I want the Republicans to win big in 2010 and win the White House in 2012

[WillowTree]

I actually agree; if the R's control the Congress and the White House in 2012 they will of course blame Obama and the Democrats for all that is wrong with America, and cut taxes for the richest Americans, suggesting this is the only way to save our nation.
Then, when we really hit bottom, as we almost did in the last days of the administration of Bush II, the R's will finally become extinct, and no amount of bull shit from the mouth of Palin, Gingrich or Graham will convince the sheep otherwise - and we wil finally have a democratic republic focused on policy which benefits the greatest number of Americans.

We know this because Bush constantly blamed Clinton for the recession and 9/11, right?
Oh, wait.

Haven't you heard? Barry ushered in a new fad, 'blaming the preceding administration for all that's wrong in America'. So far, it's 19 months and counting. That makes this administration fair game come 2012.

everytime he utters that bullshit he just proves he wasn't man enough for the job.

 

[Modbert]

We know this because Bush constantly blamed Clinton for the recession and 9/11, right?
Oh, wait.

Yes, he did.

Blame - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/29/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[Toro]

"Vacuous," opposed to what?

Substantive proposals.

Vacuous compared to a $12 T deficite?

That's an order of magnitude off.

The decimal point doesn't work on Samson's keyboard. The period key does, but not the decimal point.

 

[Samson]

We know this because Bush constantly blamed Clinton for the recession and 9/11, right?
Oh, wait.

Yes, he did.

Blame - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/29/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Modbert.......Jon Sewart is the most credible source you can offer?

Stewart offers a satirical overview that illustrates niether party excepts responsibility for anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

But first, we get to see the USMB Liberals commit suicide online the night of November 2nd! Another board I'll be watching is Democrat Underground.

you know, i can't imagine a lot of things lower than wishing people dead because you don't agree with their politics.

loser.

Rhetorically challenged dingbat.

 

[Modbert]

Modbert.......Jon Sewart is the most credible source you can offer?

Stewart offers a satirical overview that illustrates niether party excepts responsibility for anything.

That's the point, but it's not the most credible source I have either.

 

[Samson]

"Vacuous," opposed to what?

Substantive proposals.

Vacuous compared to a $12 T deficite?

That's an order of magnitude off.

The decimal point doesn't work on Samson's keyboard. The period key does, but not the decimal point.

So, the best arguement for deficit spending is that its not $12 T, but ONLY $1.2 T?

Bravo.

I suppose when it is $12 T we'll all be celebrating that its not $120 T

 

[Samson]

Modbert.......Jon Sewart is the most credible source you can offer?

Stewart offers a satirical overview that illustrates niether party excepts responsibility for anything.

That's the point, but it's not the most credible source I have either.

Well, as long as that's the point....

 

[The T]

We know this because Bush constantly blamed Clinton for the recession and 9/11, right?
Oh, wait.

Haven't you heard? Barry ushered in a new fad, 'blaming the preceding administration for all that's wrong in America'. So far, it's 19 months and counting. That makes this administration fair game come 2012.

everytime he utters that bullshit he just proves he wasn't man enough for the job.

And NEVER will be.

 

[Samson]

"Vacuous," opposed to what?

Substantive proposals.

Vacuous compared to a $12 T deficite?

That's an order of magnitude off.

Yes, its ONLY $1.2 T.

The only thing that is more impressive than a willingness to dillineate between a Humongous Deficite and a Ginormous Deficite, is your ability to identify well defined "vacuous" proposals with undefined "substantive" proposals.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I want this to happen for the simple fact that I want to see the blatant hypocrisy that will be present on USMB.

For a non-partisan flamer like myself, I will have loads of fun with that!

I actually agree; if the R's control the Congress and the White House in 2012 they will of course blame Obama and the Democrats for all that is wrong with America, and cut taxes for the richest Americans, suggesting this is the only way to save our nation.
Then, when we really hit bottom, as we almost did in the last days of the administration of Bush II, the R's will finally become extinct, and no amount of bull shit from the mouth of Palin, Gingrich or Graham will convince the sheep otherwise - and we wil finally have a democratic republic focused on policy which benefits the greatest number of Americans.

We know this because Bush constantly blamed Clinton for the recession and 9/11, right?
Oh, wait.

Bush and Cheney, the day after the Supreme Injustice, walked arm in arm to the podium and claimed we were at risk of a recession; and, the only to prevent it was to cut taxes. And, of course, the RW neo-cons and their fellow traveling sheep all claim 9/11 was a result of Clinton not declaring war on somebody, anybody, in retaliation for the attack on Cole.

 

[asterism]

I actually agree; if the R's control the Congress and the White House in 2012 they will of course blame Obama and the Democrats for all that is wrong with America, and cut taxes for the richest Americans, suggesting this is the only way to save our nation.
Then, when we really hit bottom, as we almost did in the last days of the administration of Bush II, the R's will finally become extinct, and no amount of bull shit from the mouth of Palin, Gingrich or Graham will convince the sheep otherwise - and we wil finally have a democratic republic focused on policy which benefits the greatest number of Americans.

We know this because Bush constantly blamed Clinton for the recession and 9/11, right?
Oh, wait.

Bush and Cheney, the day after the Supreme Injustice, walked arm in arm to the podium and claimed we were at risk of a recession; and, the only to prevent it was to cut taxes. And, of course, the RW neo-cons and their fellow traveling sheep all claim 9/11 was a result of Clinton not declaring war on somebody, anybody, in retaliation for the attack on Cole.

Is it your position that Al Qaeda could be defeated according to the Clinton strategy of treating it as a law enforcement problem?

1993-2000: who had the upper hand?

 

[Pappadave]

Right now I think I would like to see both parties go down in flames and end the divisiveness of partisan politics. No matter my political stance, the guys on the other end are not enemies, just opponents. Maybe we the people should start electing the best, most qualified candidate and to hell with the party. Once elected, the winner represents all the people, not the party. Oh well, dreams can be pleasant even if they are pure fantasy. Pappadave.

 

[asterism]

Right now I think I would like to see both parties go down in flames and end the divisiveness of partisan politics. No matter my political stance, the guys on the other end are not enemies, just opponents. Maybe we the people should start electing the best, most qualified candidate and to hell with the party. Once elected, the winner represents all the people, not the party. Oh well, dreams can be pleasant even if they are pure fantasy. Pappadave.

Social Conservatism is the antithesis of this, and actual Fiscal Conservatism needs to realize that. While the effective currency of Washington is public opinion, the actual currency as it pertains to what costs taxpayers is still money.

 

[California Girl]

I want this to happen for the simple fact that I want to see the blatant hypocrisy that will be present on USMB.

For a non-partisan flamer like myself, I will have loads of fun with that!

It would be entertaining as hell for any of us who can look past the party line and into the abyss of bipartisan humor.

 

[DiveCon]

Modbert.......Jon Sewart is the most credible source you can offer?

Stewart offers a satirical overview that illustrates niether party excepts responsibility for anything.

That's the point, but it's not the most credible source I have either.

FAIL
wanna know why?
not ONE of the clips used was ACTUALLY Bush making the blame
i cant believe i wasted nearly 9 minutes on that stupid show

 

[DiveCon]

"Vacuous," opposed to what?

Substantive proposals.

Vacuous compared to a $12 T deficite?

That's an order of magnitude off.

Yes, its ONLY $1.2 T.

The only thing that is more impressive than a willingness to dillineate between a Humongous Deficite and a Ginormous Deficite, is your ability to identify well defined "vacuous" proposals with undefined "substantive" proposals.

kinda makes the Bush deficits seem tiny in comparison, eh?

 

[Douger]

Yepp. Me too.
Within daze of getting a republicunt pResident, Iran,NK or Hugo will be attacked.
WW3 will be on and we can finally get this horrible movie finished.
Another empire dead in the rubble of war.This time nookyoulerr, as the flag wavers hero often attempted to say.

 

[The Rabbi]

I actually agree; if the R's control the Congress and the White House in 2012 they will of course blame Obama and the Democrats for all that is wrong with America, and cut taxes for the richest Americans, suggesting this is the only way to save our nation.
Then, when we really hit bottom, as we almost did in the last days of the administration of Bush II, the R's will finally become extinct, and no amount of bull shit from the mouth of Palin, Gingrich or Graham will convince the sheep otherwise - and we wil finally have a democratic republic focused on policy which benefits the greatest number of Americans.

We know this because Bush constantly blamed Clinton for the recession and 9/11, right?
Oh, wait.

Bush and Cheney, the day after the Supreme Injustice, walked arm in arm to the podium and claimed we were at risk of a recession; and, the only to prevent it was to cut taxes. And, of course, the RW neo-cons and their fellow traveling sheep all claim 9/11 was a result of Clinton not declaring war on somebody, anybody, in retaliation for the attack on Cole.

So you're saying we did not have a recession after 9/11, and that Clinton's actions, esp in Somalia and with the first WTC bombing did not affect al Qaeda's decision to pursue a second attack?
Wow, multiple fail. Failure of fact, failure of coherent argument, and failure to post something that actually addressed what I wrote!
You are a genius, Wrycatcher!

 

[rdean]

I want the Republicans to win big in 2010 and win the White House in 2012

So does al Qaeda.