Republicans Surging Back

[Soaring]

The problem we have on here, is that we confuse GW as a representative past president of the Republican party. He was not. He was a neo-conservative that was certainly not representative of the conservative party. It is quite obvious that electing Obama was a protest vote to not vote for another neo conservative, but that was obviously was a mistake. Hopefully, the 2010 elections will give us a breath of fresh air in the congress, and that 2012 will give us a really good conservative president to get this country back on track. Right now, it is derailed.

 

[DiveCon]

It's called freedom of speech which is convenient, wouldn't you say?

Yes I would. Do you ever wonder if Bush wiretapped your phones?

no, i dont, since wiretaps are archaic and never happen
and since all phone conversations go through the eschelon system, yours are monitored as well

 

[DiveCon]

Who's them? And who is they?

VaginaYank apologized for being wrong and it wasn't directed at me.

Fact is I don't want an apology. I was just giving her shit for no other reason than her being a stupid dope.

how do you even know VaYank is a she?
i havent seen them say one way or the other

I don't, but I have a 50-50 chance at being right.

How do you know VaYank is a them?

because "them" covers both genders, and they have to be one or the other, unless they are the rare hermaphrodite

 

[Sinatra]

The problem we have on here, is that we confuse GW as a representative past president of the Republican party. He was not. He was a neo-conservative that was certainly not representative of the conservative party. It is quite obvious that electing Obama was a protest vote to not vote for another neo conservative, but that was obviously was a real bad mistake. Hopefully, the 2010 elections will give us a breath of fresh air in the congress, and that 2012 will give us a really good conservative president to get this country back on track. Right now, it is derailed.

Totally correct.

I have noted a number of friends/colleagues who are now admitting if they had it to do over again, they would have voted for Hillary in the primary - what has been going on with Obama Inc., is proving scary even to them, and they are lifelong Democrats. One such example finally admitted to me last week that she saw the election of Obama as something "both uniquely historic and uniquely American - and I very much wanted to be a part of that history..." (her exact words) She now feels that Obama is proving to be in over his head, and thinks he is being directed by powers around him that appear to not have the best interests of America at heart. She is for national health care, but was very much opposed to the auto bailout, and sees Obama as doing nothing to help change the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan - but actually making them worse. She now feels Hillary would have better served the interests of all Americans, without the "caustic and untested arrogance of this fellow Obama..." (again, her words)

She is a woman with some 20 years experience as a professor of Spanish American Studies, whose Irish Catholic father married her Cuban mother back in the early 1960s. She grew up in a home dominated by portraits of the Kennedy family and Carlos Prio, whose administration her grandfather worked with in Cuba in the 1940s.

If Obama is losing the support of Democrats such as she - then things are truly turning against Obama Inc.

 

[Jay Canuck]

[SIZE=+1]Obama, the Great Wealth Creator?[/SIZE]
by Robert Parry
Link Excerpt:
In early March, as the Dow sank to about 6,500, CNBC stock analyst Jim Cramer blamed Obama for “the greatest wealth destruction” ever, citing declines in “all indices, since the inauguration of the President,” an attack theme that resonated across the right-wing and much of the mainstream U.S. news media. The numbers were hard to refute. When Obama became President a little over one month earlier, the Dow was at about 8,000, meaning Obama had presided over a decline of nearly 20 percent. But Cramer’s analysis was unfair and – from the perspective of only four months later – clearly wrong. Indeed, if one wanted to label Obama a “great wealth destroyer” for the stock market slide early in his presidency, it would only seem fair to call him now a “great wealth creator,” because the Dow passed the 9,000 mark last week, representing almost a 40 percent rise from the March lows.

 

[DiveCon]

The problem we have on here, is that we confuse GW as a representative past president of the Republican party. He was not. He was a neo-conservative that was certainly not representative of the conservative party. It is quite obvious that electing Obama was a protest vote to not vote for another neo conservative, but that was obviously was a real bad mistake. Hopefully, the 2010 elections will give us a breath of fresh air in the congress, and that 2012 will give us a really good conservative president to get this country back on track. Right now, it is derailed.

Totally correct.

I have noted a number of friends/colleagues who are now admitting if they had it to do over again, they would have voted for Hillary in the primary - what has been going on with Obama Inc., is proving scary even to them, and they are lifelong Democrats. One such example finally admitted to me last week that she saw the election of Obama as something "both uniquely historic and uniquely American - and I very much wanted to be a part of that history..." (her exact words) She now feels that Obama is proving to be in over his head, and thinks he is being directed by powers around him that appear to not have the best interests of America at heart. She is for national health care, but was very much opposed to the auto bailout, and sees Obama as doing nothing to help change the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan - but actually making them worse. She now feels Hillary would have better served the interests of all Americans, without the "caustic and untested arrogance of this fellow Obama..." (again, her words)

She is a woman with some 20 years experience as a professor of Spanish American Studies, whose Irish Catholic father married her Cuban mother back in the early 1960s. She grew up in a home dominated by portraits of the Kennedy family and Carlos Prio, whose administration her grandfather worked with in Cuba in the 1940s.

If Obama is losing the support of Democrats such as she - then things are truly turning against Obama Inc.

she will be called a racist soon

 

[Sinatra]

The problem we have on here, is that we confuse GW as a representative past president of the Republican party. He was not. He was a neo-conservative that was certainly not representative of the conservative party. It is quite obvious that electing Obama was a protest vote to not vote for another neo conservative, but that was obviously was a real bad mistake. Hopefully, the 2010 elections will give us a breath of fresh air in the congress, and that 2012 will give us a really good conservative president to get this country back on track. Right now, it is derailed.

Totally correct.

I have noted a number of friends/colleagues who are now admitting if they had it to do over again, they would have voted for Hillary in the primary - what has been going on with Obama Inc., is proving scary even to them, and they are lifelong Democrats. One such example finally admitted to me last week that she saw the election of Obama as something "both uniquely historic and uniquely American - and I very much wanted to be a part of that history..." (her exact words) She now feels that Obama is proving to be in over his head, and thinks he is being directed by powers around him that appear to not have the best interests of America at heart. She is for national health care, but was very much opposed to the auto bailout, and sees Obama as doing nothing to help change the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan - but actually making them worse. She now feels Hillary would have better served the interests of all Americans, without the "caustic and untested arrogance of this fellow Obama..." (again, her words)

She is a woman with some 20 years experience as a professor of Spanish American Studies, whose Irish Catholic father married her Cuban mother back in the early 1960s. She grew up in a home dominated by portraits of the Kennedy family and Carlos Prio, whose administration her grandfather worked with in Cuba in the 1940s.

If Obama is losing the support of Democrats such as she - then things are truly turning against Obama Inc.

she will be called a racist soon

Not to her face - of that I am certain.

She is one intimidating 5 foot 3 inch Cuban intellectual!!!!

Her verbal shredding of the (former) department head a few years back is still shaking the walls of the history department.

She is not one to cross without giving serious consideration to the impending consequences!

 

[Jay Canuck]

 

[DiveCon]

how stupid

 

[Lonestar_logic]

how stupid

Well look at the messenger. Did you expect genius?

 

[anna]

The big no, is barry hussein!! Done in one!! The countdown is on!!!

 

[rightwinger]

[/QSo how is that "change" working out for you? What has changed - not in rhetoric, but sustance via Obama?UOTE]

Lets see???
1. My retirement fund lost 50% of its value in the last year of George Bush. It has regained half that value under President Obama
2. My home lost $75K in value at the end of Bush's term. Home values in my area have stablized and are up about $15K under Obama
3. The US went from worldwide admiration after 9/11 to complete derision at the end of Bush's term. Obama has recultivated the image of the US since he has taken over
4. The Bush administration DOUBLED the national debt. Obama has added 10%
5. Bush eliminated environmental controls and worker protection. Obama reinstated those protections

Thats change we can all believe in........Thanks President Obama!

 

[Sinatra]

This week I've been asked to explain why conservatives won't admit that George W. Bush "broke" the United States of America. It's an interesting question, so open-ended it's difficult to choose the way to answer it.

The short answer is they won't admit it because it's not true. George W. Bush did not break the country. Many conservatives believe history's judgment will be much kinder to him and his accomplishments than the current crop of historians and commentators allow and that he will eventually be seen in a much better light than he is today.
....

Critics on the left blame Bush for a decline in America's global prestige and connect it to his foreign policy. I would like to point out that his clear-minded prosecution of the war on terror resulted in Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi's giving up his nation's nuclear weapons program, among other things. Barack Obama's make-nice approach got us a book accusing the United States of being a neo-colonial bully from Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. I know which outcome I prefer

...

Events proved these concerns were, at least in part, justified. Fred Barnes, writing in the Weekly Standard in 2005, just about a year after Bush was reelected, cited six reasons they were, starting with the fact that Bush was not, in fact, a conventional conservative.

"He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration," Barnes wrote. And by "deviates" Barnes meant favoring an expanded role for the federal government, counter to the limited-government philosophy of the Reaganite Republican Party
.....

But Bush gets credit for his pursuit of tax cuts that, rather than create the economic mess we are currently in, helped fuel economic growth. Under Bush, the economy and the stock market strengthened from 2003 to 2007 following the reduction in the capital gains tax from 20 to 15 percent and the tax on dividends was reduced from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Following the 2006 elections, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, it became clear that the House and Senate would not continue the lower rates. The response by investors to the promise of higher dividend and capital gains taxes started the decline in the stock market.

To those who understand the relationship between government and the economy it is no wonder that private investors, faced with these two near-certainties, changed their behavior. It's similar to the relationship between the realization that there were enough votes in Congress to pass the Smoot-Hawley tariff increase and the onset of the Great Depression. The stock market is a leading, not a lagging indicator.
....

Many conservatives opposed, as one wrote recently, "the idea that we would be able to bail out various financial institutions with taxpayer money, thereby stabilizing markets and mitigating losses while instilling confidence among investors and the general public."

As we now all know, it didn't work -- under Bush, who conceived it, or under Obama, who expanded it. And it opened the door for an unprecedented -- in my lifetime anyway -- level of intervention by the White House in American business.

....

Those who blame Bush for the bursting mortgage bubble overlook his efforts to bring greater regulation to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the way congressional leaders like Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., interposed themselves between the White House and efforts at reform. Could Bush have done more? Maybe, but he's also not solely to blame.

The "blame Bush" approach also ignores the way the Clinton-era revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act and pressure from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, again during the Clinton presidency especially, led to an increase in the number of people being given home mortgages who really never should have gotten them.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/27/wingnut/

 

[rightwinger]

Bush has been doomed to the scrap pile of history.
Crap does not get better with age. Bush legacy
1. Lying to start a war
2. Publicly embracing torture
3. Botching the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
4. Allowing his country to be attacked
5. Driving the economy into a recession

 

[DiveCon]

Bush has been doomed to the scrap pile of history.
Crap does not get better with age. Bush legacy
1. Lying to start a war
2. Publicly embracing torture
3. Botching the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
4. Allowing his country to be attacked
5. Driving the economy into a recession

what a load of bullshit you just posted

you assholes have yet to prove a single "lie"
there was no embrace of torture
neither war was "botched" mistakes were made and admitted
there was nothing that could have been done to have stopped thoise attacks with the laws we had in place at the time
the dems had a hand in that as well


you continue to prove you are nothing but a fucking liar and moron

 

[Sinatra]

This week I've been asked to explain why conservatives won't admit that George W. Bush "broke" the United States of America. It's an interesting question, so open-ended it's difficult to choose the way to answer it.

The short answer is they won't admit it because it's not true. George W. Bush did not break the country. Many conservatives believe history's judgment will be much kinder to him and his accomplishments than the current crop of historians and commentators allow and that he will eventually be seen in a much better light than he is today.
....

Critics on the left blame Bush for a decline in America's global prestige and connect it to his foreign policy. I would like to point out that his clear-minded prosecution of the war on terror resulted in Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi's giving up his nation's nuclear weapons program, among other things. Barack Obama's make-nice approach got us a book accusing the United States of being a neo-colonial bully from Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. I know which outcome I prefer

...

Events proved these concerns were, at least in part, justified. Fred Barnes, writing in the Weekly Standard in 2005, just about a year after Bush was reelected, cited six reasons they were, starting with the fact that Bush was not, in fact, a conventional conservative.

"He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration," Barnes wrote. And by "deviates" Barnes meant favoring an expanded role for the federal government, counter to the limited-government philosophy of the Reaganite Republican Party
.....

But Bush gets credit for his pursuit of tax cuts that, rather than create the economic mess we are currently in, helped fuel economic growth. Under Bush, the economy and the stock market strengthened from 2003 to 2007 following the reduction in the capital gains tax from 20 to 15 percent and the tax on dividends was reduced from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Following the 2006 elections, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, it became clear that the House and Senate would not continue the lower rates. The response by investors to the promise of higher dividend and capital gains taxes started the decline in the stock market.

To those who understand the relationship between government and the economy it is no wonder that private investors, faced with these two near-certainties, changed their behavior. It's similar to the relationship between the realization that there were enough votes in Congress to pass the Smoot-Hawley tariff increase and the onset of the Great Depression. The stock market is a leading, not a lagging indicator.
....

Many conservatives opposed, as one wrote recently, "the idea that we would be able to bail out various financial institutions with taxpayer money, thereby stabilizing markets and mitigating losses while instilling confidence among investors and the general public."

As we now all know, it didn't work -- under Bush, who conceived it, or under Obama, who expanded it. And it opened the door for an unprecedented -- in my lifetime anyway -- level of intervention by the White House in American business.

....

Those who blame Bush for the bursting mortgage bubble overlook his efforts to bring greater regulation to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the way congressional leaders like Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., interposed themselves between the White House and efforts at reform. Could Bush have done more? Maybe, but he's also not solely to blame.

The "blame Bush" approach also ignores the way the Clinton-era revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act and pressure from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, again during the Clinton presidency especially, led to an increase in the number of people being given home mortgages who really never should have gotten them.

Why can't conservatives admit George Bush broke America? | Salon

,,,

 

[PatekPhilippe]

4. The Bush administration DOUBLED the national debt. Obama has added 10%

Hmmmmmm...let's do a little math shall we....
Obama added 10% in 6 months...so that means at 60 months he will have doubled the national debt again!!!!
Now that's change we can believe in!!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[PatekPhilippe]

rightwinger is a dope!!!!
Seems they forgot who one of the players was that authorized the war in Iraq!!!

THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE!!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

I love how the republicans borrowed at will and have nothing to show for it. 5 Trillion in republican debt and what do we have to show for it??
The republicans forced us into a recession with a plunging housing market, stock market losing 50%, unemployment skyrocketing.........then turned to Obama and said "fix it"

Now the rules change all of a sudden and debt is once again important to republicans. They want Obama to fix the crisis they created, but will not let him spend money to do so

 

[rightwinger]

rightwinger is a dope!!!!
Seems they forgot who one of the players was that authorized the war in Iraq!!!

THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE!!!!!

Lets see who the "dope" is. Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Whitehouse when Bush invaded Iraq.