You 52% who approve of BHO, why?

[JRK]

Bush's economy was based on people borrowing on their own houses, and a real estate bubble. Great job.

This entire economy is based of off wealth being borrowed on assets
Cm on Franco
it was a true asset bubble that GWB had 0 to do with

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Obama isn't a president. Congressmen are no longer congressmen. They're front guys for corporate interests. Read Jim Hightower.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This thread is a great example of how being a partisan ideologue can literally block or remove a person's ability to even understand why those who happen to disagree with them think the way they do. It's fascinating to watch.

To take it to a fairly extreme example, it might be like talking to a crazed young man on the streets of, say, Syria, and trying to tell him that the religious stuff he's been force-fed from birth may not apply to everyone. He'd hear your words but simply would not be able to process them.

This is why the hardcore partisan ideologues gum up the works so badly, and why so little is accomplished. All new data, all new information, all contrary ideas literally stop with them, like a car hitting a brick wall.

I believe that JRK is being serious and honest, and that's what's troubling.

.

 

[tjvh]

You ask why 52% support Obama? Well, when the only other choice basically says they dont care about 47% of us, that should make it a question of why the other 5% do.

So you agree that Romney's 47% remark has merit. Thanks for finally being honest.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

.

This thread is a great example of how being a partisan ideologue can literally block or remove a person's ability to even understand why those who happen to disagree with them think the way they do. It's fascinating to watch.

To take it to a fairly extreme example, it might be like talking to a crazed young man on the streets of, say, Syria, and trying to tell him that the religious stuff he's been force-fed from birth may not apply to everyone. He'd hear your words but simply would not be able to process them.

This is why the hardcore partisan ideologues gum up the works so badly, and why so little is accomplished. All new data, all new information, all contrary ideas literally stop with them, like a car hitting a brick wall.

I believe that JRK is being serious and honest, and that's what's troubling.

.

Brother, you said it ALL there!

 

[JRK]

The Sequestration is a bill he signed, not to mention the size of Govt from 2007 till today has grown 900 billion dollars with 600 of it sense 09
How can we run the govt on 2.7 trillion in 07 and not on 3.7 today?
The economy at best is stag nit. with less than 0 job growth sense 2008 (<4 million)
negative GDP
I could write a book about how bad Obama-care is turning out to be
If GWB lied about Benghazi like Obama did, he would be impeached

why?
can you people tell me why this country has lost the ability to see the obvious?
how can we be so wrong about this?
If a GOP president lied and was bad as this guy, I would feel no different

I cannot understand how anyone who supported the undeniably worst, most abysmal president in US history can question why people support Obama. Your own judgment is so poor, how do you have the nerve to question that of others?

Perhaps because your judgment is indeed so poor?

the two cannot be compared
I mean it is not even close
with a GOP congress (except the senate in 00-02) we created 8 million jobs off of an economy that was running <5% UE
with a GOP congress in 2007 we had a deficit of 163 billion
with a GOP congress we were spending 2.7 trillion in 2007 w/ Iraq still being counted
we had < under 5% UE
with an 8 year avg of, well you look at the results from December of each month (UE rate)
on top of 9-11
Clinton recession
NASDAQ bubble bursting in 00
& major hurricanes

http://data.bls.gov/data/

2001 5.7
2002 6.0
2003 5.7
2004 5.4
2005 4.9
2006 4.4
2007 5.0
2008 7.3
2009 9.9
2010 9.3
2011 8.5
2012 7.8

What do you base your claim on?
I mean its the same question
you support the president whose added 1 trillion dollars to what the president you state is the worst spent each year
job record is staring you in the face
GWB never covered up any event, especially one that had Americans he sent in harms way and then refused to support them while there being murdered

 

[LoneLaugher]

Another well written treatise! Thanks JRK!

 

[JoeB131]

The Sequestration is a bill he signed, not to mention the size of Govt from 2007 till today has grown 900 billion dollars with 600 of it sense 09
How can we run the govt on 2.7 trillion in 07 and not on 3.7 today?
The economy at best is stag nit. with less than 0 job growth sense 2008 (<4 million)
negative GDP
I could write a book about how bad Obama-care is turning out to be
If GWB lied about Benghazi like Obama did, he would be impeached

why?
can you people tell me why this country has lost the ability to see the obvious?
how can we be so wrong about this?
If a GOP president lied and was bad as this guy, I would feel no different

I think before you write a book, you might want to learn to spell.

Except you get on here and defend Bush on Iraq... which was a bigger lie about why bad guys might have attacked an embassy.

 

[JRK]

The Sequestration is a bill he signed, not to mention the size of Govt from 2007 till today has grown 900 billion dollars with 600 of it sense 09
How can we run the govt on 2.7 trillion in 07 and not on 3.7 today?
The economy at best is stag nit. with less than 0 job growth sense 2008 (<4 million)
negative GDP
I could write a book about how bad Obama-care is turning out to be
If GWB lied about Benghazi like Obama did, he would be impeached

why?
can you people tell me why this country has lost the ability to see the obvious?
how can we be so wrong about this?
If a GOP president lied and was bad as this guy, I would feel no different

I think before you write a book, you might want to learn to spell.

Except you get on here and defend Bush on Iraq... which was a bigger lie about why bad guys might have attacked an embassy.

really?
you might want to look at the following facts
spelling?
Jesus was perfect, Me?
not even close, just blessed

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared
from the UN 1-27-2003
Update 27 January 2003

from the DOD, 2006
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

From B Clinton and other Dems before GWB was president and during
If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People ? Version 3.0 | Right Wing News
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

Now where is the lie here?
whose lie that I cannot find here belong too in reality

You confirm the thread better than I could ever

 

[JoeB131]

Guy- the fact Iraq had chemical weapons in the 1980's (that we provided to them) does not justify going to war with them in 2003. Stuff happened in between them. They lost a war and disarmed. It was in all the papers.

If you think Benghazi is a big deal, (it isn't), than Iraq is a much bigger deal. Probably for no other reason than X1000 more americans died.

 

[JRK]

Guy- the fact Iraq had chemical weapons in the 1980's (that we provided to them) does not justify going to war with them in 2003. Stuff happened in between them. They lost a war and disarmed. It was in all the papers.

If you think Benghazi is a big deal, (it isn't), than Iraq is a much bigger deal. Probably for no other reason than X1000 more americans died.

What do you mean?
what does the comments of the UN in 2003 have to do with the 80s?
The UN sanctions and the enforcement of was the reason for invading and removing Saddam from power
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
1-27-2003 the UN made a statement that Saddam still had not given up same
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.


Update 27 January 2003

You have been lied to so much that this simple truth seems to easy
BUT it is this simple
GWB made the case as did Bill Clinton that Saddam was not adhering to UN regs
CIA stated the same
The UN, Same
Much of what was claimed, turned out to be true

There are still over 6000 munitions that Iraq had claimed to have developed are still missing
That is a fact the UN made claim too, not GWB
500 where found
missiles as stated here-in where developed
That was a UN claim, not GWB
Anthrax, same

How is this in the same world as the cover up at Benghazi?
people were killed fighting the war
Fighting Al Qaeda
Fighting other terrorist organizations
That was what we were suppose to be doing, defending this nation against those who wish to do us harm
Iraq's 'al-Qaeda chief' arrested - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

some where in Iraq prior to invasion

www.weeklystandard.com/articles/al-qaeda-iraqSep 27, 2010 – Read conservative news, blogs and opinion about Al Qaeda, Iraq ... The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. ... and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.



Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Along Iraq's border with Syria, U.S. troops captured Farouk Hijazi, Saddam's former ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison to al Qaeda. Under interrogation, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994.
Iraq-Terrorism Connection - Discover the Networks

damn shall I go on?
I mean after 9-11 what where we suppose to do here

Not to mention oil for food black market oil

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, you go on with the cut and paste all day.

Fact is, we went to war over WMD's, and none were found.

5000 American lives lost, 30,000 maimed, a trillion dollars lost, Iraq is now a satellite state of Iran.

What was any of it for?

 

[JRK]

Guy, you go on with the cut and paste all day.

Fact is, we went to war over WMD's, and none were found.

5000 American lives lost, 30,000 maimed, a trillion dollars lost, Iraq is now a satellite state of Iran.

What was any of it for?

yes there was WMDs found
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918Jun 29, 2006 – Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says. By Samantha L. Quigley American Forces Press Service. WASHINGTON, June 29 ...

And as the UN has stated, there are 6000 still missing

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, you go on with the cut and paste all day.

Fact is, we went to war over WMD's, and none were found.

5000 American lives lost, 30,000 maimed, a trillion dollars lost, Iraq is now a satellite state of Iran.

What was any of it for?

yes there was WMDs found
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918Jun 29, 2006 – Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says. By Samantha L. Quigley American Forces Press Service. WASHINGTON, June 29 ...

And as the UN has stated, there are 6000 still missing

No, there weren't.

Sorry, man, canisters of expired mustard gas (the cutting edge weapon of 1914) are not what we went to war over.

 

[Toronado3800]

Bush's economy was based on people borrowing on their own houses, and a real estate bubble. Great job.

This entire economy is based of off wealth being borrowed on assets
Cm on Franco
it was a true asset bubble that GWB had 0 to do with

If I change his statement to:

The economy during Bush's years benefited from progressively lower interest rates raising appraised values of properties.

Would you agree?

Then how about with:

Bush did nothing to reign in increasingly complex/ridiculous bundles of insecurities financial institutions were selling eachother and borrowing against.

I will even throw in:

The growing cold war with China made slowing the American econony to a maintainable pace an unattractive alternative.

 

[JRK]

The Iraq conflict was an event that without 9-11 never occurs
congress voted to remove Saddam
we fought Al Qaeda in Iraq
According to the UN, there are still 6000 WMDs missing
Al qaeda was in Iraq prior to 2003
and there has been ties to Al Qaeda and Saddam sense confirmed

This is the simple truth
deal with it

 

[Toronado3800]

This interest rate thing is important as the PAYMENTS not the sale amount are what folks and businesses look at to see what real estate or loans they can afford.

Consider a home worth 90k in 2002. It could appraise for 120k in 2006. So some idiot takes out an equity loan based on hiw the lowering of rates convinces some banker the property was more valuable. Idiot then invests his 30k in some stock that loses half its value and his home tanks under 90k in value a few years later.

Oops. A bunch of imaginary money has been created and lost leaving only debt and the opportunity for a big government bankruptcy bailout.

 

[billyerock1991]

The Sequestration is a bill he signed, not to mention the size of Govt from 2007 till today has grown 900 billion dollars with 600 of it sense 09
How can we run the govt on 2.7 trillion in 07 and not on 3.7 today?
The economy at best is stag nit. with less than 0 job growth sense 2008 (<4 million)
negative GDP
I could write a book about how bad Obama-care is turning out to be
If GWB lied about Benghazi like Obama did, he would be impeached

why?
can you people tell me why this country has lost the ability to see the obvious?
how can we be so wrong about this?
If a GOP president lied and was bad as this guy, I would feel no different

here's the problem you have Obama never lied about benghazi ... he came out the first day and said he felt it was a terrorist act .. so how is that a lie...

its apparent all you have and the only thing you will accept is right wing talking points so far everything you have said hasn't any validity to it...

here.s another problem you have is out dated information you said " a bill he signed, not to mention the size of Govt from 2007 till today has grown 900 billion dollars with 600 of it sense 09 How can we run the govt on 2.7 trillion in 07 and not on 3.7 today?"

none of these figures are factual of yours... where ever you got them stop going there... as of 2011 government spent 1.4 trillion dollars ... in 2012 with Obama's leadership he cut back spending by 600 billion dollars last year ... you can confirm this with the budget office ... we spent around 800 billion dollars for 2012 ... you have implied that we dem/liberals are spend, spend, spend, happy. well, the figures don't seem to support your point of view

 

[JRK]

Bush's economy was based on people borrowing on their own houses, and a real estate bubble. Great job.

This entire economy is based of off wealth being borrowed on assets
Cm on Franco
it was a true asset bubble that GWB had 0 to do with

If I change his statement to:

The economy during Bush's years benefited from progressively lower interest rates raising appraised values of properties.

Would you agree?

Then how about with:

Bush did nothing to reign in increasingly complex/ridiculous bundles of insecurities financial institutions were selling eachother and borrowing against.

I will even throw in:

The growing cold war with China made slowing the American econony to a maintainable pace an unattractive alternative.

if you include lower tax rates especially capital gains in part I agree 100%
Reigning in a free market event that if you look the Fed did raise Interest rates to over 5%
As the expansion gathered momentum, the target was
raised in 17 equal increments spread over two years to 5¼%.
To ease these conditions,
the Board of Governors on August 17, 2007, reduced the discount rate for primary credit
to 5¾%. This was followed on September
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/112465.pdf

bundling the mortgages came from Clinton and the GOP congress in the late 90s
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities co mpanies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
greed in the private sector along with fraud was un seen until it was to late
what would you have suggested we done?
this law BTW is still in effect
BHO has not un done it either

 

[Katzndogz]

Bush's economy was based on people borrowing on their own houses, and a real estate bubble. Great job.

This entire economy is based of off wealth being borrowed on assets
Cm on Franco
it was a true asset bubble that GWB had 0 to do with

If I change his statement to:

The economy during Bush's years benefited from progressively lower interest rates raising appraised values of properties.

Would you agree?

Then how about with:

Bush did nothing to reign in increasingly complex/ridiculous bundles of insecurities financial institutions were selling eachother and borrowing against.

I will even throw in:

The growing cold war with China made slowing the American econony to a maintainable pace an unattractive alternative.

Bush at least tried to reign in financial institutions. He tried 17 different times. Democrats stopped him.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light

Democrats make a mess, blame republicans and democrats believe it. Then they wonder why so many people are ashamed of this country.