Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Soaring Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > as well as all the major technological
> > > advancements.
> >
> >
> > Don't forget we invented the turbine, the
> > peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put the
> > first man in space, liberated hundreds of
> > countries, and beat imperial Spain, England,
> > Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own
> > game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY!
> > LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
>
> When all you can talk about is the past...you are
> the past.
>
> Does anyone know how our astronauts are going to
> get to the space station now that the shuttles are
> being grounded?
>
> Anyone care to guess the next country to land on
> the moon?


I'll give you all a clue..in both cases the space vehicle will not be made in the USA.

Give up idiots? The most recent US astronauts were delivered in a Russian vehicle...and the CHinese will be the next country to land on the moon. Know why? They can afford it....we can't.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 07:47PM by Vince(1).

Inkahootz already answered this, is your question so suspenseful that you had to answer it yourself?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton Lavey



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 07:50PM by Furfur.

there is no reason to go back to the moon. we are planning to go to mars next assclown.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is no reason to go back to the moon. we are
> planning to go to mars next assclown.


Do you take pride in missing the point? We have no active program to put a man on Mars...we cant afford that either. And when/if we do..Im sure it will be partnership with Russia...China and who knows who.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Soaring Eagle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gravis Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > as well as all the major technological
> > > > advancements.
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't forget we invented the turbine, the
> > > peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put
> the
> > > first man in space, liberated hundreds of
> > > countries, and beat imperial Spain, England,
> > > Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own
> > > game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY!
> > > LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
> >
> > When all you can talk about is the past...you
> are
> > the past.
> >
> > Does anyone know how our astronauts are going
> to
> > get to the space station now that the shuttles
> are
> > being grounded?
>
>
> Piggybacking on Russian ships.
>
>
> > Anyone care to guess the next country to land
> on
> > the moon?
>
>
> Russia or China...maybe even India! lol


My apoplogies....YOU WERE CORRECT!!!! Except I dont think Russia has such plans...

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Hey fuck all of you. I won two elections and was governor or Texas. What has this half-breed asshole in there now ever done? Oh year, won election as the junior senator from Illinois and defeated a decrepit old has-been for President. If I had run against this mongrel I'd have beat his ass. So fuck all you fucking assholes.

.
Attachments:

Download complete.

.
Attachments:

So the latest information on the rationale for the War with Iraq is that Bush looked at Thatcher, Reagan and Bush 41 and saw that limited, easy-to-win conflicts (Falklands, Grenada, Panama respectively), helped solidify their "Commander in Chief" credentials. In fact, two years before he became President, Bush was telling associates that if he became President, he would take out Saddam Hussein because it would be a small, limited conflict that would solidify his legacy.

Just when you thought "revenge for his father" wasn't petty enough, Bush's own rantings top himself.

More appropriately.

.
Attachments:

.
Attachments:

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the latest information on the rationale for the
> War with Iraq is that Bush looked at Thatcher,
> Reagan and Bush 41 and saw that limited,
> easy-to-win conflicts (Falklands, Grenada, Panama
> respectively), helped solidify their "Commander in
> Chief" credentials. In fact, two years before he
> became President, Bush was telling associates that
> if he became President, he would take out Saddam
> Hussein because it would be a small, limited
> conflict that would solidify his legacy.
>
> Just when you thought "revenge for his father"
> wasn't petty enough, Bush's own rantings top
> himself.

The republikan theory is that a president can virtually do anything under the banner under Commander and Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the legislative and judicial branches. This theory is a very dangerous one in the world of an unending war against violent extremists. As long as the world is round there will be violent extremists to fight. GWB has dangerously expanded the powers of the presidency during his 8 year tenure...and the genie once out is hard to put back into the bottle. While democrats do not appear eager to expand the powers of the presidency as Commander in Chief it is doubtful that they will roll back those powers either...case in point being Obama's recent decsions on counter terrorism for which I am not very happy with him about.

But the fact appears to be that republikans will expand the president's power at the drop of a hat...therefor they need to be kept out of the presidency.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Hey Vince, you witless idiot, ever hear of FDR? I know that pointing out historical facts is a waste of time with a moron like you but I couldn't resist. Your post was so breathtakingly ignorant and uninformed that it just had to be replied to.

WFB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Vince, you witless idiot, ever hear of FDR? I
> know that pointing out historical facts is a waste
> of time with a moron like you but I couldn't
> resist. Your post was so breathtakingly ignorant
> and uninformed that it just had to be replied to.

Well..isnt that an easy excuse not to respond. You know...perhaps I am "hopeless" but there are others on here you might educate/sway to your opinion.

OK...FDR..I assume your point is that he too was a War President who you feel set Commander in Chief prescedent. I agree..and not all of it good...if any was good. Certainly the interment of the Japanese and other Asians was of unsurpassed abuse of power...in my humble opinion. I would just say that as civil rights was once a republican banner issue..usurped by the democrats...war powers of the president is now a republican banner issue. But if you want to make the point that both parties deserve watching...I agree.

However I would like to point out one big difference. FDRs war had a beginning and an end....GWB by declaring a war on "terrorism"..it is a war with no discernable ending. It will be declared over at the whim of future president (but in all likelihood not) based on some manufactured ending. We are not going to see Al Qaeda "surrender"..and out of the ashes of Al Qaeda will rise another resistance/terrorist group. It is the way of the world for small groups of the disenfranchised to fight the "supressor". This too was a prescedent set by the idiot president GWB.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2009 01:04PM by Vince(1).

theory is that a president can virtually do anything under the banner under Commander and Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the legislative and judicial branches.

The point about FDR is that he tried to pack the Supreme Court and rammed through programs that were in no way constitutional. Lincoln did the same but Lincoln was one of those Republicans who you seem to think are the only presidents who ever violated the constitution.

WFB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> theory is that a president can virtually do
> anything under the banner under Commander and
> Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the
> legislative and judicial branches.
>
> The point about FDR is that he tried to pack the
> Supreme Court and rammed through programs that
> were in no way constitutional. Lincoln did the
> same but Lincoln was one of those Republicans who
> you seem to think are the only presidents who ever
> violated the constitution.

He tried to pack the Supreme Court and failed..he did not ignore the courts in their decision...to my knowledge he did not feel he had the right to ignore them. Ramming programs through Congress isnt bypassing the legislative process..it's just effectively using the bully pulpit. If the programs were determined to be unconstitutional...to my knowledge, he stopped them.

An intreresting "what if" would have been if any of the Japanese had sued for their freedom and had won....Would FDR had complied? I don't know..I tend to think so...but who knows.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WFB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > theory is that a president can virtually do
> > anything under the banner under Commander and
> > Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the
> > legislative and judicial branches.
> >
> > The point about FDR is that he tried to pack
> the
> > Supreme Court and rammed through programs that
> > were in no way constitutional. Lincoln did the
> > same but Lincoln was one of those Republicans
> who
> > you seem to think are the only presidents who
> ever
> > violated the constitution.
>
> He tried to pack the Supreme Court and failed..he
> did not ignore the courts in their decision...to
> my knowledge he did not feel he had the right to
> ignore them. Ramming programs through Congress
> isnt bypassing the legislative process..it's just
> effectively using the bully pulpit. If the
> programs were determined to be
> unconstitutional...to my knowledge, he stopped
> them.
>
> An intreresting "what if" would have been if any
> of the Japanese had sued for their freedom and had
> won....Would FDR had complied? I don't know..I
> tend to think so...but who knows.

I question why we ever let the Japanese out of the camps.

Rethinking George W. Bush:

Hmmmm...

2008 - Dry Drunk Frat Boy who was in Way over his Head.

2009 - Dry Drunk Frat Boy who was in Way over his Head...and who totally destroyed the Republican Party.


Hmmm....

You know, before Obama became President and GWB was in, they used to talk about how his deficits were bad for the country, etc. Now Obama gets elected and Pelosi and Reid take "spending like a drunken sailor" to new heights, funding every pet program the Democrats have ever wanted to float in the name of "stimulus".

Somehow I remember before the election all the "economically minded" folks here giving us lessons on why McCain had bad ideas for the economy, and supposedly Obama was good. Please, can someone reconcile how massive government spending, including expansion of programs that were already bloated and out of control, is going to help us get out of the recession later? All I am seeing here is a recipe for a new round of "stagflation" - ala Jimmy Carter era - but magnified to the nth power with a massive deficit. The government needed to cut back spending, and instead opened the spigots...

I have to say, for all my original support for staying the course in Iraq, and all the rest, I would have thought that the answer for liberals would have been to pull out of Iraq, reduce war spending (let the Iraqis go to hell and back) and get our house in order. Russia, Germany, France - they all would have been happy to re-fill the void in Iraq once we left and they could get back in with their programs - and it would have actually been funny to see Russia try and reconcile Iraq vs Iran since they would then have been left in the position of trying to ensure all their economic interests weren't destroyed in the region with a civil war in Iraq. Sure, they would have blamed the US - they are doing that anyway - but now we have essentially sold the US to the Chinese in the name of debt. How can we possibly deal with them realistically anymore on issues like Taiwan and any other issues when they can just do what they are doing now - making veiled threats to make our currency even more worthless so they can leverage concessions on other issues? And this issue is one the liberals were bashing Bush with during his years in office over having too much debt. So instead now it becomes we can't have enough debt?

Ok.

.
Attachments:

Registered Voter, I thought Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, before Obama became President and GWB
> was in, they used to talk about how his deficits
> were bad for the country, etc. Now Obama gets
> elected and Pelosi and Reid take "spending like a
> drunken sailor" to new heights, funding every pet
> program the Democrats have ever wanted to float in
> the name of "stimulus".
>
> Somehow I remember before the election all the
> "economically minded" folks here giving us lessons
> on why McCain had bad ideas for the economy, and
> supposedly Obama was good. Please, can someone
> reconcile how massive government spending,
> including expansion of programs that were already
> bloated and out of control, is going to help us
> get out of the recession later? All I am seeing
> here is a recipe for a new round of "stagflation"
> - ala Jimmy Carter era - but magnified to the nth
> power with a massive deficit. The government
> needed to cut back spending, and instead opened
> the spigots...
>
> I have to say, for all my original support for
> staying the course in Iraq, and all the rest, I
> would have thought that the answer for liberals
> would have been to pull out of Iraq, reduce war
> spending (let the Iraqis go to hell and back) and
> get our house in order. Russia, Germany, France -
> they all would have been happy to re-fill the void
> in Iraq once we left and they could get back in
> with their programs - and it would have actually
> been funny to see Russia try and reconcile Iraq vs
> Iran since they would then have been left in the
> position of trying to ensure all their economic
> interests weren't destroyed in the region with a
> civil war in Iraq. Sure, they would have blamed
> the US - they are doing that anyway - but now we
> have essentially sold the US to the Chinese in the
> name of debt. How can we possibly deal with them
> realistically anymore on issues like Taiwan and
> any other issues when they can just do what they
> are doing now - making veiled threats to make our
> currency even more worthless so they can leverage
> concessions on other issues? And this issue is one
> the liberals were bashing Bush with during his
> years in office over having too much debt. So
> instead now it becomes we can't have enough debt?
>
> Ok.


No "independent" economist thought that US Govt could do nothing in the face of the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. There is no industrial...financial CEO who thought the federal govt could do nothing in face of the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. The only qualification made by any of these people is that the stimulus package might not work because it wasnt large enough.

Will the country face challenges in the future because of the money being spent? Of course it will. The question is which would be worse...

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:

>
There is no
> industrial...financial CEO who thought the federal
> govt could do nothing in face of the
> unprescedented freezing of the financial markets.
>

The CEO's are capitalists. They want to make lots of money any way they can. They see the bailout as a way to make back the money they lost. By scaring the American public into thinking its the end of the world unless they get the bailout money. Its just another scheme on top of all the other market manipulations that have been going on since bankers dreamed up interest and wall street started trading.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter, I thought Reagan proved deficits
> don't matter.

Deficits in and of themselves are not a problem within limits. When you start pushing into larger percentages of overall GDP it becomes a serious problem - much like a consumer borrowing money on credit cards. At some point you can no longer assure that the money will be paid back, and if the borrowed money is not used properly you end up with an even larger problem. As it is, there is some expectation that part of the money pushed out as "stimulus" funds will come back in the form of collected taxes on the money spent (corporate earnings, sales taxes, etc).


Vince(1) Wrote:

> No "independent" economist thought that US Govt could do nothing in the face of > the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. There is no
> industrial...financial CEO who thought the federal govt could do nothing in
> face of the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. The only
> qualification made by any of these people is that the stimulus package might
> not work because it wasnt large enough.

> Will the country face challenges in the future because of the money being
> spent? Of course it will. The question is which would be worse...

The freezing of the financial markets was due to one very large, overriding issue: mortgages and the mortgage backed securities derived from them. The initial idea behind TARP was to buy mortgages/securities from the banks and get the bad debt off their backs, thus allowing them to potentially start lending again. The banks would have only received about $.70 on the dollar (which would have been a great deal if you look at what they are getting today) but it would have stabilized the housing market and gotten money flowing again. Instead the TARP funds were given directly to banks to offset the bad debt, and thus balance the banks books. They were still unable to lend any money since the mortgages continued to decline in value and they did not want to be caught over-leveraged if they continued to collapse. So the situation just continued to get worse, even with the money they were given. Now we have this stupid stimulus bill to throw more money out (that has no backing) into the markets, and severely devaluing the dollar. Can you not see how this not only doesn't correct the problem, but sets it up to be EVEN WORSE later? Not to mention you now have countries looking to move away from the dollar, which will increase the momentum on devaluing the dollar.

Once the Fed took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they should have used those entities to purchase mortgages and securities from the banks, and the Federal Government should have cut or reigned in spending on other programs while this was going on. That would have given two significant boosts to the overall economic lookout, allowed for the credit markets to unfreeze, and stabilized housing prices. There still would have been an increase in debt, but it would have been absorbed by the government, been less transparent (since Fannie and Freddie would have just transferred the liabilities) and not led to an increase in the money supply in such a drastic measure.

Devaluing the dollar? No recent adminstration has devalued the dollar more than GWB.
.
Attachments:

Yes well, Obama is making sure it truly goes to shit. May as well make toilet paper out of it now and sell it for Yuan - you have more money when China takes over.

And the Republicans, with all their built-up goodwill and fiscal successes, would've miraculously reversed the death spiral they put us in?

Survey says, NO.
.
Attachments:

Survey says "how about getting your head out of your ass?"

This isn't about Republicans or Democrats, its about all of us. Note, TARP was mis-directed under the Bush administration - now it has gone about 10 steps worse. That was my point. You seem to focus on Dem vs Rep - I am saying this is a problem beyond those lines, and if all folks want to do is point out why the last fuckwits in office screwed up worse than the current ones, we all deserve what we end up with. The way the talk was before Obama was elected, it was all about fiscal responsibility, and all sorts of other BS - where is the fiscal responsibility now? Most of it seems lost in saying how bad the last guy was.

At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was wrong. All Obama wants to do is pose with his shirt off and read off a teleprompter.

Spook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was
> wrong. All Obama wants to do is pose with his
> shirt off and read off a teleprompter.


Standing his ground when he was wrong? You mean, like General Custer?

Seriously, there is nothing virtuous about standing your ground when you are wrong. It's called stupidity.

Spook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was wrong.


LOL. Ever work with someone who was wrong and refused to budge? It's called "being a shithead".

If "standing your ground even when you're wrong" is so righteous, the next time you screw up at work, just stand your ground and tell your boss you refuse to correct yourself and refuse to learn from your mistake, because "standing your ground" is more important than getting the job done right.

See how long you last in the real world with that kind of simplistic, retarded attitude.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spook Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was
> wrong.
>
>
> LOL. Ever work with someone who was wrong and
> refused to budge? It's called "being a
> shithead".
>
> If "standing your ground even when you're wrong"
> is so righteous, the next time you screw up at
> work, just stand your ground and tell your boss
> you refuse to correct yourself and refuse to learn
> from your mistake, because "standing your ground"
> is more important than getting the job done
> right.
>
> See how long you last in the real world with that
> kind of simplistic, retarded attitude.

It's called STAYING THE COURSE. Consistency is key. We can't go from Warlord one minute to a Playgirl Pinup the next without losing some cred.

Spook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > See how long you last in the real world with
> that
> > kind of simplistic, retarded attitude.
>
> It's called STAYING THE COURSE. Consistency is
> key. We can't go from Warlord one minute to a
> Playgirl Pinup the next without losing some cred.




Yes. Stay the course. You must stay the course regardless of the outcome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2009 03:08PM by WashingTone Locian.

I can just imagine what your performance reviews must be like....

"Well, my bad decisions cost our department over $100k more than we have budgeted- but hey, at least I didn't change my mind while I was losing our money. I chose to stay the course. Now where's my bonus, dammit!"



Spook Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> It's called STAYING THE COURSE. Consistency is
> key. We can't go from Warlord one minute to a
> Playgirl Pinup the next without losing some cred.

Yeah, let's stay the course.
.
Attachments:

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can just imagine what your performance reviews
> must be like....
>
> "Well, my bad decisions cost our department over
> $100k more than we have budgeted- but hey, at
> least I didn't change my mind while I was losing
> our money. I chose to stay the course. Now
> where's my bonus, dammit!"
>



He must be some damn kid who is still buying into that "never quit" and "suck it up" bullshit he heard from Mr. Woodcock in gym. The fact is, everybody with an ounce of common sense has had to change course at some point. Conditions change.

He talks about "setting a course," well that's all fine and good. But if the wind starts changing direction, you have to change your damn sails around! And it might require you to sail off course for a while but invariably your goal is to end up at the same place in the end.

Stupid fucking punk.

I was in Westover on Sunday, and tried cutting north across Arlington to get to McLean via back streets. I took a wrong turn somewhere, and after about a mile I realized I was heading in the wrong direction.

But, I stood my ground. I stayed the course.

It sorta really sucked cuz I ended up in Annandale

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was in Westover on Sunday, and tried cutting
> north across Arlington to get to McLean via back
> streets. I took a wrong turn somewhere, and after
> about a mile I realized I was heading in the wrong
> direction.
>
> But, I stood my ground. I stayed the course.
>
> It sorta really sucked cuz I ended up in Annandale



You call that staying the course? lol


I missed my exit the other day on 95 south, I got worried, but I stood my ground and kept driving.

I ended up in the Florida Keys, proud that I stayed the course.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton Lavey

You know, there is a difference between "staying the course" in the short-term, and doing so to get a long-term result. Today everything is measured in the latest news cycle. Imagine World War II fought with today's media machine - we would all be speaking German now. Imagine the Civil War - who would send their boys to fight a war where both sides lost thousands of men in such a short time? Technology and communication has had an interesting affect on long-term commitments in wars for sure - and only governments with dictatorships or some other form of controlling regime will be able to sustain efforts of this nature where it requires any form of long term commitment to a course of action that may be unpopular with the media.

There is being a "person of conviction", and then there is just being stubborn. Being a person of conviction means you will attempt to affect a goal, and even if you don't succeed with one method you will find others to the same end. Stubborn means that you don't necessarily have a conviction of purpose at all, just an unwillingness to see that what you are doing may not be the best, smartest, or even worth doing in the first place. Or maybe you stubbornly refuse to do anything at all.

I believe Bush was a man of conviction, but not the best at planning. No doubt some of the stubbornness in his policies came from some of his advisers, or military leaders he chose to follow. Also once you are in a certain course of action, many times it is hard to change course because you feel like success is "just around the corner".

There is a balance in there somewhere. What I don't want to see is a person who has the certainty that they know what is best for us and push to make that happen, even when it is obvious that the majority of us don't accept their conclusion. That is where it gets truly dangerous.

China is one of the best examples of long term commitment to a goal. They have adopted a few changes in their regime for experiments with capitalism, but they could turn all that back in a short period of time if they wanted to. It doesn't mean they are open to new ideas though. Ask the millions of people displaced when they decided to build their huge hydroelectric dam how well their objections were received.

Registered Voter wrote:
---------------------------
Blah Blah Blah Saving Face for the Republicans Loss
.
Attachments:

Yes Mr "I can't say much without a picture to make my point" since doing anything that requires more than 5 keystrokes is beyond me (case in point your posting name).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2009 04:05PM by Registered Voter.

Don't you know? Pictures speak louder than words.
.
Attachments:

Sometimes pictures say more about the person posting them then they do about the subject at hand.

> China is one of the best examples of long term
> commitment to a goal. They have adopted a few
> changes in their regime for experiments with
> capitalism, but they could turn all that back in a
> short period of time if they wanted to. It doesn't
> mean they are open to new ideas though. Ask the
> millions of people displaced when they decided to
> build their huge hydroelectric dam how well their
> objections were received.

We have done similar things to people in the name of progress. Perhaps not to the scale of China..but definately the same intent and consequence to those impacted.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sometimes pictures say more about the person
> posting them then they do about the subject at
> hand.

That reads almost like this.
.
Attachments:

So I get it now - you can't read, so you post pictures with words you don't understand.

You know, one day you will use all the pics from that site, then you will be unable to communicate anymore.

The Bush I - Clinton - Bush II era was the best. Nobody could touch us. That era will be remembered in 100 years from now as the era where the USA was bulletproof.

Then this came along.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2009 12:38PM by Warhawk.
Attachments:

So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our foreign policy is as weak as it was in the 1970s. Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least he was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR at North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye. Big Difference.

?uestion Mark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our
> foreign policy is as weak as it was in the 1970s.
> Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least he
> was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR at
> North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye. Big
> Difference.


Bush sucked.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our
> > foreign policy is as weak as it was in the
> 1970s.
> > Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least
> he
> > was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR at
> > North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye. Big
> > Difference.
>
>
> Bush sucked.


yea..things were really bad when we ruled the world and the DOW was at 14,000. Must be hard.

Don't forget that Bush let the dollar fall in value to the point the Canadian dollar was worth more and nations considered converting their reserves to the Euro.

Also, Obama has not shown fear in international relations, he is trying to repair our image that Bush destroyed. Under Bush, we became isolated and arrogant.

¤ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget that Bush let the dollar fall in
> value to the point the Canadian dollar was worth
> more and nations considered converting their
> reserves to the Euro.
>
> Also, Obama has not shown fear in international
> relations, he is trying to repair our image that
> Bush destroyed. Under Bush, we became isolated and
> arrogant.


I did not become arrogant. You sound like a liberal knitpicker...focusing on the details, but not seeing the big picture.

Tell me then what is the big picture? Obama has to spend all his time un-fucking this country's damage left by Bush.

Also, when I said "isolated and arrogant" I was talking about our image in front of the world.

?uestion Mark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our
> > > foreign policy is as weak as it was in the
> > 1970s.
> > > Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least
> > he
> > > was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR
> at
> > > North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye.
> Big
> > > Difference.
> >
> >
> > Bush sucked.
>
>
> yea..things were really bad when we ruled the
> world and the DOW was at 14,000. Must be hard.

Wow. What a retard.

Let us know when you understand the concept of failed markets relative to lack of oversight and get back to us, mmkay?

Republican Leaders: Where Are They? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and
> our
> > > > foreign policy is as weak as it was in the
> > > 1970s.
> > > > Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At
> least
> > > he
> > > > was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows
> FEAR
> > at
> > > > North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye.
> > Big
> > > > Difference.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bush sucked.
> >
> >
> > yea..things were really bad when we ruled the
> > world and the DOW was at 14,000. Must be hard.
>
> Wow. What a retard.
>
> Let us know when you understand the concept of
> failed markets relative to lack of oversight and
> get back to us, mmkay?


Or maybe you just don't appreciate FREEDOM? Consider that...

¤ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell me then what is the big picture? Obama has to
> spend all his time un-fucking this country's
> damage left by Bush.
>
> Also, when I said "isolated and arrogant" I was
> talking about our image in front of the world.

Maybe if "the world" learned to deal with their own problems I would care more.

Palestinians - how many arab countries will kick them out and claim it isn't their problem these people have no home? Other than our support of Israel (who has been a better friend to us than almost any of those other arab nations) - why is this a US problem again?

Balkans - when you push a bunch of strong-willed religions together in an area where many people are undereducated, then remove the authoritarian government what did you think was going to happen? And why is it that none of their immediate neighbors could deal with "ethnic cleansing"? Why was this a US problem again?

North Korea - and just who, exactly, does it benefit? With China and Russia sitting on their doorstep, don't you think they could provide more aid to an unstable regime? Why is this a US problem again?

Hey, let's just sit back and watch them shoot each other all to hell. Honestly I would appreciate that a whole lot more - oh right, then the liberal media would start showing scenes of all these people getting killed (by others) and blame the US for that too. What is it going to change - this Obama reconciliation with the world? Did you notice that most of the European governments were moving more to the right and becoming more conservative now?

Seriously - who is it that we should support to make our image better in the world? By most accounts the only way we could really mend fences with the arabs is to let Israel get rolled over - and of course Israel will just start a nuclear war if that happens - is that in our best interests?

Try to think past the soundbites.

Karl Rove has painted Bush into a corner historically. Since Bush left office, Rove and his buddies have tried to portray Bush as a loyal visionary who was duped by Cheney and the neo-Con cabal. There are two problems with that. If Iraq ends up being a failure, Bush will look like a moron who allowed himself to be controlled like a puppet by Cheney & company. If Iraq ends up being a success, it will be seen as a success for Cheney & Company despite the inadequacies of Bush. In either case, Bush will not be seen as a strong leader along the lines of Reagan, FDR, Lincoln, etc. He will be more in the Warren G. Harding mode of a guy who was too pre-occupied with bullshit to fully understand what was happening in his Administration.

Horace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Or maybe you just don't appreciate FREEDOM?
> Consider that...

Freedom isn't free.

It costs a buck o'five.

Consider that you failed the American people, Horaceshit.

Here's a thought. Vietnam was a mess under Johnson, but is now friendly to the U.S. and supports many of our interests in the region. Does that mean Vietnam was a success for Johnson? Lebanon was a mess under Reagan, but now the government in Lebanon is mostly friendly toward the U.S. and supports some of our interests in the region. Does that mean Lebanon was a success for Reagan?

The answer would be "no." You don't see Vietnam or Lebanon highlighted as successes for those Presidents, though one might try to argue that their actions there were catalysts for change that eventually bore positive results.

So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if in 20 years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that Bush would be given credit for it? I don't think he will. No one will...like we have seen with Vietnam and Lebanon.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Karl Rove has painted Bush into a corner
> historically. Since Bush left office, Rove and his
> buddies have tried to portray Bush as a loyal
> visionary who was duped by Cheney and the neo-Con
> cabal. There are two problems with that. If Iraq
> ends up being a failure, Bush will look like a
> moron who allowed himself to be controlled like a
> puppet by Cheney & company. If Iraq ends up being
> a success, it will be seen as a success for Cheney
> & Company despite the inadequacies of Bush. In
> either case, Bush will not be seen as a strong
> leader along the lines of Reagan, FDR, Lincoln,
> etc. He will be more in the Warren G. Harding mode
> of a guy who was too pre-occupied with bullshit to
> fully understand what was happening in his
> Administration.

Yeah sorry, I don't think I have seen that at all. Where has Rove been trying to portray Bush in this way again?

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a thought. Vietnam was a mess under
> Johnson, but is now friendly to the U.S. and
> supports many of our interests in the region. Does
> that mean Vietnam was a success for Johnson?
> Lebanon was a mess under Reagan, but now the
> government in Lebanon is mostly friendly toward
> the U.S. and supports some of our interests in the
> region. Does that mean Lebanon was a success for
> Reagan?
>
> The answer would be "no." You don't see Vietnam or
> Lebanon highlighted as successes for those
> Presidents, though one might try to argue that
> their actions there were catalysts for change that
> eventually bore positive results.
>
> So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if in 20
> years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that Bush
> would be given credit for it? I don't think he
> will. No one will...like we have seen with Vietnam
> and Lebanon.

Apples and oranges.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if in
> 20
> > years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that
> Bush
> > would be given credit for it? I don't think he
> > will. No one will...like we have seen with
> Vietnam
> > and Lebanon.
>
> Apples and oranges.


How so?

I don't remember that the reason for going into Vietnam or Lebanon was even partially about regime change. If in 20 years you see that Iraq continues in some form of (mostly) secular democracy that will be seen as a success.

Vietnam was a cluster from start to finish and not really our war to begin with. Lebanon was an attempt to negotiate peace in an area where we just stuck our foot into the water, and realized we really didn't have any good reason or policy on which to continue moving forward.

How Lebanon tarnishes Reagan Legacy:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33611.html

Quote

...
The Reagan administration did not initially go into Lebanon to engage in nation-building. Indeed, soon after peace returned in September 1982, the MNF departed from the country earlier than scheduled. Geoffrey Kemp of the Nixon Center, who was on the National Security Council at the time, has noted that the only thing that brought them back was the massacre of Palestinian civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut following the entry of Israeli forces into the Lebanese capital. This was prompted by the assassination of Lebanon's president-elect, Bashir Gemayel.

Subsequently, the administration was divided over how to proceed. Secretary of State George Shultz worked hard to bring about a Lebanese-Israeli withdrawal agreement. Reagan went along with this for a time, until the effort collapsed in 1983. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, meanwhile, wanted to exit from Lebanon as quickly as possible. Either way, there was no solid administration constituency for remaining in the country after American political and military setbacks increased. That's why it was easy for Reagan to change tack in 1984 once Shultz realized that his scheme had failed.
...

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > >
> > > So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if
> in
> > 20
> > > years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that
> > Bush
> > > would be given credit for it? I don't think
> he
> > > will. No one will...like we have seen with
> > Vietnam
> > > and Lebanon.
> >
> > Apples and oranges.
>
>
> How so?

1. When we left Viet Nam, we did so in a precitpious manner. There was no slow draw down, etc. Also, when we left, the people we were fighting against took over. When we leave Iraq, the people in charge are likely to be people we were fighting in cooperation with.

2. In Lebanon, we were never engaged in combat operations. We barely responded when terrorists killed over 200 Marines. Plus, Lebanon is not really a success story today. There are plenty of terrorist elements present and many thought a civil was was brewing just two years ago.

Cap'n Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> 1. When we left Viet Nam, we did so in a
> precitpious manner. There was no slow draw down,
> etc. Also, when we left, the people we were
> fighting against took over. When we leave Iraq,
> the people in charge are likely to be people we
> were fighting in cooperation with.
>

First, we have no idea how we will leave Iraq. Second, we sure the hell left Lebanon in a precipitous manner.

> 2. In Lebanon, we were never engaged in combat
> operations. We barely responded when terrorists
> killed over 200 Marines. Plus, Lebanon is not
> really a success story today. There are plenty of
> terrorist elements present and many thought a
> civil was was brewing just two years ago.


Really? Explain that to the people in Beirut who were killed by the shells we fired from our battleship. And, according to Dubya, Lebanon was a success because of the "Cedar Revolution."

Why do Americans force their failed capitalism on everybody else when it hardly works in their own damn country!??

Besides, what makes us think we're so superior than others playing GIJOE with our three failed wars to tout. WTF.

American Arrogance Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do Americans force their failed capitalism on
> everybody else when it hardly works in their own
> damn country!??
>
> Besides, what makes us think we're so superior
> than others playing GIJOE with our three failed
> wars to tout. WTF.


Our system has raised the standard of living and environmental sustainability to levels unimagined even a generation ago. Every country has the right to try it.

What he really meant:

Our system has artificially raised the standard of living and produced smoke and mirrors environmental sustainability to levels unimagined even a generation ago. Every country has the right to try it, although they should do so ethically.

?uestion Mark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Our system has raised the standard of living and
> environmental sustainability to levels unimagined
> even a generation ago. Every country has the right
> to try it.


Every country may have a right to it, but the fact is America's standard of living is so high because we have utilized a disproportionate percentage of the world's resources in recent decades. Every country may have the right. But if every country tries to obtain in, none of us will have our current standard because there isn't enough to go around.

Just a thought, not a sermon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2009 01:47PM by WashingTone-Locian.

Word WTL.

You speak the gospel like Biggie Smalls cut the mike and made papes.

Man, I saw that movie and aside from the fake Lil Kim and Biggie bedroom scenes, the whole thing stunk. Even the guy who played Puffy looked more like Bill Bellamy than anything else. What a waste of Netflix.

Wow...six months of obama...he's doing shitty. 6 months into bush people were complaining that all he does is vacation. maybe that's not such a bad idea

Exxxon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow...six months of obama...he's doing shitty. 6
> months into bush people were complaining that all
> he does is vacation. maybe that's not such a bad
> idea



Interesting how the GDP report came out today and revealed that the Recession between late 2007 and early 2008 was twice as bad as originally reported. Who was President then? Oh yeah. The guy who said there was nothing wrong with the economy.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exxxon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow...six months of obama...he's doing shitty.
> 6
> > months into bush people were complaining that
> all
> > he does is vacation. maybe that's not such a
> bad
> > idea
>
>
>
> Interesting how the GDP report came out today and
> revealed that the Recession between late 2007 and
> early 2008 was twice as bad as originally
> reported. Who was President then? Oh yeah. The guy
> who said there was nothing wrong with the economy.


You are correct, Washintonlocian, but you are taking the data out of context

Well let's see - in this case Bush would have been wrong no matter what he did IMHO.

If he "talked down" the economy he would have helped it along on the downward trend. Look at how upset everyone got with Biden for saying no one should fly in airplanes due to the flu. MSM and the Democrats were doing a fine job during the election - should he have piled on?

In an election year everything is magnified - and it was a number of factors that led to the housing market collapse to include a huge spike in energy prices and crackdowns on illegal immigration amongst other things.

Even though bush wasn't the best, HE STILL BEAT DEMOCRATIC SWEETHEART JOHN KERRY!! WHAT A LOSER!! HAHAHAHHAHAHA. BUSH BEAT KERRYS ASS LIKE A LIL HO

the whole election process is rigged. our votes dont count. you would be stupid to think they do

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the whole election process is rigged. our votes
> dont count. you would be stupid to think they do


Some people would like you to believe that. What you are saying though is not true.

We have the Electoral College so we don't have a true (completely) democratic election for President, but all other State offices are based on total vote counts, in particular Senators. Representatives get slewed a bit due to district management.

But anyone that chooses not to vote because they believe what you are saying - have no one to blame but themselves on the outcomes.

IMHO.

all of america is fucked. im giving up my citizenship to an illegal who doesnt know any better.

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all of america is fucked. im giving up my
> citizenship to an illegal who doesnt know any
> better.


Where would you go? What countries are safe from American influence?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bloody blisters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the whole election process is rigged. our votes
> > dont count. you would be stupid to think they
> do
>
>
> Some people would like you to believe that. What
> you are saying though is not true.
>
> We have the Electoral College so we don't have a
> true (completely) democratic election for
> President, but all other State offices are based
> on total vote counts, in particular Senators.
> Representatives get slewed a bit due to district
> management.
>
> But anyone that chooses not to vote because they
> believe what you are saying - have no one to blame
> but themselves on the outcomes.
>
> IMHO.


Talk to Gravis.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Talk to Gravis.

Why?

Because ur gay.

rvinthebutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because ur gay.

Hmm, yet Vince accuses me of being anti-gay. Obviously you all are conflicted.

I am thinking Vince is the gay one actually (he is the one that seems to be having issues over that particular problem) - you might need to redirect your attention to him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2009 11:49AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Talk to Gravis.
>
> Why?


your bf claims to have never voted.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

rvinthebutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because ur gay.


What's wrong with gay? "God's Law"? LOL.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 08:47PM by Alias.

Likely, but it still doesn't change the fact that Alias is a nut sucking homo.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> your bf claims to have never voted.

For someone who has such a high regard for gays and their acceptance, you are quick to resort to this when you have nothing else better to say.

Vince response #9
"You're just gay!!"

Like how does that work again? You respect gays, yet you use gayness to insult people. What a piece of work lol.

.
Attachments:

That goes for you too, registered gaytard.

registeredgayness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That goes for you too, registered gaytard.

Uh yes, do me anony-fag, do me!!

FAIL lol.

Here, a consolation prize - you can join Vince and be his "bud".

.
Attachments:

Its nice to see you are being recognized for the ass you are.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Bush completed destroy this country, the Republican party and the US economy. He increased debt that we will be paying off for years. He got us stuck overseas fighting two wars we can't win. Destroyed banking and the automotive industry. Gas $4 gallon. The list goes on.

You know Republicans are in trouble when Rush Limbaugh says he's running the show. Nothing better than Rush; a former follower and leader in the Son Young Moon church and a drug addict.

Lopter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush completed destroy this country, the
> Republican party and the US economy. He increased
> debt that we will be paying off for years. He got
> us stuck overseas fighting two wars we can't win.
> Destroyed banking and the automotive industry.
> Gas $4 gallon. The list goes on.
>
> You know Republicans are in trouble when Rush
> Limbaugh says he's running the show. Nothing
> better than Rush; a former follower and leader in
> the Son Young Moon church and a drug addict.


Yea, well Obama upped the war and increased the debt. Clinton did too. Bush was the lesser of all evils.

oh man, bush this and bush that, since you all think he is stupid what makes you think he had the smarts to do all this proclaimed evil? what makes you think ANY president is in control and not just a diversion from the real power?

This thread got old a few days ago - trolly must be back to resurrect dead threads.

.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

i just fell victim to old thread resuscitation.

think about it, democrats...2 trillion off? reallY? is THAT how you roll? Look...bush may not be the best SPEAKER, but at least he can balance a budget. Obama would fail 2nd grade math

Who has taken more vacation days so far? Bush or Obama?