions of jobs due to 9/11/dot.com/hurricanes STILL 5 million more people working at then end of 2008!
GDP growing at a rate of 16% over Bush presidency.
And yet people Bash Bush and totally needlessly!
Even stupid ignorant conservatives saying Bush spent like a drunken sailor!
FACTS please:

Year Outlays(trillions) Revenues(Trillions) Surplus/(deficit) more going out then coming in..

• 2000 $2.026 $ 1.789 $236.2 billion
• 2001 1.991 1.862 126.6
• 2002 1.853 2.010 (157.8 billion deficit) $5 trillion dot.com busts $66 billion in reduced revenue - 300,000 mostly high paying jobs gone Recession started 3/01 ended 11/01.
• 2003 1.782 2.159 (377.6 billion deficit) $2 trillion 9/11 losses - $33 billion LOST TAX revenue PLUS loans , plus 146,000 jobs GONE
• 2004 1.880 2.252 (412.7 billion deficit) $600 billion in Homeland startup costs
• 2005 2.153 2.472 (318.3 billion deficit) $1 trillion from worst hurricane SEASONS in history $12 billion
• 2006 2.406 2.655 (248.2 billion deficit)
• 2007 2.568 2.728 (160.7 billion deficit)
• 2008 2.524 2.982 (458.6 billion deficit)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf
NOTE the Deficits were declining from right after 9/11 when tax cuts kicked in 2003 by 2005 lower deficit higher revenues!

 

[Truthseeker420]

 

[Faun]

I pointed out as historians will do that IN SPITE of not only 9/11 but the recession, the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion plus 400,000 jobs and then we had the WORST hurricane SEASONS... not just one hurricane but 6 of the top ten worst hurricanes!
10 Costliest Catastrophes in the U.S. - Slide Show-Kiplinger
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...

There were deaths, $1 trillion in losses and again NOT ONE president has ever had that happen.
Coupled with 9/11 again historians will say Bush not only helped the country SURVIVE these events but we thrived!
GWB had the Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.

So with these FACTS alone and NOT your wild exaggerated GUESSES I am 100% confident Bush will be considered a GREAT President that in spite of these 4 gigantic events occurring he kept the USA stable. Kept the economy going. Kept people working and obviously all the while NOT opening his mouth ONE time in complaining about our military killing civilians as Obama has done. Or calling police stupid. Or playing golf minutes after a beheading! These are the FACTs and you can NOT refute any of them.

The problem is a president's reign doesn't mean everything they did just stops. Just because they can't take office again. Imagine there were a 5 year term of office and not 4. Bush won in 2000 and then again in 2005. He left office in 2010. All of a sudden the statistics would have changed massively.

You can't separate the economy now with Bush's reign in office. You can have parts that are influenced by Obama, parts influenced by Bush, and also parts that are just natural and have nothing much to do with either.

The same for Bush's reign. Parts were Clinton, parts were Bush and parts just natural.

However I'd say Bush had more of an impact on the economy, and it was a negative impact mostly, than Obama has had.

But just pure "these were the stats when he took office and these are the stats when he left office" don't tell me anything much.

Conservatives are freaks. They tell us Reagan's economy lasted through 1999 ... but then they tell us Bush's economy lasted only until January 20th, 2009.

Everything changes, Einstain.

You can't just overlap economic conditions from administration to administration and expect they would be identical.

Reagan didn't have to deal with subversives on the streets strong arming the S&L's into making more and more risky loans or Eboma et al would protest their institutions.

Reagan didn't have assholes like this sabotaging the country intentionally or through negligence, corruption or incompetence.

The point is .... Reagan's economy didn't last almost 20 years and Bush's didn't end the day Obama was sworn in. And as far as that Barney video ... despite being on the wrong side of that issue, he was just a member of the minority party and did not subvert any policies.
But I do like how the right took credit for the housing boom until it busted -- then it suddenly became the fault of the minority party Democrats.

What patriotic America WOULDN'T celebrate prosperity?

But credit Bush for seeing something amiss about the S&L industry and, without OVERSTEPPING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, he warned Congress about this matter which he saw as a problem just waiting to happen.

When the law dictates the boundaries of your powers and you obey the law you will have to rely on others in the other branches of government to do their jobs adequately.

The Congresspeople who castigated Bush's representative should ALL be sent packing!

Barny Frank and Chris Dodd got while the gettin was good!

Slimy but not stupid.

They left Congress one step ahead of probable indictments.

Look.

Rehashing the past is not doing anything to help us deal with the future.

Yet we always get bogged down in the liberal delight.

Liberals also seem have a poor sense of priorities. They focus on the inconsequential and the lesser urgent matters precisely when something of much greater importance or urgency needs to be dealt with.

Why the hell are you arguing this shit?

Bush is out of office 6 years.

What will we do tomorrow to extricate ourselves from the messes completely brought about by Eboma?

Focus.

Focus.

What is the most urgent thing to do?

Try to go back to the year 2008 to bash Bush some more or make sure we aren't in the same or a similar ditch tomorrow?

I know what you want to do.

What you are best at.

Inconsequential nonsense while adults need to keep you from getting US into trouble!

Focus??? Are you fucking insane? Don't you know you're posting in a thread about Bush??? What do you think the 'W' in the thread title stands for?

Holyfuckingshit!

If you don't want to hear about Bush, I highly recommend you don't come to threads about him.

That aside, the right didn't merely "celebrate" the boom, they took credit for it. They credited Republican policies for pushing home ownership to record highs. Of course, when that came crashing down, the right then pushed that very same "credit" onto Democrats. For some odd reason, the right no longer wanted credit for expanding home ownership to unprecedented levels. Go figure?

 

[candycorn]

Bush was a disaster.

 

[Faun]

Bush was a disaster.

Unmitigated.

 

[Mojo2]

The problem is a president's reign doesn't mean everything they did just stops. Just because they can't take office again. Imagine there were a 5 year term of office and not 4. Bush won in 2000 and then again in 2005. He left office in 2010. All of a sudden the statistics would have changed massively.

You can't separate the economy now with Bush's reign in office. You can have parts that are influenced by Obama, parts influenced by Bush, and also parts that are just natural and have nothing much to do with either.

The same for Bush's reign. Parts were Clinton, parts were Bush and parts just natural.

However I'd say Bush had more of an impact on the economy, and it was a negative impact mostly, than Obama has had.

But just pure "these were the stats when he took office and these are the stats when he left office" don't tell me anything much.

Conservatives are freaks. They tell us Reagan's economy lasted through 1999 ... but then they tell us Bush's economy lasted only until January 20th, 2009.

Everything changes, Einstain.

You can't just overlap economic conditions from administration to administration and expect they would be identical.

Reagan didn't have to deal with subversives on the streets strong arming the S&L's into making more and more risky loans or Eboma et al would protest their institutions.

Reagan didn't have assholes like this sabotaging the country intentionally or through negligence, corruption or incompetence.

The point is .... Reagan's economy didn't last almost 20 years and Bush's didn't end the day Obama was sworn in. And as far as that Barney video ... despite being on the wrong side of that issue, he was just a member of the minority party and did not subvert any policies.
But I do like how the right took credit for the housing boom until it busted -- then it suddenly became the fault of the minority party Democrats.

What patriotic America WOULDN'T celebrate prosperity?

But credit Bush for seeing something amiss about the S&L industry and, without OVERSTEPPING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, he warned Congress about this matter which he saw as a problem just waiting to happen.

When the law dictates the boundaries of your powers and you obey the law you will have to rely on others in the other branches of government to do their jobs adequately.

The Congresspeople who castigated Bush's representative should ALL be sent packing!

Barny Frank and Chris Dodd got while the gettin was good!

Slimy but not stupid.

They left Congress one step ahead of probable indictments.

Look.

Rehashing the past is not doing anything to help us deal with the future.

Yet we always get bogged down in the liberal delight.

Liberals also seem have a poor sense of priorities. They focus on the inconsequential and the lesser urgent matters precisely when something of much greater importance or urgency needs to be dealt with.

Why the hell are you arguing this shit?

Bush is out of office 6 years.

What will we do tomorrow to extricate ourselves from the messes completely brought about by Eboma?

Focus.

Focus.

What is the most urgent thing to do?

Try to go back to the year 2008 to bash Bush some more or make sure we aren't in the same or a similar ditch tomorrow?

I know what you want to do.

What you are best at.

Inconsequential nonsense while adults need to keep you from getting US into trouble!

Focus??? Are you fucking insane? Don't you know you're posting in a thread about Bush??? What do you think the 'W' in the thread title stands for?

Holyfuckingshit!

If you don't want to hear about Bush, I highly recommend you don't come to threads about him.

That aside, the right didn't merely "celebrate" the boom, they took credit for it. They credited Republican policies for pushing home ownership to record highs. Of course, when that came crashing down, the right then pushed that very same "credit" onto Democrats. For some odd reason, the right no longer wanted credit for expanding home ownership to unprecedented levels. Go figure?

"For some odd reason, the right no longer wanted credit for expanding home ownership to unprecedented levels. Go figure?"

Well that's a silly argument, isn't it?

Once GOP Reps discovered impropriety in the departments they had previously expected and believed to be run professionally what should those GOP Representatives do?

Continue on as though nothing was wrong???

 

[Mojo2]

Bush was a disaster.

Unmitigated.

You are saying Bush should have allowed Israel to attack Iraq in an act of pre-emptive self defense?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Everything changes, Einstain.

You can't just overlap economic conditions from administration to administration and expect they would be identical.

Reagan didn't have to deal with subversives on the streets strong arming the S&L's into making more and more risky loans or Eboma et al would protest their institutions.

Reagan didn't have assholes like this sabotaging the country intentionally or through negligence, corruption or incompetence.

But it doesn't change that one finished 10 years later and the other finished on the day he left office just because it's convenient for your own argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I pointed out as historians will do that IN SPITE of not only 9/11 but the recession, the dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion plus 400,000 jobs and then we had the WORST hurricane SEASONS... not just one hurricane but 6 of the top ten worst hurricanes!
10 Costliest Catastrophes in the U.S. - Slide Show-Kiplinger
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...

There were deaths, $1 trillion in losses and again NOT ONE president has ever had that happen.
Coupled with 9/11 again historians will say Bush not only helped the country SURVIVE these events but we thrived!
GWB had the Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.

So with these FACTS alone and NOT your wild exaggerated GUESSES I am 100% confident Bush will be considered a GREAT President that in spite of these 4 gigantic events occurring he kept the USA stable. Kept the economy going. Kept people working and obviously all the while NOT opening his mouth ONE time in complaining about our military killing civilians as Obama has done. Or calling police stupid. Or playing golf minutes after a beheading! These are the FACTs and you can NOT refute any of them.

The problem is a president's reign doesn't mean everything they did just stops. Just because they can't take office again. Imagine there were a 5 year term of office and not 4. Bush won in 2000 and then again in 2005. He left office in 2010. All of a sudden the statistics would have changed massively.

You can't separate the economy now with Bush's reign in office. You can have parts that are influenced by Obama, parts influenced by Bush, and also parts that are just natural and have nothing much to do with either.

The same for Bush's reign. Parts were Clinton, parts were Bush and parts just natural.

However I'd say Bush had more of an impact on the economy, and it was a negative impact mostly, than Obama has had.

But just pure "these were the stats when he took office and these are the stats when he left office" don't tell me anything much.

Well, even though your bias shined through your rationality saved this post from being just another air jerk worthy comment.

Do you have any kind of opinion that would allow for someone to reply back?

 

[Faun]

Conservatives are freaks. They tell us Reagan's economy lasted through 1999 ... but then they tell us Bush's economy lasted only until January 20th, 2009.

Everything changes, Einstain.

You can't just overlap economic conditions from administration to administration and expect they would be identical.

Reagan didn't have to deal with subversives on the streets strong arming the S&L's into making more and more risky loans or Eboma et al would protest their institutions.

Reagan didn't have assholes like this sabotaging the country intentionally or through negligence, corruption or incompetence.

The point is .... Reagan's economy didn't last almost 20 years and Bush's didn't end the day Obama was sworn in. And as far as that Barney video ... despite being on the wrong side of that issue, he was just a member of the minority party and did not subvert any policies.
But I do like how the right took credit for the housing boom until it busted -- then it suddenly became the fault of the minority party Democrats.

What patriotic America WOULDN'T celebrate prosperity?

But credit Bush for seeing something amiss about the S&L industry and, without OVERSTEPPING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, he warned Congress about this matter which he saw as a problem just waiting to happen.

When the law dictates the boundaries of your powers and you obey the law you will have to rely on others in the other branches of government to do their jobs adequately.

The Congresspeople who castigated Bush's representative should ALL be sent packing!

Barny Frank and Chris Dodd got while the gettin was good!

Slimy but not stupid.

They left Congress one step ahead of probable indictments.

Look.

Rehashing the past is not doing anything to help us deal with the future.

Yet we always get bogged down in the liberal delight.

Liberals also seem have a poor sense of priorities. They focus on the inconsequential and the lesser urgent matters precisely when something of much greater importance or urgency needs to be dealt with.

Why the hell are you arguing this shit?

Bush is out of office 6 years.

What will we do tomorrow to extricate ourselves from the messes completely brought about by Eboma?

Focus.

Focus.

What is the most urgent thing to do?

Try to go back to the year 2008 to bash Bush some more or make sure we aren't in the same or a similar ditch tomorrow?

I know what you want to do.

What you are best at.

Inconsequential nonsense while adults need to keep you from getting US into trouble!

Focus??? Are you fucking insane? Don't you know you're posting in a thread about Bush??? What do you think the 'W' in the thread title stands for?

Holyfuckingshit!

If you don't want to hear about Bush, I highly recommend you don't come to threads about him.

That aside, the right didn't merely "celebrate" the boom, they took credit for it. They credited Republican policies for pushing home ownership to record highs. Of course, when that came crashing down, the right then pushed that very same "credit" onto Democrats. For some odd reason, the right no longer wanted credit for expanding home ownership to unprecedented levels. Go figure?

"For some odd reason, the right no longer wanted credit for expanding home ownership to unprecedented levels. Go figure?"

Well that's a silly argument, isn't it?

Once GOP Reps discovered impropriety in the departments they had previously expected and believed to be run professionally what should those GOP Representatives do?

Continue on as though nothing was wrong???

What should the GOP do? Seriously? Let me see if I can help you out here .... they were the party in charge ... how about they fix said improprieties???

And you're avoiding the meat and going for the pudding. The GOP credited their own policies for record home ownership when times were good. But when it all collapsed, they credited Democrats for those very same policies which led to record home ownership.