At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

[FJO]

I lost all hope for Obama after he threw Osama Bin Laden in the ocean.

Soldier: We just killed Osama Bin Laden, sir.

Obama: Quick, throw him in the ocean.

His blatant lies about Benghazi sealed the deal.

Not seeing the body that was dumped with undue haste in the ocean, one must wonder: Was it REALLY Osama bin Laden?

It was OK to repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly spike the football about killing Osama bin Laden but, according to this sick administration, it would have been unseemly to show the dead body.

Go, figure!

 

[Dubya]

I lost all hope for Obama after he threw Osama Bin Laden in the ocean.

Soldier: We just killed Osama Bin Laden, sir.

Obama: Quick, throw him in the ocean.

His blatant lies about Benghazi sealed the deal.

emotional response w/o links? Try harder

Life is short, and teasing libs by only typing the words 'Rove' or 'Cheney' is just too funny to pass up.

you, no doubt, voted for them BOTH times. Don't answer because i already know sport.

I have never cast a vote for either Rove or Cheney....sport.

Karl Rove never held an elected office. He was purely a behind scenes kind of person most of his life, until put in the spotlight lately.

 

[percysunshine]

emotional response w/o links? Try harder


you, no doubt, voted for them BOTH times. Don't answer because i already know sport.

I have never cast a vote for either Rove or Cheney....sport.

Karl Rove never held an elected office. He was purely a behind scenes kind of person most of his life, until put in the spotlight lately.

Bravo! A liberal with brain matter!

 

[Rinata]

the real answer: When they saw him.

bingo!!!!!

Hypocrites. Liberals seem to have forgotten how they acted and what they said during the eight years Bush was president.

Not true. I know what I said. He was a dope. But I liked his family.

 

[Dubya]

the real answer: When they saw him.

bingo!!!!!

Hypocrites. Liberals seem to have forgotten how they acted and what they said during the eight years Bush was president.

Do you people even have half a mind left?

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[6] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

Source: No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Dubya Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001 and his early legislative proposals weren't criticised. Remember the election was contested in Florida and people were pissed off about the Supreme Court being involved, but they didn't take it out on Bush. I thought NCLB put way too much emphasis on testing and not enough on spending for resources to teach, but it did get overwhelming support. It's odd that Chuck Hagel voted against NCLB and that it took so long for Bush to sign the bill. Bush's early emphasis on education was well accepted. Now for people on the extreme right who believe the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, NCLB was the greatest intrusion of the federal government in education that ever existed. The Civil Rights Act involved issues other than education and even elevating the Department of Education (ED) to cabinet level only changed a department of the government that already existed.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was criticised for giving too much to the rich, but that was blamed on Congress and most of the blame was done later. So Bush was given a pass in the pre-9/11 days of his administration. If you didn't like Bush, it was SCOTUS to blame and if you didn't like the tax cuts, it was Congress. 9/11 happens and Bush enjoys plenty of support. He tries to get the military to come up with a plan in Afghanistan, but they can't figure out what to do. In steps the CIA and shows them a plan to push al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. It didn't take long to change Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is on and Bush has plenty of support.

The next year in 2002, Iraq becomes the focus of interest. The issue was WMD had the potential of finding it's way into the hands of terrorist, even though al Qaeda and Iraq were enemies. People like Bill O'Reilly are on the air claiming the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and the war will pay for itself. The government is saying it has no interest in nation building and just wants that WMD. Bush was given enormous support. We liberate Iraq losing around 100 military personnel, it's "Mission Accomplished" time and that's when the problems with Bush began. The problem was there was no WMD. There was another tax cut for the rich that year the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. At the end of the year there was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. There is also the fact that the Bush administration went to war with no preparation to help the Iraqi people and then completely changed it's tune about nation building. We liberate a country to only get WMD that isn't there and lose about 100 of our military in that process. Now, without WMD, the game has changed and we end up losing 4,487 of our military before we can get our asses out of there.

Those were the days when the Emporer was found to have no cloths and investigative reporters started checking, but for two prior years Bush was given a pass. When they started digging into the facts, they discover things like Cheney cooking the intelligence reports and we aren't following the assessment of the CIA about IRAQ's WMD. They discover things like Prescription Drug Program was discovered to cost much more than stated to Congress before it was passed, but the head of Medicare was told to shut up about it or be fired. What was with rounding up terrorists and not putting them on trial? What is with being warned about a possible al Qaeda attack and not taking the warning seriously? What is with this deficits don't matter policy of the administration and the FED? What is with this trickle down economics policy that has never worked? What is with spending your first 4 years in office and having no jobs growth, while fighting two wars? What is with fighting two wars and not paying for them? What is with using Halliburton as a general contractor in Iraq, when they aren't a general contractor and your Vice President gave up his job as CEO of Halliburton to run with you? What is with the relaxed regulations that create a housing crisis, financial crisis and trash the economy worst than it's even been trashed since the Great Depression?

How can anyone compare Bush's performance in office to Obama's? Even Hoover and Nixon wasn't as bad as Bush. You talk about denial, you people who give Bush any support have it real bad. Bush will go down as the worst modern President in our history. Maybe they can dig up some dirt on Harding and Bush could come in second.

 

[Oldstyle]

bingo!!!!!

Hypocrites. Liberals seem to have forgotten how they acted and what they said during the eight years Bush was president.

Do you people even have half a mind left?

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[6] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

Source: No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Dubya Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001 and his early legislative proposals weren't criticised. Remember the election was contested in Florida and people were pissed off about the Supreme Court being involved, but they didn't take it out on Bush. I thought NCLB put way too much emphasis on testing and not enough on spending for resources to teach, but it did get overwhelming support. It's odd that Chuck Hagel voted against NCLB and that it took so long for Bush to sign the bill. Bush's early emphasis on education was well accepted. Now for people on the extreme right who believe the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, NCLB was the greatest intrusion of the federal government in education that ever existed. The Civil Rights Act involved issues other than education and even elevating the Department of Education (ED) to cabinet level only changed a department of the government that already existed.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was criticised for giving too much to the rich, but that was blamed on Congress and most of the blame was done later. So Bush was given a pass in the pre-9/11 days of his administration. If you didn't like Bush, it was SCOTUS to blame and if you didn't like the tax cuts, it was Congress. 9/11 happens and Bush enjoys plenty of support. He tries to get the military to come up with a plan in Afghanistan, but they can't figure out what to do. In steps the CIA and shows them a plan to push al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. It didn't take long to change Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is on and Bush has plenty of support.

The next year in 2002, Iraq becomes the focus of interest. The issue was WMD had the potential of finding it's way into the hands of terrorist, even though al Qaeda and Iraq were enemies. People like Bill O'Reilly are on the air claiming the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and the war will pay for itself. The government is saying it has no interest in nation building and just wants that WMD. Bush was given enormous support. We liberate Iraq losing around 100 military personnel, it's "Mission Accomplished" time and that's when the problems with Bush began. The problem was there was no WMD. There was another tax cut for the rich that year the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. At the end of the year there was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. There is also the fact that the Bush administration went to war with no preparation to help the Iraqi people and then completely changed it's tune about nation building. We liberate a country to only get WMD that isn't there and lose about 100 of our military in that process. Now, without WMD, the game has changed and we end up losing 4,487 of our military before we can get our asses out of there.

Those were the days when the Emporer was found to have no cloths and investigative reporters started checking, but for two prior years Bush was given a pass. When they started digging into the facts, they discover things like Cheney cooking the intelligence reports and we aren't following the assessment of the CIA about IRAQ's WMD. They discover things like Prescription Drug Program was discovered to cost much more than stated to Congress before it was passed, but the head of Medicare was told to shut up about it or be fired. What was with rounding up terrorists and not putting them on trial? What is with being warned about a possible al Qaeda attack and not taking the warning seriously? What is with this deficits don't matter policy of the administration and the FED? What is with this trickle down economics policy that has never worked? What is with spending your first 4 years in office and having no jobs growth, while fighting two wars? What is with fighting two wars and not paying for them? What is with using Halliburton as a general contractor in Iraq, when they aren't a general contractor and your Vice President gave up his job as CEO of Halliburton to run with you? What is with the relaxed regulations that create a housing crisis, financial crisis and trash the economy worst than it's even been trashed since the Great Depression?

How can anyone compare Bush's performance in office to Obama's? Even Hoover and Nixon wasn't as bad as Bush. You talk about denial, you people who give Bush any support have it real bad. Bush will go down as the worst modern President in our history. Maybe they can dig up some dirt on Harding and Bush could come in second.

Gotta be honest with you, Dubya...I have a hard time seeing Barack Obama as an "improvement" over George W. Bush. It's four years after he was elected the first time and we're STILL mired in the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression...and Barry is still pushing the same failed fiscal policies. Millions of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed and Obama pushes through tax increases that are going to slow down and already anemic recovery. You've got fiasco's like Fast & Furious and Benghazi that make this Administration's leadership appear to be completely clueless about what's going on around them. You've got complete gridlock in Congress with partisan infighting as strident as I've EVER seen it. We passed ObamaCare but the real cost of that program keeps growing almost as fast as the deficit. Al Queda is not "decimated" as Obama declared...they are actually growing in strength. We have a "non-policy" towards Iran and have done serious harm to the relationship with our only true ally in the Middle East, Israel.

I'm normally a "glass half full" kind of person but I just don't see much to make me optimistic about the next four years. I didn't think Barack Obama had the experience necessary to be President BEFORE he was given the job and nothing has happened in the intervening four years to change my opinion on that.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Clearly, this is directed to The Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives of USMB.

When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like Obama and were going to be against him no matter what?

I'll answer the question in the reverse as an example. Some years ago, when Bush was first elected, I disliked him. I didn't like what he stood for, didn't like what he said, I didn't even like the way he sounded, he sounds dumb and he's proven himself to be such. Anyway, I wasn't totally or automatically against him. What turned me against him permanently, was what he did with the good will of The American People after the country was attacked.

He lied about the WMDs, he kept the country in state of constant fear, and he waged two unnecessary wars. To top it off, he didn't pay for it at the time and sent the bill to our kids and grandkids.

To be precise, from the instant he began that fear campaign war campaign, he lost me forever. I will NEVER forgive him for that.

So, when did you Republicans, Conservatives and other assorted RWers of USMB decide to be against Obama no matter what?

C'mon, be honest.

While I am a long ways from a total nutball right winger OR a fake-liberal human-potential baloney peddler, it was never much of a surprise that Junebug Bush produced the worst results in US history by every single hard measure of the presidency because his performance in Tejas made it clear he was nothing more than a halfwit inheritor ready to try to please the "right" people.

But I digress...

The moment Obama announced Geithner, he was dead to me.

 

[Dubya]

Hypocrites. Liberals seem to have forgotten how they acted and what they said during the eight years Bush was president.

Do you people even have half a mind left?

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[6] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

Source: No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Dubya Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001 and his early legislative proposals weren't criticised. Remember the election was contested in Florida and people were pissed off about the Supreme Court being involved, but they didn't take it out on Bush. I thought NCLB put way too much emphasis on testing and not enough on spending for resources to teach, but it did get overwhelming support. It's odd that Chuck Hagel voted against NCLB and that it took so long for Bush to sign the bill. Bush's early emphasis on education was well accepted. Now for people on the extreme right who believe the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, NCLB was the greatest intrusion of the federal government in education that ever existed. The Civil Rights Act involved issues other than education and even elevating the Department of Education (ED) to cabinet level only changed a department of the government that already existed.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was criticised for giving too much to the rich, but that was blamed on Congress and most of the blame was done later. So Bush was given a pass in the pre-9/11 days of his administration. If you didn't like Bush, it was SCOTUS to blame and if you didn't like the tax cuts, it was Congress. 9/11 happens and Bush enjoys plenty of support. He tries to get the military to come up with a plan in Afghanistan, but they can't figure out what to do. In steps the CIA and shows them a plan to push al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. It didn't take long to change Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is on and Bush has plenty of support.

The next year in 2002, Iraq becomes the focus of interest. The issue was WMD had the potential of finding it's way into the hands of terrorist, even though al Qaeda and Iraq were enemies. People like Bill O'Reilly are on the air claiming the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and the war will pay for itself. The government is saying it has no interest in nation building and just wants that WMD. Bush was given enormous support. We liberate Iraq losing around 100 military personnel, it's "Mission Accomplished" time and that's when the problems with Bush began. The problem was there was no WMD. There was another tax cut for the rich that year the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. At the end of the year there was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. There is also the fact that the Bush administration went to war with no preparation to help the Iraqi people and then completely changed it's tune about nation building. We liberate a country to only get WMD that isn't there and lose about 100 of our military in that process. Now, without WMD, the game has changed and we end up losing 4,487 of our military before we can get our asses out of there.

Those were the days when the Emporer was found to have no cloths and investigative reporters started checking, but for two prior years Bush was given a pass. When they started digging into the facts, they discover things like Cheney cooking the intelligence reports and we aren't following the assessment of the CIA about IRAQ's WMD. They discover things like Prescription Drug Program was discovered to cost much more than stated to Congress before it was passed, but the head of Medicare was told to shut up about it or be fired. What was with rounding up terrorists and not putting them on trial? What is with being warned about a possible al Qaeda attack and not taking the warning seriously? What is with this deficits don't matter policy of the administration and the FED? What is with this trickle down economics policy that has never worked? What is with spending your first 4 years in office and having no jobs growth, while fighting two wars? What is with fighting two wars and not paying for them? What is with using Halliburton as a general contractor in Iraq, when they aren't a general contractor and your Vice President gave up his job as CEO of Halliburton to run with you? What is with the relaxed regulations that create a housing crisis, financial crisis and trash the economy worst than it's even been trashed since the Great Depression?

How can anyone compare Bush's performance in office to Obama's? Even Hoover and Nixon wasn't as bad as Bush. You talk about denial, you people who give Bush any support have it real bad. Bush will go down as the worst modern President in our history. Maybe they can dig up some dirt on Harding and Bush could come in second.

Gotta be honest with you, Dubya...I have a hard time seeing Barack Obama as an "improvement" over George W. Bush. It's four years after he was elected the first time and we're STILL mired in the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression...and Barry is still pushing the same failed fiscal policies. Millions of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed and Obama pushes through tax increases that are going to slow down and already anemic recovery. You've got fiasco's like Fast & Furious and Benghazi that make this Administration's leadership appear to be completely clueless about what's going on around them. You've got complete gridlock in Congress with partisan infighting as strident as I've EVER seen it. We passed ObamaCare but the real cost of that program keeps growing almost as fast as the deficit. Al Queda is not "decimated" as Obama declared...they are actually growing in strength. We have a "non-policy" towards Iran and have done serious harm to the relationship with our only true ally in the Middle East, Israel.

I'm normally a "glass half full" kind of person but I just don't see much to make me optimistic about the next four years. I didn't think Barack Obama had the experience necessary to be President BEFORE he was given the job and nothing has happened in the intervening four years to change my opinion on that.

You have Republican laws creating the policies of this country and Republicans keeping those laws in effect. There is no good economic reason why this country has free trade policies. We should not be importing things we can make ourselves. Your ecomomic policy is flawed thinking. Investment requires opportunity and is not based on the income of the rich. The rich have already accumulated wealth and it's wealth that finances investment. You do not have to kiss the ass of business to get them interested in a business opportunity. China is a perfect example of how business will put up with a lot of shit to find a business opportunity and Russia is another example. Business is very good at adapting to the policies it is required to follow. There is no good reason why this country continues to lease natural resources on public lands and economic zones and not just hire corporations to develop those resources and sell them at market prices. It's crony capitalism to give away so much public property to the rich. It's stupid for America to be paying the highest drug prices in the world. The last time I checked eight and a half of the top 10 drugs according to the amount of sales aren't made by American drug companies and other nations negotiate the price. It's stupid to have a minimum wage for necessary jobs that require the public to subsidize the living of the person getting those wages. Why not let the people who need somebody doing a job pay for it entirely by their purchase? If you want to buy a hamburger, they you should pay enough to give the workers a living wage and no social programs to subsidize the workers making your hamburger. There are plenty more such things, but you can get the idea.

You can claim whatever you want to describe your beliefs, but they are Republican talking points meant to impress people who don't study the issues. Bush screwed up a better Iran policy with his false war with Iraq. It's nonsense to believe either party is against Israel and we still have time to deal with Iran. Do you really believe Republicans get more Jewish votes than Democrats? This anti-Israel talk is only designed to get Jewish votes and it's a lie, which is normal for Republicans. It isn't in America's interest to allow Iran to become nuclear, but it isn't in our interests right now to attack them to prevent it.

To be honest with you, I think your stuff is propaganda. There is all kinds of things happening in Africa against terrorists, so your analysis of al Qaeda is way off. The attack in Bengazi was minor compared to prior attacks and Fast and Furious was used to track weapons that would have gotten through anyway. It was a decision to not go after the minnows and go after the big fish, which is a common practice in law enforcement. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those weapons had tracking devices implanted in them or even the ammo. I think there is a very good chance that the Republicans won't play that obstruction game now that they can't defeat Obama. Obama can stop them from making bad legislation and consequences will force them to make changes. The people are not going to put up with a political party holding the American economy hostage any longer.

 

[MarcATL]

At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

Day One ,he is a loser ...........

bingo!!!!!

Hypocrites. Liberals seem to have forgotten how they acted and what they said during the eight years Bush was president.

Do you people even have half a mind left?

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[6] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

Source: No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Dubya Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001 and his early legislative proposals weren't criticised. Remember the election was contested in Florida and people were pissed off about the Supreme Court being involved, but they didn't take it out on Bush. I thought NCLB put way too much emphasis on testing and not enough on spending for resources to teach, but it did get overwhelming support. It's odd that Chuck Hagel voted against NCLB and that it took so long for Bush to sign the bill. Bush's early emphasis on education was well accepted. Now for people on the extreme right who believe the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, NCLB was the greatest intrusion of the federal government in education that ever existed. The Civil Rights Act involved issues other than education and even elevating the Department of Education (ED) to cabinet level only changed a department of the government that already existed.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was criticised for giving too much to the rich, but that was blamed on Congress and most of the blame was done later. So Bush was given a pass in the pre-9/11 days of his administration. If you didn't like Bush, it was SCOTUS to blame and if you didn't like the tax cuts, it was Congress. 9/11 happens and Bush enjoys plenty of support. He tries to get the military to come up with a plan in Afghanistan, but they can't figure out what to do. In steps the CIA and shows them a plan to push al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. It didn't take long to change Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is on and Bush has plenty of support.

The next year in 2002, Iraq becomes the focus of interest. The issue was WMD had the potential of finding it's way into the hands of terrorist, even though al Qaeda and Iraq were enemies. People like Bill O'Reilly are on the air claiming the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and the war will pay for itself. The government is saying it has no interest in nation building and just wants that WMD. Bush was given enormous support. We liberate Iraq losing around 100 military personnel, it's "Mission Accomplished" time and that's when the problems with Bush began. The problem was there was no WMD. There was another tax cut for the rich that year the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. At the end of the year there was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. There is also the fact that the Bush administration went to war with no preparation to help the Iraqi people and then completely changed it's tune about nation building. We liberate a country to only get WMD that isn't there and lose about 100 of our military in that process. Now, without WMD, the game has changed and we end up losing 4,487 of our military before we can get our asses out of there.

Those were the days when the Emporer was found to have no cloths and investigative reporters started checking, but for two prior years Bush was given a pass. When they started digging into the facts, they discover things like Cheney cooking the intelligence reports and we aren't following the assessment of the CIA about IRAQ's WMD. They discover things like Prescription Drug Program was discovered to cost much more than stated to Congress before it was passed, but the head of Medicare was told to shut up about it or be fired. What was with rounding up terrorists and not putting them on trial? What is with being warned about a possible al Qaeda attack and not taking the warning seriously? What is with this deficits don't matter policy of the administration and the FED? What is with this trickle down economics policy that has never worked? What is with spending your first 4 years in office and having no jobs growth, while fighting two wars? What is with fighting two wars and not paying for them? What is with using Halliburton as a general contractor in Iraq, when they aren't a general contractor and your Vice President gave up his job as CEO of Halliburton to run with you? What is with the relaxed regulations that create a housing crisis, financial crisis and trash the economy worst than it's even been trashed since the Great Depression?

How can anyone compare Bush's performance in office to Obama's? Even Hoover and Nixon wasn't as bad as Bush. You talk about denial, you people who give Bush any support have it real bad. Bush will go down as the worst modern President in our history. Maybe they can dig up some dirt on Harding and Bush could come in second.

You have Republican laws creating the policies of this country and Republicans keeping those laws in effect. There is no good economic reason why this country has free trade policies. We should not be importing things we can make ourselves. Your ecomomic policy is flawed thinking. Investment requires opportunity and is not based on the income of the rich. The rich have already accumulated wealth and it's wealth that finances investment. You do not have to kiss the ass of business to get them interested in a business opportunity. China is a perfect example of how business will put up with a lot of shit to find a business opportunity and Russia is another example. Business is very good at adapting to the policies it is required to follow. There is no good reason why this country continues to lease natural resources on public lands and economic zones and not just hire corporations to develop those resources and sell them at market prices. It's crony capitalism to give away so much public property to the rich. It's stupid for America to be paying the highest drug prices in the world. The last time I checked eight and a half of the top 10 drugs according to the amount of sales aren't made by American drug companies and other nations negotiate the price. It's stupid to have a minimum wage for necessary jobs that require the public to subsidize the living of the person getting those wages. Why not let the people who need somebody doing a job pay for it entirely by their purchase? If you want to buy a hamburger, they you should pay enough to give the workers a living wage and no social programs to subsidize the workers making your hamburger. There are plenty more such things, but you can get the idea.

You can claim whatever you want to describe your beliefs, but they are Republican talking points meant to impress people who don't study the issues. Bush screwed up a better Iran policy with his false war with Iraq. It's nonsense to believe either party is against Israel and we still have time to deal with Iran. Do you really believe Republicans get more Jewish votes than Democrats? This anti-Israel talk is only designed to get Jewish votes and it's a lie, which is normal for Republicans. It isn't in America's interest to allow Iran to become nuclear, but it isn't in our interests right now to attack them to prevent it.

To be honest with you, I think your stuff is propaganda. There is all kinds of things happening in Africa against terrorists, so your analysis of al Qaeda is way off. The attack in Bengazi was minor compared to prior attacks and Fast and Furious was used to track weapons that would have gotten through anyway. It was a decision to not go after the minnows and go after the big fish, which is a common practice in law enforcement. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those weapons had tracking devices implanted in them or even the ammo. I think there is a very good chance that the Republicans won't play that obstruction game now that they can't defeat Obama. Obama can stop them from making bad legislation and consequences will force them to make changes. The people are not going to put up with a political party holding the American economy hostage any longer.

Your memory of the Bush Regime is even more crystal clear than mine. Great perspective my friend, great. Very impressive and powerful posts.

 

[Google]

MarcAtl, i'm curious as your thoughts on Dekalb's current education situation.

 

[asterism]

Source: http://www.cargroup.org/assets/files/final_tax_revenues_apr_2012_v3.pdf

Source for the source: http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/276489-the-gm-bailout-was-it-worth-it.html#post6759334

Read it carefully! It was really hard to find, because it was located in the OP of your thread.

Why wouldn't GM have contributed more than $90 billion to the federal government's revenue since the bailout began in 2008? An automobile is a bunch of parts that GM assembles, but who is making those parts?

Why are you discussing this here? You admonished me for threadjacking (when actually you did) and then commanded me to "start a damned thread in the economics forum," to discuss GM. I did, and even found the source you couldn't bother to find.

What gives?

You ought to know, you started the tangent and kept it going. Now, you try to hide the fact that your own links have the proof you asked me to post! Try reading what you post!

I'm not hiding any fact.

You and I disagreed, you mentioned a study and said to start a thread. I found the study and put it in a new thread. It seems you can't be bothered even though I did as you asked.

Are you just a dick to people for fun?

 

[Dubya]

Why are you discussing this here? You admonished me for threadjacking (when actually you did) and then commanded me to "start a damned thread in the economics forum," to discuss GM. I did, and even found the source you couldn't bother to find.

What gives?

You ought to know, you started the tangent and kept it going. Now, you try to hide the fact that your own links have the proof you asked me to post! Try reading what you post!

I'm not hiding any fact.

You and I disagreed, you mentioned a study and said to start a thread. I found the study and put it in a new thread. It seems you can't be bothered even though I did as you asked.

Are you just a dick to people for fun?

Your thread was started before I requested making a thread about that subject and not hijacking this thread. Now, you are pretending to have started the thread after my request. The information you requested from me was in the OP of the thread you started, but you never read that long report to find that information.

The logic works out that it isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars to stick it to a few hundred thousand UAW workers. That's using politics to destroy a union at around a million dollar per head. That's just being dumb.

 

[asterism]

You ought to know, you started the tangent and kept it going. Now, you try to hide the fact that your own links have the proof you asked me to post! Try reading what you post!

I'm not hiding any fact.

You and I disagreed, you mentioned a study and said to start a thread. I found the study and put it in a new thread. It seems you can't be bothered even though I did as you asked.

Are you just a dick to people for fun?

Your thread was started before I requested making a thread about that subject and not hijacking this thread. Now, you are pretending to have started the thread after my request. The information you requested from me was in the OP of the thread you started, but you never read that long report to find that information.

The logic works out that it isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars to stick it to a few hundred thousand UAW workers. That's using politics to destroy a union at around a million dollar per head. That's just being dumb.

Your thread was started before I requested making a thread about that subject and not hijacking this thread.

Not true. Your post was made at 9:30 PM 02-01-2013.

I found the study you referenced and started the thread at 12:10 AM on 02-02-2013.

The logic works out that it isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars to stick it to a few hundred thousand UAW workers. That's using politics to destroy a union at around a million dollar per head. That's just being dumb.

What are you talking about?

 

[Dubya]

I'm not hiding any fact.

You and I disagreed, you mentioned a study and said to start a thread. I found the study and put it in a new thread. It seems you can't be bothered even though I did as you asked.

Are you just a dick to people for fun?

Your thread was started before I requested making a thread about that subject and not hijacking this thread. Now, you are pretending to have started the thread after my request. The information you requested from me was in the OP of the thread you started, but you never read that long report to find that information.

The logic works out that it isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars to stick it to a few hundred thousand UAW workers. That's using politics to destroy a union at around a million dollar per head. That's just being dumb.

Your thread was started before I requested making a thread about that subject and not hijacking this thread.

Not true. Your post was made at 9:30 PM 02-01-2013.

I found the study you referenced and started the thread at 12:10 AM on 02-02-2013.

The logic works out that it isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars to stick it to a few hundred thousand UAW workers. That's using politics to destroy a union at around a million dollar per head. That's just being dumb.

What are you talking about?

Maybe I was thinking of another thread, but another thread would be a better place to collect the information on the auto bailout, instead of it being buried in this thread.

What I'm talking about are people who say let GM fail and don't consider the consequences of a bankrupcy that isn't structured. The tip of an iceberg is 10% of the ice. GM is not 10% of the manufacturing that goes into making an automobile. It's business is auto assembly. Selling the vehicle requires a larger commission than the labor to assemble it.

The ripple effect of jobs lost would have been many times the jobs lost at GM. The revenues lost from the total automobile industry because of not giving GM a bailout, would be around a million dollars times the amount of GM UAW workers in the US. If we lost those auto parts jobs, they wouldn't be coming back without government intervention in trade. GM was large enough to put us in a depression when it failed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have Republican laws creating the policies of this country and Republicans keeping those laws in effect. There is no good economic reason why this country has free trade policies.

How about the fact that there is a unanimous consensus among economists that free trade is good for the economy?

I forgot, that is all part of the vast right wing conspiracy to make idiots look even dumber than they are.

We should not be importing things we can make ourselves.

Like what?

Your ecomomic policy is flawed thinking. Investment requires opportunity and is not based on the income of the rich. The rich have already accumulated wealth and it's wealth that finances investment. You do not have to kiss the ass of business to get them interested in a business opportunity. China is a perfect example of how business will put up with a lot of shit to find a business opportunity and Russia is another example. Business is very good at adapting to the policies it is required to follow. There is no good reason why this country continues to lease natural resources on public lands and economic zones and not just hire corporations to develop those resources and sell them at market prices.

Rule of thumb, whenever Dubya says "There is no good reason" he actually means that he believes that his version of reality trumps everyone else.

Why should the government pay businesses to do something they are willing to pay the government to do? If you want to argue that we should get more out of the leases, feel free to make that argument. The simple truth is that there is no reason that is based on sound economics to pay to do something if someone else is willing to pay you to do it.

It's crony capitalism to give away so much public property to the rich. It's stupid for America to be paying the highest drug prices in the world.

It is even more stupid to fix drug prices so that there is a shortage of needed drugs.

The last time I checked eight and a half of the top 10 drugs according to the amount of sales aren't made by American drug companies and other nations negotiate the price. It's stupid to have a minimum wage for necessary jobs that require the public to subsidize the living of the person getting those wages.

It is stupid to drive up the cost of living by setting wages artificially high.

Why not let the people who need somebody doing a job pay for it entirely by their purchase? If you want to buy a hamburger, they you should pay enough to give the workers a living wage and no social programs to subsidize the workers making your hamburger. There are plenty more such things, but you can get the idea.

If I want a hamburger I will cook it myself in order to avoid your ridiculous version of reality where stupid ideas work because they make idiots feel good.

You can claim whatever you want to describe your beliefs, but they are Republican talking points meant to impress people who don't study the issues.

This from the guy that never studied economics yet thinks he is smarter than every economist in the world.

Bush screwed up a better Iran policy with his false war with Iraq. It's nonsense to believe either party is against Israel and we still have time to deal with Iran. Do you really believe Republicans get more Jewish votes than Democrats? This anti-Israel talk is only designed to get Jewish votes and it's a lie, which is normal for Republicans. It isn't in America's interest to allow Iran to become nuclear, but it isn't in our interests right now to attack them to prevent it.

To be honest with you, I think your stuff is propaganda. There is all kinds of things happening in Africa against terrorists, so your analysis of al Qaeda is way off. The attack in Bengazi was minor compared to prior attacks and Fast and Furious was used to track weapons that would have gotten through anyway.

The dealers followed the law and reported the obvious straw purchases, and refused to sell the guns. Exactly how would they have gotten through anyway?

It was a decision to not go after the minnows and go after the big fish, which is a common practice in law enforcement. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those weapons had tracking devices implanted in them or even the ammo. I think there is a very good chance that the Republicans won't play that obstruction game now that they can't defeat Obama. Obama can stop them from making bad legislation and consequences will force them to make changes. The people are not going to put up with a political party holding the American economy hostage any longer.

It was a stupid decision based on idiotic thinking. Intents only matter if you get results. Maybe you would have learned that if you didn't go to school with teachers that believed making students feel good about themselves mattered more than actually teaching them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

Day One ,he is a loser ...........

Do you people even have half a mind left?



Source: No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Dubya Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001 and his early legislative proposals weren't criticised. Remember the election was contested in Florida and people were pissed off about the Supreme Court being involved, but they didn't take it out on Bush. I thought NCLB put way too much emphasis on testing and not enough on spending for resources to teach, but it did get overwhelming support. It's odd that Chuck Hagel voted against NCLB and that it took so long for Bush to sign the bill. Bush's early emphasis on education was well accepted. Now for people on the extreme right who believe the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, NCLB was the greatest intrusion of the federal government in education that ever existed. The Civil Rights Act involved issues other than education and even elevating the Department of Education (ED) to cabinet level only changed a department of the government that already existed.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was criticised for giving too much to the rich, but that was blamed on Congress and most of the blame was done later. So Bush was given a pass in the pre-9/11 days of his administration. If you didn't like Bush, it was SCOTUS to blame and if you didn't like the tax cuts, it was Congress. 9/11 happens and Bush enjoys plenty of support. He tries to get the military to come up with a plan in Afghanistan, but they can't figure out what to do. In steps the CIA and shows them a plan to push al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. It didn't take long to change Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is on and Bush has plenty of support.

The next year in 2002, Iraq becomes the focus of interest. The issue was WMD had the potential of finding it's way into the hands of terrorist, even though al Qaeda and Iraq were enemies. People like Bill O'Reilly are on the air claiming the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and the war will pay for itself. The government is saying it has no interest in nation building and just wants that WMD. Bush was given enormous support. We liberate Iraq losing around 100 military personnel, it's "Mission Accomplished" time and that's when the problems with Bush began. The problem was there was no WMD. There was another tax cut for the rich that year the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. At the end of the year there was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. There is also the fact that the Bush administration went to war with no preparation to help the Iraqi people and then completely changed it's tune about nation building. We liberate a country to only get WMD that isn't there and lose about 100 of our military in that process. Now, without WMD, the game has changed and we end up losing 4,487 of our military before we can get our asses out of there.

Those were the days when the Emporer was found to have no cloths and investigative reporters started checking, but for two prior years Bush was given a pass. When they started digging into the facts, they discover things like Cheney cooking the intelligence reports and we aren't following the assessment of the CIA about IRAQ's WMD. They discover things like Prescription Drug Program was discovered to cost much more than stated to Congress before it was passed, but the head of Medicare was told to shut up about it or be fired. What was with rounding up terrorists and not putting them on trial? What is with being warned about a possible al Qaeda attack and not taking the warning seriously? What is with this deficits don't matter policy of the administration and the FED? What is with this trickle down economics policy that has never worked? What is with spending your first 4 years in office and having no jobs growth, while fighting two wars? What is with fighting two wars and not paying for them? What is with using Halliburton as a general contractor in Iraq, when they aren't a general contractor and your Vice President gave up his job as CEO of Halliburton to run with you? What is with the relaxed regulations that create a housing crisis, financial crisis and trash the economy worst than it's even been trashed since the Great Depression?

How can anyone compare Bush's performance in office to Obama's? Even Hoover and Nixon wasn't as bad as Bush. You talk about denial, you people who give Bush any support have it real bad. Bush will go down as the worst modern President in our history. Maybe they can dig up some dirt on Harding and Bush could come in second.

Your memory of the Bush Regime is even more crystal clear than mine. Great perspective my friend, great. Very impressive and powerful posts.

Look at that, Marc found the only person on the board more ignorant than he is.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

bingo!!!!!

Hypocrites. Liberals seem to have forgotten how they acted and what they said during the eight years Bush was president.

Do you people even have half a mind left?

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[6] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

Source: No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Dubya Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001 and his early legislative proposals weren't criticised. Remember the election was contested in Florida and people were pissed off about the Supreme Court being involved, but they didn't take it out on Bush. I thought NCLB put way too much emphasis on testing and not enough on spending for resources to teach, but it did get overwhelming support. It's odd that Chuck Hagel voted against NCLB and that it took so long for Bush to sign the bill. Bush's early emphasis on education was well accepted. Now for people on the extreme right who believe the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, NCLB was the greatest intrusion of the federal government in education that ever existed. The Civil Rights Act involved issues other than education and even elevating the Department of Education (ED) to cabinet level only changed a department of the government that already existed.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was criticised for giving too much to the rich, but that was blamed on Congress and most of the blame was done later. So Bush was given a pass in the pre-9/11 days of his administration. If you didn't like Bush, it was SCOTUS to blame and if you didn't like the tax cuts, it was Congress. 9/11 happens and Bush enjoys plenty of support. He tries to get the military to come up with a plan in Afghanistan, but they can't figure out what to do. In steps the CIA and shows them a plan to push al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. It didn't take long to change Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is on and Bush has plenty of support.

The next year in 2002, Iraq becomes the focus of interest. The issue was WMD had the potential of finding it's way into the hands of terrorist, even though al Qaeda and Iraq were enemies. People like Bill O'Reilly are on the air claiming the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and the war will pay for itself. The government is saying it has no interest in nation building and just wants that WMD. Bush was given enormous support. We liberate Iraq losing around 100 military personnel, it's "Mission Accomplished" time and that's when the problems with Bush began. The problem was there was no WMD. There was another tax cut for the rich that year the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. At the end of the year there was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. There is also the fact that the Bush administration went to war with no preparation to help the Iraqi people and then completely changed it's tune about nation building. We liberate a country to only get WMD that isn't there and lose about 100 of our military in that process. Now, without WMD, the game has changed and we end up losing 4,487 of our military before we can get our asses out of there.

Those were the days when the Emporer was found to have no cloths and investigative reporters started checking, but for two prior years Bush was given a pass. When they started digging into the facts, they discover things like Cheney cooking the intelligence reports and we aren't following the assessment of the CIA about IRAQ's WMD. They discover things like Prescription Drug Program was discovered to cost much more than stated to Congress before it was passed, but the head of Medicare was told to shut up about it or be fired. What was with rounding up terrorists and not putting them on trial? What is with being warned about a possible al Qaeda attack and not taking the warning seriously? What is with this deficits don't matter policy of the administration and the FED? What is with this trickle down economics policy that has never worked? What is with spending your first 4 years in office and having no jobs growth, while fighting two wars? What is with fighting two wars and not paying for them? What is with using Halliburton as a general contractor in Iraq, when they aren't a general contractor and your Vice President gave up his job as CEO of Halliburton to run with you? What is with the relaxed regulations that create a housing crisis, financial crisis and trash the economy worst than it's even been trashed since the Great Depression?

How can anyone compare Bush's performance in office to Obama's? Even Hoover and Nixon wasn't as bad as Bush. You talk about denial, you people who give Bush any support have it real bad. Bush will go down as the worst modern President in our history. Maybe they can dig up some dirt on Harding and Bush could come in second.

You want to talk about Asterism "thread jacking" and needing to start a topic on his OWN thread. Then only a few posts later you get on this liberal "talking points" BS kick about President Bush. In case you haven't noticed the subject matter is centered around President Obama and HiS term in office. Why don't YOU start your own thread if you can't stay on target to the subject on hand. Then you can rant and rave about Bush to your hearts content (at least before you start criticizing someone ELSE for wandering off on a tangent).

 

[Dubya]

Why bother to post that? If you can't write a paragraph to express your views, I don't bother to read your shit.

 

[Oldstyle]

Do you people even have half a mind left?



Source: No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Dubya Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001 and his early legislative proposals weren't criticised. Remember the election was contested in Florida and people were pissed off about the Supreme Court being involved, but they didn't take it out on Bush. I thought NCLB put way too much emphasis on testing and not enough on spending for resources to teach, but it did get overwhelming support. It's odd that Chuck Hagel voted against NCLB and that it took so long for Bush to sign the bill. Bush's early emphasis on education was well accepted. Now for people on the extreme right who believe the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, NCLB was the greatest intrusion of the federal government in education that ever existed. The Civil Rights Act involved issues other than education and even elevating the Department of Education (ED) to cabinet level only changed a department of the government that already existed.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was criticised for giving too much to the rich, but that was blamed on Congress and most of the blame was done later. So Bush was given a pass in the pre-9/11 days of his administration. If you didn't like Bush, it was SCOTUS to blame and if you didn't like the tax cuts, it was Congress. 9/11 happens and Bush enjoys plenty of support. He tries to get the military to come up with a plan in Afghanistan, but they can't figure out what to do. In steps the CIA and shows them a plan to push al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. It didn't take long to change Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is on and Bush has plenty of support.

The next year in 2002, Iraq becomes the focus of interest. The issue was WMD had the potential of finding it's way into the hands of terrorist, even though al Qaeda and Iraq were enemies. People like Bill O'Reilly are on the air claiming the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and the war will pay for itself. The government is saying it has no interest in nation building and just wants that WMD. Bush was given enormous support. We liberate Iraq losing around 100 military personnel, it's "Mission Accomplished" time and that's when the problems with Bush began. The problem was there was no WMD. There was another tax cut for the rich that year the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. At the end of the year there was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. There is also the fact that the Bush administration went to war with no preparation to help the Iraqi people and then completely changed it's tune about nation building. We liberate a country to only get WMD that isn't there and lose about 100 of our military in that process. Now, without WMD, the game has changed and we end up losing 4,487 of our military before we can get our asses out of there.

Those were the days when the Emporer was found to have no cloths and investigative reporters started checking, but for two prior years Bush was given a pass. When they started digging into the facts, they discover things like Cheney cooking the intelligence reports and we aren't following the assessment of the CIA about IRAQ's WMD. They discover things like Prescription Drug Program was discovered to cost much more than stated to Congress before it was passed, but the head of Medicare was told to shut up about it or be fired. What was with rounding up terrorists and not putting them on trial? What is with being warned about a possible al Qaeda attack and not taking the warning seriously? What is with this deficits don't matter policy of the administration and the FED? What is with this trickle down economics policy that has never worked? What is with spending your first 4 years in office and having no jobs growth, while fighting two wars? What is with fighting two wars and not paying for them? What is with using Halliburton as a general contractor in Iraq, when they aren't a general contractor and your Vice President gave up his job as CEO of Halliburton to run with you? What is with the relaxed regulations that create a housing crisis, financial crisis and trash the economy worst than it's even been trashed since the Great Depression?

How can anyone compare Bush's performance in office to Obama's? Even Hoover and Nixon wasn't as bad as Bush. You talk about denial, you people who give Bush any support have it real bad. Bush will go down as the worst modern President in our history. Maybe they can dig up some dirt on Harding and Bush could come in second.

Gotta be honest with you, Dubya...I have a hard time seeing Barack Obama as an "improvement" over George W. Bush. It's four years after he was elected the first time and we're STILL mired in the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression...and Barry is still pushing the same failed fiscal policies. Millions of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed and Obama pushes through tax increases that are going to slow down and already anemic recovery. You've got fiasco's like Fast & Furious and Benghazi that make this Administration's leadership appear to be completely clueless about what's going on around them. You've got complete gridlock in Congress with partisan infighting as strident as I've EVER seen it. We passed ObamaCare but the real cost of that program keeps growing almost as fast as the deficit. Al Queda is not "decimated" as Obama declared...they are actually growing in strength. We have a "non-policy" towards Iran and have done serious harm to the relationship with our only true ally in the Middle East, Israel.

I'm normally a "glass half full" kind of person but I just don't see much to make me optimistic about the next four years. I didn't think Barack Obama had the experience necessary to be President BEFORE he was given the job and nothing has happened in the intervening four years to change my opinion on that.

You have Republican laws creating the policies of this country and Republicans keeping those laws in effect. There is no good economic reason why this country has free trade policies. We should not be importing things we can make ourselves. Your ecomomic policy is flawed thinking. Investment requires opportunity and is not based on the income of the rich. The rich have already accumulated wealth and it's wealth that finances investment. You do not have to kiss the ass of business to get them interested in a business opportunity. China is a perfect example of how business will put up with a lot of shit to find a business opportunity and Russia is another example. Business is very good at adapting to the policies it is required to follow. There is no good reason why this country continues to lease natural resources on public lands and economic zones and not just hire corporations to develop those resources and sell them at market prices. It's crony capitalism to give away so much public property to the rich. It's stupid for America to be paying the highest drug prices in the world. The last time I checked eight and a half of the top 10 drugs according to the amount of sales aren't made by American drug companies and other nations negotiate the price. It's stupid to have a minimum wage for necessary jobs that require the public to subsidize the living of the person getting those wages. Why not let the people who need somebody doing a job pay for it entirely by their purchase? If you want to buy a hamburger, they you should pay enough to give the workers a living wage and no social programs to subsidize the workers making your hamburger. There are plenty more such things, but you can get the idea.

You can claim whatever you want to describe your beliefs, but they are Republican talking points meant to impress people who don't study the issues. Bush screwed up a better Iran policy with his false war with Iraq. It's nonsense to believe either party is against Israel and we still have time to deal with Iran. Do you really believe Republicans get more Jewish votes than Democrats? This anti-Israel talk is only designed to get Jewish votes and it's a lie, which is normal for Republicans. It isn't in America's interest to allow Iran to become nuclear, but it isn't in our interests right now to attack them to prevent it.

To be honest with you, I think your stuff is propaganda. There is all kinds of things happening in Africa against terrorists, so your analysis of al Qaeda is way off. The attack in Bengazi was minor compared to prior attacks and Fast and Furious was used to track weapons that would have gotten through anyway. It was a decision to not go after the minnows and go after the big fish, which is a common practice in law enforcement. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those weapons had tracking devices implanted in them or even the ammo. I think there is a very good chance that the Republicans won't play that obstruction game now that they can't defeat Obama. Obama can stop them from making bad legislation and consequences will force them to make changes. The people are not going to put up with a political party holding the American economy hostage any longer.

My stuff is propaganda? Are we "not" in the midst of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression? Does Barack Obama not bear "some" of the responsibility for that poor recovery when he decided what was REALLY important with millions of people out of work, was an expansive new health care program that will further raise the cost of doing business here in the US?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Queda attack and kill our Ambassador in Benghazi?This wasn't a "minor" attack as you've characterized it...it was a serious black eye for the Obama Administration and a substantial victory for our adversaries.

Fast & Furious didn't "track" anything. The lesson that arms couldn't be tracked was learned by the Bush Administration when they tried to "walk" guns earlier and found they couldn't trace the movements of the weapons even with the full cooperation of the Mexican authorities...which is why the program was stopped. This was never about "tracking" weapons. This was about flooding Mexico with weapons produced in the US so that proponents of tighter gun control laws here in the US could then point to the problem and say it was a gun control issue that needed more gun control laws. Border Agent Brian Terry's death shone a spotlight on what they were trying to do and only THEN did Holder's Justice Department back off on Fast & Furious.

As for the American people not putting up with one party holding the American economy "hostage"? The 2010 mid-terms was a message sent by the electorate that they were unhappy with the fiscal policies of the Democrats. So did the Obama Administration change course like the Clinton Administration when IT was sent the same message? Hell, no...they dug in their heels as Harry Reid sat on dozens of House bills that were sent to the Senate, not even letting them go to the floor for discussion. So who was REALLY holding the economy "hostage"? I know that's the progressive "mantra" these days, Dubya but it's almost farce with what's taken place in the Senate.

 

[Dubya]

Hypocrites. Liberals seem to have forgotten how they acted and what they said during the eight years Bush was president.

Do you people even have half a mind left?

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[6] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

Source: No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Dubya Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001 and his early legislative proposals weren't criticised. Remember the election was contested in Florida and people were pissed off about the Supreme Court being involved, but they didn't take it out on Bush. I thought NCLB put way too much emphasis on testing and not enough on spending for resources to teach, but it did get overwhelming support. It's odd that Chuck Hagel voted against NCLB and that it took so long for Bush to sign the bill. Bush's early emphasis on education was well accepted. Now for people on the extreme right who believe the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, NCLB was the greatest intrusion of the federal government in education that ever existed. The Civil Rights Act involved issues other than education and even elevating the Department of Education (ED) to cabinet level only changed a department of the government that already existed.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was criticised for giving too much to the rich, but that was blamed on Congress and most of the blame was done later. So Bush was given a pass in the pre-9/11 days of his administration. If you didn't like Bush, it was SCOTUS to blame and if you didn't like the tax cuts, it was Congress. 9/11 happens and Bush enjoys plenty of support. He tries to get the military to come up with a plan in Afghanistan, but they can't figure out what to do. In steps the CIA and shows them a plan to push al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. It didn't take long to change Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is on and Bush has plenty of support.

The next year in 2002, Iraq becomes the focus of interest. The issue was WMD had the potential of finding it's way into the hands of terrorist, even though al Qaeda and Iraq were enemies. People like Bill O'Reilly are on the air claiming the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and the war will pay for itself. The government is saying it has no interest in nation building and just wants that WMD. Bush was given enormous support. We liberate Iraq losing around 100 military personnel, it's "Mission Accomplished" time and that's when the problems with Bush began. The problem was there was no WMD. There was another tax cut for the rich that year the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. At the end of the year there was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. There is also the fact that the Bush administration went to war with no preparation to help the Iraqi people and then completely changed it's tune about nation building. We liberate a country to only get WMD that isn't there and lose about 100 of our military in that process. Now, without WMD, the game has changed and we end up losing 4,487 of our military before we can get our asses out of there.

Those were the days when the Emporer was found to have no cloths and investigative reporters started checking, but for two prior years Bush was given a pass. When they started digging into the facts, they discover things like Cheney cooking the intelligence reports and we aren't following the assessment of the CIA about IRAQ's WMD. They discover things like Prescription Drug Program was discovered to cost much more than stated to Congress before it was passed, but the head of Medicare was told to shut up about it or be fired. What was with rounding up terrorists and not putting them on trial? What is with being warned about a possible al Qaeda attack and not taking the warning seriously? What is with this deficits don't matter policy of the administration and the FED? What is with this trickle down economics policy that has never worked? What is with spending your first 4 years in office and having no jobs growth, while fighting two wars? What is with fighting two wars and not paying for them? What is with using Halliburton as a general contractor in Iraq, when they aren't a general contractor and your Vice President gave up his job as CEO of Halliburton to run with you? What is with the relaxed regulations that create a housing crisis, financial crisis and trash the economy worst than it's even been trashed since the Great Depression?

How can anyone compare Bush's performance in office to Obama's? Even Hoover and Nixon wasn't as bad as Bush. You talk about denial, you people who give Bush any support have it real bad. Bush will go down as the worst modern President in our history. Maybe they can dig up some dirt on Harding and Bush could come in second.

You want to talk about Asterism "thread jacking" and needing to start a topic on his OWN thread. Then only a few posts later you get on this liberal "talking points" BS kick about President Bush. In case you haven't noticed the subject matter is centered around President Obama and HiS term in office. Why don't YOU start your own thread if you can't stay on target to the subject on hand. Then you can rant and rave about Bush to your hearts content (at least before you start criticizing someone ELSE for wandering off on a tangent).

If you idiots would bother to read the posts, I didn't bring it up and refuted the claim that it involved Obama. Tell the person who brought it up, not me!